Re:Have you learned nothing?
on
Cyber-Attacks?
·
· Score: 1
So they have towels on their heads, hide in caves and currently live somewhere between Afghanistan and Pakistan - so this makes them stupid, right?
It's amazing how you just turned that into racism. However you'd like to sensationalize it, it's not. I said what I did exactly because they're living in caves in Afghanistan. How many computer terminals and Computer Science majors do you think are up there? I wouldn't think many.
I don't think this has been mentioned before. You could try Newegg, Newegg, Newegg, and you might try Newegg too. Oh yeah, and Pricewatch.
Surprised no one has brought them up yet... they're pretty big/well known.
Realistically, the only way Mozilla is going to have a significant impact on the average user is if a major company injects it into an already established user base. For example, AOL shipping a Mozilla browser with their next version instead of Internet Explorer. Or Apple taking Chimera over and making their own browser -- "iBrowse"? It's been speculated before.
Well, it wouldn't be used for much more than getting out of the atmosphere. Placing sattelites and the like. And who's to say that you couldn't put a conventional spacecraft on the top of the disk? 90% of the fuel that spacecrafts carry is just to get out of the atmosphere. Imagine how much more weight could be carried if you don't have to worry about fuel. And cheaper, too.
I remember a while back reading about a laser powered metal disk that was going to possibly be an alternative to space travel. A laser on the ground would shoot at the center of the craft, which (being a mirror on the bottom) would reflect the light to the sides. The air would get so hot that it would "ignite" and force the craft up a few inches. The great thing about this is that the energy to get into orbit doesn't need to be carried by the craft, rather simply kept on land.
The 15 gigaflops are the same sort of number as the one I was comparing to with ASCI white. Both numbers are theoretical, that is, complete processor saturation with the fastest commands. I'm well aware that ASCI White and 20 G4 racks aren't in the same class. It was a joke.
Where did you get the number "551000 rack units"? Linking 840 modules with gigabit (or fibre) wouldn't be that difficult. Sure, it would be an impressive switch, but when you're paying $6 million as it is, it's more than reasonable.
Let's actually answer all these "imagine a cluster of racks!" remarks, shall we?
As shown here, the current record holder for the world's fastest supercomputer is ASCI White. It has a theoretical maximum of 12.288 teraflops and cost $110 million. Seems like a worthy contender.
Apple quotes their dual processor machine as having a theoretical max of 15 gigaflops. A module with Dual 1GHz G4s, quad 120 GB, and 512MB of ram costs $5,649.00 a pop. Doing a little bit of math, we find that we need at least 820 modules to match ASCI White. On principle, let's fill up all the racks (42U), getting a total of 20 and thus 840 modules. The racks cost $1.4k each. This brings us to a grand total of $4.8 million. Throw in a million or so for facilities, so about $6 million total.
We go back to our original number of $110 million for 12.3 teraflops. With Apple, you could theoretically get a 12.6 teraflop machine with 400 terabytes of storage for a little more than 1/20th of their cost. Not bad.
There are tons of people suggesting that NASA use current chips (Pentium, Transmeta, etc) to emulate the 8086. That's not the issue. The software would be easy to port or emulate, etc. The reason they use old chips is that they can go into space. The electromagnetic radiation as seen in space would totally fry a chip with a small fab. 8086s are large enough that their transistors aren't shorted. Sure, they could shield the computers, but that's expensive and largely unnecessary for the applications they're using them for.
N = The number of civilizations in The Milky Way Galaxy whose radio emissions are detectable.
R* = The rate of formation of stars suitable for the development of intelligent life.
f p = The fraction of those stars with planetary systems.
n e = The number of planets, per solar system, with an environment suitable for life.
fl = The fraction of suitable planets on which life actually appears.
f i = The fraction of life bearing planets on which intelligent life emerges.
f c = The fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space.
L = The length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.
Assuming 100,000,000,000 stars, 1/10th of those stars having habitable planets, 1/100th of those planets developing life, and 1/100th of those lifeforms becoming intelligent and producing technology, that leaves us with about 100,000 potential civilizations sending messages. Granted, the majority of these numbers are made up, but I would venture that they're on the conservative side.
So it's likely enough that we're being sent some sort of evidence of civilization. Whether or not that civilization will still be around by the time we hear them is another matter entirely.
Well, I haven't heard of an entirely homemade version of a TiVo. It's a pretty complicated device -- MPEG compression isn't all that easy to do on a chip. Toms recently had an article describing a hard drive hack for it, which explains what a TiVo is pretty well in the introduction. This place also has a pretty good FAQ which answers a bunch of random questions that are likely to come up.
"Three 100 Watt light bulbs created a drain of 4500 Watts, according to the nameless inventor."
You are assuming that the machine itself would take zero watts to run. The 4500 watt drain was on the battery, which, because it had to be there in the first place, proves that the machine requires energy.
They also were very careful to say that it isn't perpetual motion. Returners isn't exactly a scientific journal: they didn't even attempt to explain how the machine actually worked. So you can quote the laws of thermodynamics all you want, but it means nothing.
There is no doubt that this story is fake, but is there any actual confermation of that, other than your overzelous commentary?
