Every person who is using a monitor with a resolution higher than 1080p? HDMI goes higher, but most computer monitors don't support the newer versions of the HDMI spec.
You won't need an $80 adapter just to get HDMI; there will be lots of third party cheap adapters since DisplayPort (and by extension HDMI) over USB-C are a VESA standard. But you will need that adapter if you want both HDMI and charging your laptop at the same time.
And USB 3 does not do everything I use Thunderbolt for on my Mac, including ferry USB3 over the same wire as video.
USB-C is in fact USB 3.1, and it very much does ferry USB and video over the same wire. VESA has standardized DisplayPort over USB-C. VESA's press release can be found here: http://www.vesa.org/news/vesa-... or AnandTech had a good article here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/...
and plug in my laptop with single cable and instantly my displays, USB3 devices, audio and networking all work...
USB 3.1 has the same bandwidth as Thunderbolt 1 (10Gbps), there's no reason why a USB-C dock couldn't do all that, and be much cheaper than a Thunderbolt dock in the process.
USB-C also supports far more power delivery than Thunderbolt. Normal devices get up to 15W (Thunderbolt does ~10W), or devices can draw up to 100W if they implement v2 of the power delivery spec.
Some geosats provide Internet service to tens of millions of square miles per individual satellite, and you can't see how these satellites would do the same for a few thousand square miles? I don't get your objections.
Musk isn't planning to compete with wireline broadband providers in big cities, he's planning to go after the market of rural areas (all over the world) where population densities are too low to make wireline broadband make sense, or even in suburban areas where the density isn't high enough for good broadband. The potential market there is enormous. Even ViaSat alone has more than 650k ISP customers on their geosat, and their prices/latency/etc are pretty terrible compared to what a LEO satellite could offer.
I think you're missing the fact that SCTV was a Canadian comedy television show, best known for launching the careers of a who's-who of Canadian comedians, from John Candy to Rick Moranis.
For some reason the telescreen in the living-room was in an unusual position. Instead of being placed, as was normal, in the end wall, where it could command the whole room, it was in the longer wall, opposite the window. To one side of it there was a shallow alcove in which Winston was now sitting, and which, when the flats were built, had probably been intended to hold bookshelves. By sitting in the alcove, and keeping well back, Winston was able to remain outside the range of the telescreen, so far as sight went. He could be heard, of course, but so long as he stayed in his present position he could not be seen.
Why should they get a monopoly on doing something just because they spent money trying to do it? Should nobody but SpaceX be allowed to send recoverable spacecraft into orbit, just because they spent a bunch of money doing it and were the first private entity to do so?
The ultimate goal is for the rockets to get back to landing pads near their launch pad, including their launches from Florida. They're only landing at sea right now because they need to demonstrate a consistent track record before the interested parties will let them attempt a return-to-launch-site landing. They've got various approval processes going on to build landing sites at Kennedy Space Centre. Based on where the Falcon 9 staging happens, it doesn't take that much more fuel to return to the original launch site versus an offshore ship.
That's not to say that all their effort into the drone ships is wasted. Apart from the obvious need to demonstrate safe landings on hard surfaces before doing it on actual land, there are some circumstances in which they'll not be able to return to the launch site. Very heavy payloads that eat into their reusability fuel budget, for example. Another is the center core of the Falcon Heavy: it separates much later than the two side cores of the rocket, which means that by the time it separates it's going much faster and is much farther away. Those will always have to land at sea. There are rumours, however, that SpaceX has plans to refuel the rockets on the drone ship after they've landed and then fly them back to the launch site propulsively.
A handful of engines (mostly UE4) are used for the vast majority of *all* games. What does Unreal Tournament have to do with it? Some UE4 games aren't even first-person, some are things like RTS.
High-speed rail requires a 100-foot wide right of way for double tracks. It's not just about building over things, it's about not requiring the very wide right-of-way that high-speed rail requires.
1) No, but you're talking about acceleration rates (if it takes 100 miles to hit full speed) that are half that of a high speed train, despite not needing to carry your motors or power (for acceleration with you). There's no reason to be accelerating that slowly. Aircraft, as you point out, accelerate much faster, and passengers tolerate that just fine.
2) A full system would require that, as would a test track, but the article merely said they needed that much track to get to full speed. It didn't qualify if that included deceleration.
3) Except the hyper loop capsules are far smaller than high speed trains, and their acceleration rate would hit hyper loop speed in 50 miles. The hyper loop uses linear accelerators in the tubes themselves, so power isn't really an issue: you can accelerate the vehicle at whatever speed you want, passenger comfort is the limitation.
