I'll stipulate to all that, but I still would argue that it doesn't make sense to claim that SpaceX is failing when they've been profitable since 2007 and seem to have no trouble getting work queued up quite far into the future.
And that's the key part. With the sale and importation of barrels being heavily restricted and regulated where I live, printing out every other part of the gun just gives you a fancy toy. It does you no good to 3D print every other part of the gun if it can't fire bullets.
Ironically, it was one of those customers (NASA) that prevented the deployment of the second customer's (Orbcomm) payload. CRS-1 was capable of deploying the payload, NASA refused to allow it.
he's trying to make a COMMERCIAL satellite launcher. i.e. he's trying to make money on a thing that has already been done. He's also failing, as he has a tendency to do, and Apple under Jobs did not.
How is he failing? SpaceX has a packed launch manifest, and has been profitable every year since 2007... Their current launch platform, the Falcon 9, has never suffered a critical failure that caused a loss of payload. The one time a payload was lost (the satellite in the previous launch) was not lost due to failure, but because NASA refused to let them do a second burn to get it into the correct orbit. There was no technical reason why the payload could not be deployed, NASA simply refused to let them do so.
There are very very few "desktop-sized" SSDs. Virtually every SSD found in a desktop is a 2.5" notebook drive, often mounted with a 2.5" to 3.5" adapter plate. The UPS will protect any bus-powered device by keeping the bus itself powered.
In terms of external SSDs, those are rare enough that they're not really a scenario to worry about (they're mostly just gimmicks for now). If and when they do eventually appear, the solution is simply for manufacturers to include a small capacitor; if you know it's going to be an external SSD, you simply have to take precautions. A lot of consumer SSDs that don't ship with capacitors or supercapacitors onboard are still designed to use them (and they're omitted for cost reasons).
Your scenario is, in current usage, extremely rare. Even the laptop-running-out-of-power scenario is virtually impossible, since most laptops will force themselves to hibernate before letting their battery actually completely die.
I'd suggest, then, that you've been buying the wrong UPSes, because while they do occasionally fail, they don't fail at anywhere near the rate that you've experienced (or rather the quality brands don't). I've owned several units for quite a few years, and none have ever failed while powering equipment in a manner that caused a power loss. An expired battery did cause a failed self-test, but that didn't cause any outage, merely the indication that the battery should be replaced. Another unit (the one time I bought a noname brand) did fail catastrophically, but not while actively powering equipment.
Most enterprise SSDs do have small supercapacitors or capacitor arrays onboard for exactly this reason. Some of the higher-end consumer drives do too. But most consumer drives don't.
I knew somebody who used an HE tunnel. I realize they're a large provider. The throughput with the tunnel was rather unimpressive, to the point where it was clear it should only be relied upon when there was no alternative. This is ironic since HE's POP is in the same building as his ISP's only POP.
The advantage of Hamachi, though, is that it's a direct connection between your two machines, with the only overhead being udp headers. Any tunnel is going to be bouncing you off some router who knows where, lengthening your route and possibly hitting congestion (I'd worry particularly about the free ones).
I can't speak to the current version of Hamachi, as I've not used it in years, but last time I did there was a console Linux version to go with the Mac and windows versions. It was very popular at the time as a way of playing LAN-only games over the Internet with minimal latency ( since every peer connects directly to every other peer). For example, I believe IPX games worked over it.
The new methodology shows that nVidia SLI gets excellent results. However, I've owned SLI solutions, both two 285s and a 290. Neither one was satisfactory. The higher failure rate was of particular note. One of the 285s failed, I RMAd it, got a 290, eventually that failed... On top of that, even when things were working, there were lots of problems. Some games didn't run correctly. Crysis, for example, didn't seem to like SLI; it would get into a bizarre state where the screen would begin flickering rapidly between black and normal frames, and you'd have to restart the game to recover. The problem never occurred in the same machine when I disabled SLI.