Er, my mistake. I meant to say: "You don't think that Earth would've been so cooperative as to be only 1/1460th of a rotation off?"
The leap year system is a day every four years, excepting multiples of 100, excpting multiples of 400 (but I didn't want to do the math to find out that fraction).
The leap year system isn't accurate. You don't think the Earth would've been so cooperative as to be only 1/365th of a rotation off? A year is in fact 365.242198781 days (365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, and 45.9747 seconds). So much for math. Maybe physics?
Well, that depends on your definition of overpriced... I was saying that the prices of the tiles are not excessively padded with profit. Whether it costs more than it should is another matter.
Absolute zero is physically impossible. Due to radiation of heat, it would be only attainable if there was no energy in the universe, and since matter can be converted to energy, no matter, either. The only way to attain absolute zero is to go somewhere where there isn't anything for an infinite distance; a place that doesn't exist.
There is no such thing as an analog CPU. Do you even know what analog means?:P
Nothing can be absolute zero:P. Neither does any satellite (that I've heard of) orbit the moon. Why go that far? The highest satellites are about 100 miles above the earth, and those are freaks. Normally you don't get more than a ten or twenty miles above the ground. The tempreature testing is not an issue; the real problem with testing satellites come in with making a proper vacuum. The best chambers in the world can go to about 10^-6 grams/cubic cm, and open space is 10^-7. These chambers are freakin' huge, too, take days to suck the air out, and cost thousands n hour to operate. And, generally, a colder chip operates better (to a point), the problems come in when you're facing the sun and get very hot.
Re:It is pretty stupid to save money like that
on
Budget Satellite
·
· Score: 1
Indeed. Unless NASA decides to be nice, they'll be paying the standard $11,000 per pound. The solar tile alone will cost them $30,000 -- more than half their budget.
That is all true, but do not forget that there are chips that are fit for space and not based on their design. A Pentium-era chip has never been allowed into space. The most commonly used CPU in space, I believe, is the PowerPC 603, because Motorola was interested in capturing that market, and designed it to be extra-resistant to radiation and thermal differences.
Slashdot Mirror
So they have towels on their heads, hide in caves and currently live somewhere between Afghanistan and Pakistan - so this makes them stupid, right?
It's amazing how you just turned that into racism. However you'd like to sensationalize it, it's not. I said what I did exactly because they're living in caves in Afghanistan. How many computer terminals and Computer Science majors do you think are up there? I wouldn't think many.
I don't think this has been mentioned before. You could try Newegg, Newegg, Newegg, and you might try Newegg too. Oh yeah, and Pricewatch. Surprised no one has brought them up yet... they're pretty big/well known.
Realistically, the only way Mozilla is going to have a significant impact on the average user is if a major company injects it into an already established user base. For example, AOL shipping a Mozilla browser with their next version instead of Internet Explorer. Or Apple taking Chimera over and making their own browser -- "iBrowse"? It's been speculated before.
Well, it wouldn't be used for much more than getting out of the atmosphere. Placing sattelites and the like. And who's to say that you couldn't put a conventional spacecraft on the top of the disk? 90% of the fuel that spacecrafts carry is just to get out of the atmosphere. Imagine how much more weight could be carried if you don't have to worry about fuel. And cheaper, too.
Erm.. I was joking. I guess it makes a lot less sense when typed rather than said. Sorry.
I don't need your sass.
I remember a while back reading about a laser powered metal disk that was going to possibly be an alternative to space travel. A laser on the ground would shoot at the center of the craft, which (being a mirror on the bottom) would reflect the light to the sides. The air would get so hot that it would "ignite" and force the craft up a few inches. The great thing about this is that the energy to get into orbit doesn't need to be carried by the craft, rather simply kept on land.
Here's a link to an article about it.
The 15 gigaflops are the same sort of number as the one I was comparing to with ASCI white. Both numbers are theoretical, that is, complete processor saturation with the fastest commands. I'm well aware that ASCI White and 20 G4 racks aren't in the same class. It was a joke.
Where did you get the number "551000 rack units"? Linking 840 modules with gigabit (or fibre) wouldn't be that difficult. Sure, it would be an impressive switch, but when you're paying $6 million as it is, it's more than reasonable.
And by the way, you can use UFS with OS X.
Let's actually answer all these "imagine a cluster of racks!" remarks, shall we?
As shown here, the current record holder for the world's fastest supercomputer is ASCI White. It has a theoretical maximum of 12.288 teraflops and cost $110 million. Seems like a worthy contender.
Apple quotes their dual processor machine as having a theoretical max of 15 gigaflops. A module with Dual 1GHz G4s, quad 120 GB, and 512MB of ram costs $5,649.00 a pop. Doing a little bit of math, we find that we need at least 820 modules to match ASCI White. On principle, let's fill up all the racks (42U), getting a total of 20 and thus 840 modules. The racks cost $1.4k each. This brings us to a grand total of $4.8 million. Throw in a million or so for facilities, so about $6 million total.
We go back to our original number of $110 million for 12.3 teraflops. With Apple, you could theoretically get a 12.6 teraflop machine with 400 terabytes of storage for a little more than 1/20th of their cost. Not bad.