Also, the hyper loop is not equivalent to a train car on an elevated track. Because it's not a train, it's a ground effect aircraft in a partially evacuated tube. It makes no physical contact with the walls. If anything, it's closer to a maglev train than a regular train.
The hyperloop uses low pressure air because the design assumes there will always be lots of leaks, which can be overcome by the pumps. Air will always be leaking in, so you just pump it back out. And because it's not a vacuum, the pumps aren't as insane as they'd need to be to maintain a hard vacuum.
As soon as you start talking about putting anything but air in the thing, then that whole idea goes out the window, you now need to go from "mostly airtight" to "completely and utterly airtight", and everything gets incredibly difficult.
Sure, because the cost of materials has little to do with the cost of building a highspeed railway. You've got a mighty wide right of way, and you need to buy a huge amount of land for that, plus there's a ton of labour to prepare that right of way, clearing it of all obstacles, leveling the terrain, installing the track, the filler, etc.
The hyperloop could theoretically end up cheaper because it requires a smaller right of way with much less labour to install. The cost of materials would be higher, but the huge reduction in land requirements and labour could potentially counteract that.
Just because it's in TFA doesn't mean it's right. At the same maximum acceleration of a Tesla Model S (1g in "insane" mode), you need 3.6 miles to get up to full hyperloop speed. If you want to take 100 miles to do the same thing, you're talking about 0.04g, which is absurdly slow. That acceleration would give your car a 0 to 60 time of 75 seconds...
There's no need to accelerate that absurdly slow. Cars, airplanes, trains, they all accelerate much faster than that. On the other hand, if their 100 miles includes the distance required to decelerate...
The fact that they were addons actually made them even bigger disasters. Because they required custom software, they behaved like they were standalone systems (a Sega CD game was useless to a purely Sega Genesis owner). But at the same time, the maximum possible market for the SegaCD was existing Genesis owners.
The Saturn was the biggest component of why the industry was pissed at Sega, but their scattershot console strategy leading up to the Saturn was definitely a factor on peoples minds.
Microsoft went in expecting the Xbox to fail. They knew perfectly well what they were doing, which was buying their way into a well established an entrenched market. The money they dumped into the original Xbox was the cost of entry, so obviously they knew what they were getting into.
The strategy worked, too. The Xbox 360 was a strong contender in the market, and captured nearly a third of a three-system market. Of course, they blew it this generation, but that doesn't say anything about their original strategy at the beginning.
Sega had problems getting developers for the Dreamcast long before there were any piracy problems. They alienated developers by spitting out new incompatible hardware in a rapidfire format. The 32X was released shortly before the Saturn, and then the Saturn was abandoned early into its lifespan in favour of the Dreamcast. Between 1991 and 1998, Sega had a total of five different and incompatible hardware platforms on the market, six if you include the GameGear.
By the time the Dreamcast rolled around, many developers had had enough of Sega's schizophrenic console strategy, and avoided them.
A 35 degree diagonal field of view isn't a virtual reality headset, it's a portable personal display. If the manufacturer is citing "equivalent to an X inch screen at a distance of Y feet away", then it's not for VR.
MP3 is a compression codec. OGG is a container format. MPEG-DASH is a standard for how to do bitrate-adaptive streaming over HTTP. They're all completely different things.
MPEG-DASH is codec-agnostic, and does not require or imply any specific codec. However, since it's intended for audiovisual streaming (rather than just audio), and since it's done under the auspices of the MPEG, h.264/AAC are the obvious codec pair to choose. There is nothing stopping MPEG-DASH from being used to stream something like VP8/Vorbis or VP9/Opus... and in fact the WebM project has documentation detailing exactly that.
They became obsolete when naval warfare stopped being about shelling things and started being about launching aircraft, missiles, and torpedoes. They haven't really been relevant since the second world war, and even then their utility was questionable: aircraft carriers dominated naval battles of the 1930s and 1940s. Nobody has built one in more than 70 years.
Betteridge says the likely answer is no. Looking at the article, there's a whole lot of predictions and guesses in there. LEDs and lasers? Water is very good at attenuating light, and even a ship directly on top of a submersed vessel wouldn't be able to detect anything using light... and coastal water attenuates light MUCH faster than open ocean, due to all the extra stuff in the water...
Slashdot Mirror
Every person who is using a monitor with a resolution higher than 1080p? HDMI goes higher, but most computer monitors don't support the newer versions of the HDMI spec.