After that experience, both with dual-card SLI and single-card SLI, I decided it just wasn't worth it, and that my money was better spent on a good single-GPU solution. I currently have a single GTX 670, which works fine.
It will help, but don't expect this any time soon. Because no existing device (probably 802.11ac or earlier) will support the new spectrum, we're not going to see much advantages to the new spectrum until whatever comes after 802.11ac (unless they try to brand it as a "v2" thing)
The goal behind including the Kinect 2 with every xbox 720 is for precisely that reason: game developers can't afford to devote much resources to Kinect 2 support because few people have them relative to the overall market (roughly a third of 360 owners). By including a Kinect 2 with every xbox 720, developers can rely on every gamer on that platform supporting Kinect 2. Suddenly what was an option can now be a requirement. We should actually see more innovation in this regard as a result.
Yes. Better than on earth, in fact. The gunpowder already contains the oxidizer and there isn't any atmosphere that the bullet has to push out of the way. Muzzle velocities will be higher.
Considering that there were no consumer 3D cards on the market when Quake came out, let alone Duke3D, your assumption is faulty. Not only did Quake not require a 3D card, it did not even support 3D cards until the very end of 1996. That was when vQuake was released, which added support for Verite chips, and then later glQuake came out to support OpenGL. But those came later, and since very few people had 3D cards, they were not the norm at the time.
Quake games did not require a 3D card to play until Quake 3.
Excuse me if this is being double-posted, Slashdot keeps eating the comments and I'm not sure if they're actually being posted.
Considering that there were no consumer 3D cards on the market when Quake came out, let alone Duke3D, your assumption is faulty. Not only did Quake not require a 3D card, it did not even support 3D cards until the very end of 1996. That was when vQuake was released, which added support for Verite chips, and then later glQuake came out to support OpenGL. But those came later, and since very few people had 3D cards, they were not the norm at the time.
Quake games did not require a 3D card to play until Quake 3.
There were no consumer 3D cards on the market when Quake originally shipped, and certainly not when Duke3D shipped... It predates those things. They came later. So of course, despite your claims, you most certainly COULD play Quake with cards that didn't exist at the time. In fact, because 3D cards were so rare even after they did come out, most people played Quake without 3D cards.
3D cards were not required to play Quake games until Quake 3 came out. I certainly didn't have one when I played Quake 2. Those were the days when it was a big deal when a 3dnow version of the Quake 2 software renderer was released, because it got an extra 10% FPS.
You couldn't run either Quake or Blood without a graphics card, there wasn't onboard video support back then. Presuming you mean a 3D card, neither Quake nor Blood originally supported 3D cards, and so both ran fine without it.
Quake did later get a 3d-accelerated version (glquake), but it was by no means required, and was sort of unofficial (Id Software released it, but it was unsupported).
The problem is that people buy drives from companies that are known to have a terrible reputation for reliability (like OCZ) and then are surprised when they fail.
Generally, if you stick to the reputable manufacturers (Intel, Samsung, Crucial, etc) then you'll have a better chance. It doesn't mean it won't fail, it just means there's a lower chance.
I find it highly questionable that a console manufacturer, who are normally incredibly sensitive to die size and unnecessary complexity, would ship consoles with both an iGPU and a dGPU requiring questionable multi-GPU techniques (which tend to add latency and microstutter) when they could simply ship a pure CPU with a more powerful GPU. Considering Intel's edge in manufacturing and IPC, there seems to be little advantage to using an AMD APU if you're going to rely mainly on an external GPU anyhow.
Slashdot Mirror
You're still bound by the laws of physics; you'll only get so much energy out of a projectile while producing a certain amount of recoil.
I suppose you could concentrate the energy into a smaller area by firing a smaller projectile at a higher velocity...
I'll stipulate to all that, but I still would argue that it doesn't make sense to claim that SpaceX is failing when they've been profitable since 2007 and seem to have no trouble getting work queued up quite far into the future.