Now, imagine a beowulf cluster of those!
There are tons of people suggesting that NASA use current chips (Pentium, Transmeta, etc) to emulate the 8086. That's not the issue. The software would be easy to port or emulate, etc. The reason they use old chips is that they can go into space. The electromagnetic radiation as seen in space would totally fry a chip with a small fab. 8086s are large enough that their transistors aren't shorted. Sure, they could shield the computers, but that's expensive and largely unnecessary for the applications they're using them for.
N = R * f p n e f l f i f c L
N = The number of civilizations in The Milky Way Galaxy whose radio emissions are detectable.
R* = The rate of formation of stars suitable for the development of intelligent life.
f p = The fraction of those stars with planetary systems.
n e = The number of planets, per solar system, with an environment suitable for life.
fl = The fraction of suitable planets on which life actually appears.
f i = The fraction of life bearing planets on which intelligent life emerges.
f c = The fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space.
L = The length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.
Assuming 100,000,000,000 stars, 1/10th of those stars having habitable planets, 1/100th of those planets developing life, and 1/100th of those lifeforms becoming intelligent and producing technology, that leaves us with about 100,000 potential civilizations sending messages. Granted, the majority of these numbers are made up, but I would venture that they're on the conservative side.
So it's likely enough that we're being sent some sort of evidence of civilization. Whether or not that civilization will still be around by the time we hear them is another matter entirely.
Is it just me, or does Microsoft seem really condescending all the time? I don't understand their PR policy of considering their users idiots.
...However appropiate that labeling may be. ;)
Criswell estimates it would take about $15 billion to launch the project and then about $135 billion more before the investment begins to break even.
Well thank you very much. Another thing -- how would the energy be transfered back to the Earth? Microwaves?
It currently costs $10,000 to get 1 lb of material into orbit. How much would it take to get it to the moon? One hell of a lot.
It's going to be a heck of a lot cheaper to burn money to make power than use the moon for a long, long time.
Yeah, echo server is all and good, but I'd like to see them get Apache 2.0 on there.
Oh.. that's right... no mod_pearl. Oh well.
Well, I haven't heard of an entirely homemade version of a TiVo. It's a pretty complicated device -- MPEG compression isn't all that easy to do on a chip. Toms recently had an article describing a hard drive hack for it, which explains what a TiVo is pretty well in the introduction. This place also has a pretty good FAQ which answers a bunch of random questions that are likely to come up.
"Three 100 Watt light bulbs created a drain of 4500 Watts, according to the nameless inventor."
You are assuming that the machine itself would take zero watts to run. The 4500 watt drain was on the battery, which, because it had to be there in the first place, proves that the machine requires energy.
They also were very careful to say that it isn't perpetual motion. Returners isn't exactly a scientific journal: they didn't even attempt to explain how the machine actually worked. So you can quote the laws of thermodynamics all you want, but it means nothing.
There is no doubt that this story is fake, but is there any actual confermation of that, other than your overzelous commentary?
-Galahad
Putting a camera in a baseball would be interesting. Or a basketball. Might screw up the weighting though.
Er, my mistake. I meant to say: "You don't think that Earth would've been so cooperative as to be only 1/1460th of a rotation off?"
The leap year system is a day every four years, excepting multiples of 100, excpting multiples of 400 (but I didn't want to do the math to find out that fraction).
The leap year system isn't accurate. You don't think the Earth would've been so cooperative as to be only 1/365th of a rotation off? A year is in fact 365.242198781 days (365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, and 45.9747 seconds). So much for math. Maybe physics?
Well, that depends on your definition of overpriced... I was saying that the prices of the tiles are not excessively padded with profit. Whether it costs more than it should is another matter.
Absolute zero is physically impossible. Due to radiation of heat, it would be only attainable if there was no energy in the universe, and since matter can be converted to energy, no matter, either. The only way to attain absolute zero is to go somewhere where there isn't anything for an infinite distance; a place that doesn't exist.
There is no such thing as an analog CPU. Do you even know what analog means? :P
Nothing can be absolute zero :P. Neither does any satellite (that I've heard of) orbit the moon. Why go that far? The highest satellites are about 100 miles above the earth, and those are freaks. Normally you don't get more than a ten or twenty miles above the ground. The tempreature testing is not an issue; the real problem with testing satellites come in with making a proper vacuum. The best chambers in the world can go to about 10^-6 grams/cubic cm, and open space is 10^-7. These chambers are freakin' huge, too, take days to suck the air out, and cost thousands n hour to operate. And, generally, a colder chip operates better (to a point), the problems come in when you're facing the sun and get very hot.
Indeed. Unless NASA decides to be nice, they'll be paying the standard $11,000 per pound. The solar tile alone will cost them $30,000 -- more than half their budget.
/me thinks "Why didn't they just use batteries?"
That is all true, but do not forget that there are chips that are fit for space and not based on their design. A Pentium-era chip has never been allowed into space. The most commonly used CPU in space, I believe, is the PowerPC 603, because Motorola was interested in capturing that market, and designed it to be extra-resistant to radiation and thermal differences.