You won't need an $80 adapter just to get HDMI; there will be lots of third party cheap adapters since DisplayPort (and by extension HDMI) over USB-C are a VESA standard. But you will need that adapter if you want both HDMI and charging your laptop at the same time.
And USB 3 does not do everything I use Thunderbolt for on my Mac, including ferry USB3 over the same wire as video.
USB-C is in fact USB 3.1, and it very much does ferry USB and video over the same wire. VESA has standardized DisplayPort over USB-C. VESA's press release can be found here: http://www.vesa.org/news/vesa-... or AnandTech had a good article here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/...
and plug in my laptop with single cable and instantly my displays, USB3 devices, audio and networking all work ...
USB 3.1 has the same bandwidth as Thunderbolt 1 (10Gbps), there's no reason why a USB-C dock couldn't do all that, and be much cheaper than a Thunderbolt dock in the process.
USB-C also supports far more power delivery than Thunderbolt. Normal devices get up to 15W (Thunderbolt does ~10W), or devices can draw up to 100W if they implement v2 of the power delivery spec.
Some geosats provide Internet service to tens of millions of square miles per individual satellite, and you can't see how these satellites would do the same for a few thousand square miles? I don't get your objections.
Musk isn't planning to compete with wireline broadband providers in big cities, he's planning to go after the market of rural areas (all over the world) where population densities are too low to make wireline broadband make sense, or even in suburban areas where the density isn't high enough for good broadband. The potential market there is enormous. Even ViaSat alone has more than 650k ISP customers on their geosat, and their prices/latency/etc are pretty terrible compared to what a LEO satellite could offer.
Errm, only a limited number of satellites would be in view at a time, with a pretty narrow FoV, they don't need all that many frequencies...
I think you're missing the fact that SCTV was a Canadian comedy television show, best known for launching the careers of a who's-who of Canadian comedians, from John Candy to Rick Moranis.
For some reason the telescreen in the living-room was in an unusual position. Instead of being placed, as was normal, in the end wall, where it could command the whole room, it was in the longer wall, opposite the window. To one side of it there was a shallow alcove in which Winston was now sitting, and which, when the flats were built, had probably been intended to hold bookshelves. By sitting in the alcove, and keeping well back, Winston was able to remain outside the range of the telescreen, so far as sight went. He could be heard, of course, but so long as he stayed in his present position he could not be seen.
Why should they get a monopoly on doing something just because they spent money trying to do it? Should nobody but SpaceX be allowed to send recoverable spacecraft into orbit, just because they spent a bunch of money doing it and were the first private entity to do so?
The ultimate goal is for the rockets to get back to landing pads near their launch pad, including their launches from Florida. They're only landing at sea right now because they need to demonstrate a consistent track record before the interested parties will let them attempt a return-to-launch-site landing. They've got various approval processes going on to build landing sites at Kennedy Space Centre. Based on where the Falcon 9 staging happens, it doesn't take that much more fuel to return to the original launch site versus an offshore ship.
That's not to say that all their effort into the drone ships is wasted. Apart from the obvious need to demonstrate safe landings on hard surfaces before doing it on actual land, there are some circumstances in which they'll not be able to return to the launch site. Very heavy payloads that eat into their reusability fuel budget, for example. Another is the center core of the Falcon Heavy: it separates much later than the two side cores of the rocket, which means that by the time it separates it's going much faster and is much farther away. Those will always have to land at sea. There are rumours, however, that SpaceX has plans to refuel the rockets on the drone ship after they've landed and then fly them back to the launch site propulsively.
Is it fair use? Certainly not, but Saban eventually reversed course and gave permission for the thing to exist. So now it's back up.
A handful of engines (mostly UE4) are used for the vast majority of *all* games. What does Unreal Tournament have to do with it? Some UE4 games aren't even first-person, some are things like RTS.
High-speed rail requires a 100-foot wide right of way for double tracks. It's not just about building over things, it's about not requiring the very wide right-of-way that high-speed rail requires.
1) No, but you're talking about acceleration rates (if it takes 100 miles to hit full speed) that are half that of a high speed train, despite not needing to carry your motors or power (for acceleration with you). There's no reason to be accelerating that slowly. Aircraft, as you point out, accelerate much faster, and passengers tolerate that just fine.
2) A full system would require that, as would a test track, but the article merely said they needed that much track to get to full speed. It didn't qualify if that included deceleration.
3) Except the hyper loop capsules are far smaller than high speed trains, and their acceleration rate would hit hyper loop speed in 50 miles. The hyper loop uses linear accelerators in the tubes themselves, so power isn't really an issue: you can accelerate the vehicle at whatever speed you want, passenger comfort is the limitation.