And that's the key part. With the sale and importation of barrels being heavily restricted and regulated where I live, printing out every other part of the gun just gives you a fancy toy. It does you no good to 3D print every other part of the gun if it can't fire bullets.
Ironically, it was one of those customers (NASA) that prevented the deployment of the second customer's (Orbcomm) payload. CRS-1 was capable of deploying the payload, NASA refused to allow it.
he's trying to make a COMMERCIAL satellite launcher. i.e. he's trying to make money on a thing that has already been done. He's also failing, as he has a tendency to do, and Apple under Jobs did not.
How is he failing? SpaceX has a packed launch manifest, and has been profitable every year since 2007... Their current launch platform, the Falcon 9, has never suffered a critical failure that caused a loss of payload. The one time a payload was lost (the satellite in the previous launch) was not lost due to failure, but because NASA refused to let them do a second burn to get it into the correct orbit. There was no technical reason why the payload could not be deployed, NASA simply refused to let them do so.
There are very very few "desktop-sized" SSDs. Virtually every SSD found in a desktop is a 2.5" notebook drive, often mounted with a 2.5" to 3.5" adapter plate. The UPS will protect any bus-powered device by keeping the bus itself powered.
In terms of external SSDs, those are rare enough that they're not really a scenario to worry about (they're mostly just gimmicks for now). If and when they do eventually appear, the solution is simply for manufacturers to include a small capacitor; if you know it's going to be an external SSD, you simply have to take precautions. A lot of consumer SSDs that don't ship with capacitors or supercapacitors onboard are still designed to use them (and they're omitted for cost reasons).
Your scenario is, in current usage, extremely rare. Even the laptop-running-out-of-power scenario is virtually impossible, since most laptops will force themselves to hibernate before letting their battery actually completely die.
I'd suggest, then, that you've been buying the wrong UPSes, because while they do occasionally fail, they don't fail at anywhere near the rate that you've experienced (or rather the quality brands don't). I've owned several units for quite a few years, and none have ever failed while powering equipment in a manner that caused a power loss. An expired battery did cause a failed self-test, but that didn't cause any outage, merely the indication that the battery should be replaced. Another unit (the one time I bought a noname brand) did fail catastrophically, but not while actively powering equipment.
Most enterprise SSDs do have small supercapacitors or capacitor arrays onboard for exactly this reason. Some of the higher-end consumer drives do too. But most consumer drives don't.
The answer? Get a UPS.
I knew somebody who used an HE tunnel. I realize they're a large provider. The throughput with the tunnel was rather unimpressive, to the point where it was clear it should only be relied upon when there was no alternative. This is ironic since HE's POP is in the same building as his ISP's only POP.
My understanding is that mobile devices are one of the few places that IPv6 actually IS seeing any significant deployment...
The advantage of Hamachi, though, is that it's a direct connection between your two machines, with the only overhead being udp headers. Any tunnel is going to be bouncing you off some router who knows where, lengthening your route and possibly hitting congestion (I'd worry particularly about the free ones).
I can't speak to the current version of Hamachi, as I've not used it in years, but last time I did there was a console Linux version to go with the Mac and windows versions. It was very popular at the time as a way of playing LAN-only games over the Internet with minimal latency ( since every peer connects directly to every other peer). For example, I believe IPX games worked over it.
I realize this is for AR more than VR, but I'd rather take a $300 Rift with a huge FoV than a $125k Canon thingy with a tiny FoV...
The new methodology shows that nVidia SLI gets excellent results. However, I've owned SLI solutions, both two 285s and a 290. Neither one was satisfactory. The higher failure rate was of particular note. One of the 285s failed, I RMAd it, got a 290, eventually that failed... On top of that, even when things were working, there were lots of problems. Some games didn't run correctly. Crysis, for example, didn't seem to like SLI; it would get into a bizarre state where the screen would begin flickering rapidly between black and normal frames, and you'd have to restart the game to recover. The problem never occurred in the same machine when I disabled SLI.
