why have these never been used in anything other than sgi boxen, and cobalt raqs?
Well Playstations (I & II) use them and they are used in many embedded systems because of the low power/decent performance characteristics. On the desktop, they were in a line of NT based workstations put out by NEC, Sony, as well as MIPS itself.
Take all the people who don't believe, stick them on a spaceship and let them see the landing sites for themselves. We can tell them to "press the big red button" when they are satisfied and are ready to come back home;)
Yes, talking about bikes is a nice diversion from all this computer talk:)
Anyhoo, I don't think we really differ all that much in what we are saying. Getting a vehicle up to 200mph is not trivial, but it is also not impossible (or I would contend, not improbable either). We both know (both intellectually and from personal experience;) that there are various forces and mechanics that contribute to your ability to meet this goal. The designer of the LS can't just through ponies at the problem, I think we both agree on this.
Speaking of GP bikes, I would LOVE to get a ride on the RCV211. Gets me more excited than any piece of computing whatnot. Here's hoping they come out with a street going version (an RCV'esque CBR9XX would be ok, but having a V5 would totally rock, the thing sounds AWESOME).
The Mr Turbo turbo kit is ~$4000, cheap, no, but still not "double the cost" of the original bike. Plus, with NOX, you wouldn't have it on for the duration of the run, you would hit the button once you've already achieved a particular speed that should easily get you past 200mph, though admittedly only for a short time.
I took it up to an indicated 165mph once.
I've had my ~95hp VFR up to an indicated 155 and it was still pulling (and I'm 6'1" and had a tank bag), so I would think that your 165 was still not near the top of what it was capable of (and no, the VFR probably only had a couple more mph in her, but she hadn't topped out yet). And yes, going from 90 to 130 is simple beans compared to 130-150, but that's what you'd expect right? Doesn't mean that you can't get there.
So if a stock Busa makes ~150hp and the turbo bumped it up to ~180hp (note that we're talking superbike numbers now, and they have been clocked at over 200mph, along with ~190hp gp bikes), assuming improved aerodynamics and not a too significant increase in weight, releasing a vehicle at about ~200-250hp could get you to that magic 200mpg mark, even if it takes "the right conditions" (drag strip, cool weather, favorable breeze) to get it to that mark. Remember, it just has to do it once for them to claim that it can do it.
It turns out that you have to spend double the original price of the bike just to get it to travel in the mid 190 mph range
Well all the bike rags I've read have claimed a stock Busa will do around 190 (check any of the rags online, such as CycleWorld). Slap a turbo charger and/or some nitros (both together should not add up to the anywhere near the cost of the orignal bike) and 200 is no problem indeed. Now I've not personally ridden a Busa/Blackbird/ZX12 nor do I personally know anyone who's gone that fast, but I'm assuming that the trade rags are pretty close and that it's not all Suzuki marketing.
As for the frontal area, I am aware of that, but looking at the drawings it doesn't appear that it's frontal area would be anywhere near five times, or even twice as large. Hard to say from the drawings, but one would imagine that if they want to hit that 200mpg mark that they'd have to pay careful attention to the aerodynamic aspects, both in terms of speed, but more importantly in terms of stability.
Not really, several motorcycles available today are capable (with minor mods) of going that fast. And motorcycles are grossly non-aerodynamic so it takes a lot of ponies to get them up to that speed. Since the LandShark is an enclosed vehicle and would theoretically have a much better cd, it shouldn't take too much effort to get it to go that fast.
Now would I want to be in a three wheeled vehicle at those speeds, no way in hell. I'd do it on 2 in a second, but three would seem like a rolling coffin to me.
Dudes, it was a joke
on
Landshark
·
· Score: 3, Funny
My goodness people, can't you see humour when it's staring you right in the face. Did you not read the line "What will be next? Internet access for telephones?". Come on now, get up from the keyboard, but the coffee/jolt down, spend an hour with your girlfriend/boyfriend/hand/other device, get some sleep, go outside (don't forget the sunblock) and enjoy a real life for a little while before you come back and reply to posts again.