Also, the hyper loop is not equivalent to a train car on an elevated track. Because it's not a train, it's a ground effect aircraft in a partially evacuated tube. It makes no physical contact with the walls. If anything, it's closer to a maglev train than a regular train.
The hyperloop uses low pressure air because the design assumes there will always be lots of leaks, which can be overcome by the pumps. Air will always be leaking in, so you just pump it back out. And because it's not a vacuum, the pumps aren't as insane as they'd need to be to maintain a hard vacuum.
As soon as you start talking about putting anything but air in the thing, then that whole idea goes out the window, you now need to go from "mostly airtight" to "completely and utterly airtight", and everything gets incredibly difficult.
Sure, because the cost of materials has little to do with the cost of building a highspeed railway. You've got a mighty wide right of way, and you need to buy a huge amount of land for that, plus there's a ton of labour to prepare that right of way, clearing it of all obstacles, leveling the terrain, installing the track, the filler, etc.
The hyperloop could theoretically end up cheaper because it requires a smaller right of way with much less labour to install. The cost of materials would be higher, but the huge reduction in land requirements and labour could potentially counteract that.
Just because it's in TFA doesn't mean it's right. At the same maximum acceleration of a Tesla Model S (1g in "insane" mode), you need 3.6 miles to get up to full hyperloop speed. If you want to take 100 miles to do the same thing, you're talking about 0.04g, which is absurdly slow. That acceleration would give your car a 0 to 60 time of 75 seconds...
There's no need to accelerate that absurdly slow. Cars, airplanes, trains, they all accelerate much faster than that. On the other hand, if their 100 miles includes the distance required to decelerate...
As if the Canadian economy isn't hurting enough, now Obama's gotta go and twist the knife.
The fact that they were addons actually made them even bigger disasters. Because they required custom software, they behaved like they were standalone systems (a Sega CD game was useless to a purely Sega Genesis owner). But at the same time, the maximum possible market for the SegaCD was existing Genesis owners.
The Saturn was the biggest component of why the industry was pissed at Sega, but their scattershot console strategy leading up to the Saturn was definitely a factor on peoples minds.
Microsoft went in expecting the Xbox to fail. They knew perfectly well what they were doing, which was buying their way into a well established an entrenched market. The money they dumped into the original Xbox was the cost of entry, so obviously they knew what they were getting into.
The strategy worked, too. The Xbox 360 was a strong contender in the market, and captured nearly a third of a three-system market. Of course, they blew it this generation, but that doesn't say anything about their original strategy at the beginning.
Sega had problems getting developers for the Dreamcast long before there were any piracy problems. They alienated developers by spitting out new incompatible hardware in a rapidfire format. The 32X was released shortly before the Saturn, and then the Saturn was abandoned early into its lifespan in favour of the Dreamcast. Between 1991 and 1998, Sega had a total of five different and incompatible hardware platforms on the market, six if you include the GameGear.
By the time the Dreamcast rolled around, many developers had had enough of Sega's schizophrenic console strategy, and avoided them.
A 35 degree diagonal field of view isn't a virtual reality headset, it's a portable personal display. If the manufacturer is citing "equivalent to an X inch screen at a distance of Y feet away", then it's not for VR.
You're still moving that mass, regardless of how it's mounted on the head.
MP3 is a compression codec. OGG is a container format. MPEG-DASH is a standard for how to do bitrate-adaptive streaming over HTTP. They're all completely different things.
MPEG-DASH is codec-agnostic, and does not require or imply any specific codec. However, since it's intended for audiovisual streaming (rather than just audio), and since it's done under the auspices of the MPEG, h.264/AAC are the obvious codec pair to choose. There is nothing stopping MPEG-DASH from being used to stream something like VP8/Vorbis or VP9/Opus... and in fact the WebM project has documentation detailing exactly that.
They became obsolete when naval warfare stopped being about shelling things and started being about launching aircraft, missiles, and torpedoes. They haven't really been relevant since the second world war, and even then their utility was questionable: aircraft carriers dominated naval battles of the 1930s and 1940s. Nobody has built one in more than 70 years.
Betteridge says the likely answer is no. Looking at the article, there's a whole lot of predictions and guesses in there. LEDs and lasers? Water is very good at attenuating light, and even a ship directly on top of a submersed vessel wouldn't be able to detect anything using light... and coastal water attenuates light MUCH faster than open ocean, due to all the extra stuff in the water...