After that experience, both with dual-card SLI and single-card SLI, I decided it just wasn't worth it, and that my money was better spent on a good single-GPU solution. I currently have a single GTX 670, which works fine.
It will help, but don't expect this any time soon. Because no existing device (probably 802.11ac or earlier) will support the new spectrum, we're not going to see much advantages to the new spectrum until whatever comes after 802.11ac (unless they try to brand it as a "v2" thing)
The goal behind including the Kinect 2 with every xbox 720 is for precisely that reason: game developers can't afford to devote much resources to Kinect 2 support because few people have them relative to the overall market (roughly a third of 360 owners). By including a Kinect 2 with every xbox 720, developers can rely on every gamer on that platform supporting Kinect 2. Suddenly what was an option can now be a requirement. We should actually see more innovation in this regard as a result.
Yes. Better than on earth, in fact. The gunpowder already contains the oxidizer and there isn't any atmosphere that the bullet has to push out of the way. Muzzle velocities will be higher.
Considering that there were no consumer 3D cards on the market when Quake came out, let alone Duke3D, your assumption is faulty. Not only did Quake not require a 3D card, it did not even support 3D cards until the very end of 1996. That was when vQuake was released, which added support for Verite chips, and then later glQuake came out to support OpenGL. But those came later, and since very few people had 3D cards, they were not the norm at the time.
Quake games did not require a 3D card to play until Quake 3.
Excuse me if this is being double-posted, Slashdot keeps eating the comments and I'm not sure if they're actually being posted.
Considering that there were no consumer 3D cards on the market when Quake came out, let alone Duke3D, your assumption is faulty. Not only did Quake not require a 3D card, it did not even support 3D cards until the very end of 1996. That was when vQuake was released, which added support for Verite chips, and then later glQuake came out to support OpenGL. But those came later, and since very few people had 3D cards, they were not the norm at the time.
Quake games did not require a 3D card to play until Quake 3.
There were no consumer 3D cards on the market when Quake originally shipped, and certainly not when Duke3D shipped... It predates those things. They came later. So of course, despite your claims, you most certainly COULD play Quake with cards that didn't exist at the time. In fact, because 3D cards were so rare even after they did come out, most people played Quake without 3D cards.
3D cards were not required to play Quake games until Quake 3 came out. I certainly didn't have one when I played Quake 2. Those were the days when it was a big deal when a 3dnow version of the Quake 2 software renderer was released, because it got an extra 10% FPS.
You couldn't run either Quake or Blood without a graphics card, there wasn't onboard video support back then. Presuming you mean a 3D card, neither Quake nor Blood originally supported 3D cards, and so both ran fine without it.
Quake did later get a 3d-accelerated version (glquake), but it was by no means required, and was sort of unofficial (Id Software released it, but it was unsupported).
Well, compare a budget WD to a budget Intel SSD (like the 330). Both companies are in both markets. Green versus RE, 330 versus S3700.
Intel claims a higher MTBF on the S3700 versus the RE, but that's not necessarily all that meaningful.
Is it? Is Intel's SSD failure rate higher than, say, Western Digital's HDD failure rate?
And were any of those failed SSDs near the end of their write lifecycle when they failed? I'm betting it was something else that caused them to fail.
Good SSDs from reputable companies (for example, not OCZ) are generally pretty reliable.
The problem is that people buy drives from companies that are known to have a terrible reputation for reliability (like OCZ) and then are surprised when they fail.
Generally, if you stick to the reputable manufacturers (Intel, Samsung, Crucial, etc) then you'll have a better chance. It doesn't mean it won't fail, it just means there's a lower chance.
I find it highly questionable that a console manufacturer, who are normally incredibly sensitive to die size and unnecessary complexity, would ship consoles with both an iGPU and a dGPU requiring questionable multi-GPU techniques (which tend to add latency and microstutter) when they could simply ship a pure CPU with a more powerful GPU. Considering Intel's edge in manufacturing and IPC, there seems to be little advantage to using an AMD APU if you're going to rely mainly on an external GPU anyhow.