It'll get published by 2600 and then every kiddie will be encoding messages and sending them out through their little radio shack fm transmitters as mommy and daddy roll down the highway, making the technology useless (or even more useless)
even though the average human ear cannot hear these messages, it is very likely that we will see a large variety of animals go cracy
Well the article says that they spread the encoded data throughout the spectrum, not that they place it frequencies that we normally can't hear. My understanding of animal hearing is that they hear frequencies that we can't. Assuming that this is the case, then animals shouldn't be too affected, if at all. I'm definitely not a scientist so I may be off base here, but my first thought too was that they were using inaudible frequencies, but the article seems to suggest that they don't. Which would make sense since your average oem car speaker would have a pretty tough time reproducing sound at frequencies high enough.
A typical spy will copy your data, rather that stealing it.
Well true, but any data worth this level of encryption shouldn't be stored in such a way that you could just drag and drop the thing onto a floppy. You should be able to tell the last time the file was touched and/or have alerts when a file is being touched.
Simple file moving operations can take FOREVER if you are moving around hundreds of files
Windoze suffers from this same problem. If I have to do operations on large numbers of files (copy/move/delete), I always drop to the command prompt as these operations can be dog slow in exploder. To make it worse, ntfs on WinNT 3.51 had some serious issues with directories with thousands of files (operations could take literally forever and unexplained behaviours could occur).
Re:Isn't everything in OS X late-binding?
on
Is Mac OS X Slow?
·
· Score: 2
Windoze suffers partially from this problem as well with it's heavy use of COM. Now COM components are generally at a much higher level than obj-c objects, but even m$ has seen that the advantages of late binding outweigh the performance hit (esp considering the pace of hardware, well pc hardware anyway (sorry, had to put little Mot dig in there)). I don't you can really blame it for all the performance problems, after all we're talking about a *nix kernel with a postscript based display system, this is some heavy stuff. I'd bet that most of their performance gains have been in the area of graphics/ui.
OK, I didn't explain very well. The thought was that if I use the same key to encrypt all my data, doing the key refresh would prevent someone who got a hold of a piece of my data from cracking it, discovering my key, and then being able to subsequently decode all my data. This was assuming that they wouldn't get their grubby hands on all the data at once anyway, more that they might capture some data as it was being transmitted.
The thief could have all the time they want to crack the code.
True, but you can have as much physical security as you think you need (or can afford). Plus, if it takes someone a year and a half to decode your data, you have a fair bit of time to do whatever damage control is necessary. Also, if you did something like say cut up all the bytes of your data and seperate them into eight files and then encrypted each file individually, it would take that much longer to crack, esp if all those files where stored in different locations (one can of course dream of multiple ways to make the problem near impossible to deal with).
The time is the most significant factor here. If this was military use, the 500+ days it took to break wouldn't worry anyone since any message more than a few days/hours old is pretty much worthless. If someone where more concerned about long term security, they could setup a system to refresh the keys on any encrypted data, say every year or every quarter.
I am not exactly a youngun.. and worked with a Digital Equipment contract that meant that support was little short of amazing on the VAX/VMS systems I was developing. However that contract was EXPENSIVE.
Yes, those "big iron" contracts definitely rocked when it came to level of service, but yup you definitely payed the price. Then again, back then it pretty much "had" to be that way since they weren't pumping out 10000 pdp-11's a month.
But I think you get my point in that many of the negatives and positives associated with prop vs OS software has nothing to do with being prop or OS, rather it's the mindset of the people in those roles. So there is definitely room for improvement in the prop world and a lot of stuff the OS world can learn from their "more" captialistic bretheren. Hopefully the resurgance of OS will push more of the prop guys into doing business a bit more customer friendly.
Er.. this is a contradiction, its therefore not a *totally* false assumption then?
Well, I read your statement as an absolute, which meant that if there were any exception to it, that the statement is completely wrong. But let's not nitpick grammar/semantics shall we?
At least you know what the bugs are!! In Prop you often have not got a clue and no warning.
I agree with you here as only a handful of vendors I've worked with allowed their customers to actively peruse their bug databases. This would be an awesome "feature" for vendors and would probably save them a lot of money in support costs in the long run, I wish more would do it (thet'd have to put aside their "pride" of course, and deal with the issue of potentially putting them at a competitive disadvantage).
Have you actually used any prop software.
The overwhelming majority of the software I've used professionally (20+ years now) has been prop. I use a lot of OS stuff personally, but that's another story. I think that one of the problems that many younguns run into now is that their only exposure to software is from the evil empire (and assorted minor evil fiefdoms). I have personally worked with many prop. sofware companies that are very responsive to bugs. Either because their just "cool" or because or support contract says that have to.
Lets not confuse prop. software with sofware monopolies. If 8 companies are trying to make a living selling/supporting a package, it behooves them to be at least somewhat responsive to their customers. M$ is not in this situation and many of their practices/policies derive from this, not from the fact that the software they sell is prop.
1. Be more stable and contain less bugs in the long run
A totally false assumption. Not saying that it can't be true, just that being OS doesn't guarantee this. You're thinking too much in terms of Linux vs Winbloze, instead you should be thinking of smaller projects that don't necessarily have a gazillion people working on it. Also, look at the recent Mozilla bugs as proof that being OS doesn't mean that you get it right any sooner (imagine how much worse the bug count would be it there were 20x more people using it and there were scads of people intentionally trying to break/hack it).
2. Cost less in terms of licensing etc
Likely, but not again, not something inherint in OS. People can charge a fee for OS software, many don't.
4. Gain from *not* having to upgrade due to it no longer being supported. Proprietary software forces you to upgrade and infact is built into their model. If you don't buy they go bankrupt
Absolutely false. Presumably a company is looking at these solutions because they DON'T want to have to deal with development of the product in house, or else they'd just roll their own. If company X is using OS software Y and project Y is abandoned, company X is just as likely to start looking to migrate. Will bugs never be found in OS software? Will you never have to upgrade? Not all proprietary software companies charge you for every little upgrade (esp in the enterprise space). Isn't it just as likely that an open source project will stop "supporting" an older version that you're using forcing you to either live with it or upgrade?
5. Allows you to *gain* from quick bug fixes, security patches and the like
How is this any different than prop. software? If company X is good about bug fixing and company Y bad, how is that any different than OS project X being good about bug fixing vs project Y that isn't? Lots of enterprise level software agreements have bug fix turnaround guarantees and they rock. Call company X, report the bug, they guarantee to have the thing turned around to you in three days (or whatever).
I think that in general people have to realize that people do use software other than that written by the evil empire and to glom all prop. software under that umbrella is simply missing the point. I've been in projects that relied heavily on both prop software and OS software and there are advantages and disadvantages to both and being OS is NOT the holy grail. It's a great alternative (and many times the superior), but take off your OS colored glasses and see that it's not the only answer.
First and foremost my statement was a simple statement of fact, not one that endorses the existence of the iMac. Secondly, since they do still sell it (and Apple is not known to be a company that's fond of keeping slow/no selling models around nowdays) I can only assume that either A) people are still buying it or B) they have a warehouse full of them and they're just selling them off. Plus if you're just using the thing to primarily surf and do homework, then $300 is $300. Keep in mind at these price points that $300 represents a 30% increase in price.
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen a couple of old Onyx servers converted into Coke machines.
why have these never been used in anything other than sgi boxen, and cobalt raqs?
Well Playstations (I & II) use them and they are used in many embedded systems because of the low power/decent performance characteristics. On the desktop, they were in a line of NT based workstations put out by NEC, Sony, as well as MIPS itself.
That could never happen, since the telephone sanitizers were one of the occupational types that composed the habitants. What happened was
the people on the planet survived and he realizes that he is actually on Earth and that these losers are our "forefathers".
Take all the people who don't believe, stick them on a spaceship and let them see the landing sites for themselves. We can tell them to "press the big red button" when they are satisfied and are ready to come back home ;)
Yes, talking about bikes is a nice diversion from all this computer talk :)
;) that there are various forces and mechanics that contribute to your ability to meet this goal. The designer of the LS can't just through ponies at the problem, I think we both agree on this.
Anyhoo, I don't think we really differ all that much in what we are saying. Getting a vehicle up to 200mph is not trivial, but it is also not impossible (or I would contend, not improbable either). We both know (both intellectually and from personal experience
Speaking of GP bikes, I would LOVE to get a ride on the RCV211. Gets me more excited than any piece of computing whatnot. Here's hoping they come out with a street going version (an RCV'esque CBR9XX would be ok, but having a V5 would totally rock, the thing sounds AWESOME).
Yeah, that would be smart. All over the world geeks would be getting major sunburns on their right palms. :P
Thereby ruining their sex lives.
The Mr Turbo turbo kit is ~$4000, cheap, no, but still not "double the cost" of the original bike. Plus, with NOX, you wouldn't have it on for the duration of the run, you would hit the button once you've already achieved a particular speed that should easily get you past 200mph, though admittedly only for a short time.
I took it up to an indicated 165mph once.
I've had my ~95hp VFR up to an indicated 155 and it was still pulling (and I'm 6'1" and had a tank bag), so I would think that your 165 was still not near the top of what it was capable of (and no, the VFR probably only had a couple more mph in her, but she hadn't topped out yet). And yes, going from 90 to 130 is simple beans compared to 130-150, but that's what you'd expect right? Doesn't mean that you can't get there.
So if a stock Busa makes ~150hp and the turbo bumped it up to ~180hp (note that we're talking superbike numbers now, and they have been clocked at over 200mph, along with ~190hp gp bikes), assuming improved aerodynamics and not a too significant increase in weight, releasing a vehicle at about ~200-250hp could get you to that magic 200mpg mark, even if it takes "the right conditions" (drag strip, cool weather, favorable breeze) to get it to that mark. Remember, it just has to do it once for them to claim that it can do it.
It turns out that you have to spend double the original price of the bike just to get it to travel in the mid 190 mph range
Well all the bike rags I've read have claimed a stock Busa will do around 190 (check any of the rags online, such as CycleWorld). Slap a turbo charger and/or some nitros (both together should not add up to the anywhere near the cost of the orignal bike) and 200 is no problem indeed. Now I've not personally ridden a Busa/Blackbird/ZX12 nor do I personally know anyone who's gone that fast, but I'm assuming that the trade rags are pretty close and that it's not all Suzuki marketing.
As for the frontal area, I am aware of that, but looking at the drawings it doesn't appear that it's frontal area would be anywhere near five times, or even twice as large. Hard to say from the drawings, but one would imagine that if they want to hit that 200mpg mark that they'd have to pay careful attention to the aerodynamic aspects, both in terms of speed, but more importantly in terms of stability.
and the 200mph claim is pretty outrageous
Not really, several motorcycles available today are capable (with minor mods) of going that fast. And motorcycles are grossly non-aerodynamic so it takes a lot of ponies to get them up to that speed. Since the LandShark is an enclosed vehicle and would theoretically have a much better cd, it shouldn't take too much effort to get it to go that fast.
Now would I want to be in a three wheeled vehicle at those speeds, no way in hell. I'd do it on 2 in a second, but three would seem like a rolling coffin to me.
My goodness people, can't you see humour when it's staring you right in the face. Did you not read the line "What will be next? Internet access for telephones?". Come on now, get up from the keyboard, but the coffee/jolt down, spend an hour with your girlfriend/boyfriend/hand/other device, get some sleep, go outside (don't forget the sunblock) and enjoy a real life for a little while before you come back and reply to posts again.
It'll get published by 2600 and then every kiddie will be encoding messages and sending them out through their little radio shack fm transmitters as mommy and daddy roll down the highway, making the technology useless (or even more useless)
even though the average human ear cannot hear these messages, it is very likely that we will see a large variety of animals go cracy
Well the article says that they spread the encoded data throughout the spectrum, not that they place it frequencies that we normally can't hear. My understanding of animal hearing is that they hear frequencies that we can't. Assuming that this is the case, then animals shouldn't be too affected, if at all. I'm definitely not a scientist so I may be off base here, but my first thought too was that they were using inaudible frequencies, but the article seems to suggest that they don't. Which would make sense since your average oem car speaker would have a pretty tough time reproducing sound at frequencies high enough.
A typical spy will copy your data, rather that stealing it.
Well true, but any data worth this level of encryption shouldn't be stored in such a way that you could just drag and drop the thing onto a floppy. You should be able to tell the last time the file was touched and/or have alerts when a file is being touched.
Simple file moving operations can take FOREVER if you are moving around hundreds of files
Windoze suffers from this same problem. If I have to do operations on large numbers of files (copy/move/delete), I always drop to the command prompt as these operations can be dog slow in exploder. To make it worse, ntfs on WinNT 3.51 had some serious issues with directories with thousands of files (operations could take literally forever and unexplained behaviours could occur).
Windoze suffers partially from this problem as well with it's heavy use of COM. Now COM components are generally at a much higher level than obj-c objects, but even m$ has seen that the advantages of late binding outweigh the performance hit (esp considering the pace of hardware, well pc hardware anyway (sorry, had to put little Mot dig in there)). I don't you can really blame it for all the performance problems, after all we're talking about a *nix kernel with a postscript based display system, this is some heavy stuff. I'd bet that most of their performance gains have been in the area of graphics/ui.
OK, I didn't explain very well. The thought was that if I use the same key to encrypt all my data, doing the key refresh would prevent someone who got a hold of a piece of my data from cracking it, discovering my key, and then being able to subsequently decode all my data. This was assuming that they wouldn't get their grubby hands on all the data at once anyway, more that they might capture some data as it was being transmitted.
The thief could have all the time they want to crack the code.
True, but you can have as much physical security as you think you need (or can afford). Plus, if it takes someone a year and a half to decode your data, you have a fair bit of time to do whatever damage control is necessary. Also, if you did something like say cut up all the bytes of your data and seperate them into eight files and then encrypted each file individually, it would take that much longer to crack, esp if all those files where stored in different locations (one can of course dream of multiple ways to make the problem near impossible to deal with).
The time is the most significant factor here. If this was military use, the 500+ days it took to break wouldn't worry anyone since any message more than a few days/hours old is pretty much worthless. If someone where more concerned about long term security, they could setup a system to refresh the keys on any encrypted data, say every year or every quarter.
judging by your post, not very long at all
I am not exactly a youngun.. and worked with a Digital Equipment contract that meant that support was little short of amazing on the VAX/VMS systems I was developing. However that contract was EXPENSIVE.
Yes, those "big iron" contracts definitely rocked when it came to level of service, but yup you definitely payed the price. Then again, back then it pretty much "had" to be that way since they weren't pumping out 10000 pdp-11's a month.
But I think you get my point in that many of the negatives and positives associated with prop vs OS software has nothing to do with being prop or OS, rather it's the mindset of the people in those roles. So there is definitely room for improvement in the prop world and a lot of stuff the OS world can learn from their "more" captialistic bretheren. Hopefully the resurgance of OS will push more of the prop guys into doing business a bit more customer friendly.
Er.. this is a contradiction, its therefore not a *totally* false assumption then?
Well, I read your statement as an absolute, which meant that if there were any exception to it, that the statement is completely wrong. But let's not nitpick grammar/semantics shall we?
At least you know what the bugs are!! In Prop you often have not got a clue and no warning.
I agree with you here as only a handful of vendors I've worked with allowed their customers to actively peruse their bug databases. This would be an awesome "feature" for vendors and would probably save them a lot of money in support costs in the long run, I wish more would do it (thet'd have to put aside their "pride" of course, and deal with the issue of potentially putting them at a competitive disadvantage).
Have you actually used any prop software.
The overwhelming majority of the software I've used professionally (20+ years now) has been prop. I use a lot of OS stuff personally, but that's another story. I think that one of the problems that many younguns run into now is that their only exposure to software is from the evil empire (and assorted minor evil fiefdoms). I have personally worked with many prop. sofware companies that are very responsive to bugs. Either because their just "cool" or because or support contract says that have to.
Lets not confuse prop. software with sofware monopolies. If 8 companies are trying to make a living selling/supporting a package, it behooves them to be at least somewhat responsive to their customers. M$ is not in this situation and many of their practices/policies derive from this, not from the fact that the software they sell is prop.
1. Be more stable and contain less bugs in the long run
A totally false assumption. Not saying that it can't be true, just that being OS doesn't guarantee this. You're thinking too much in terms of Linux vs Winbloze, instead you should be thinking of smaller projects that don't necessarily have a gazillion people working on it. Also, look at the recent Mozilla bugs as proof that being OS doesn't mean that you get it right any sooner (imagine how much worse the bug count would be it there were 20x more people using it and there were scads of people intentionally trying to break/hack it).
2. Cost less in terms of licensing etc
Likely, but not again, not something inherint in OS. People can charge a fee for OS software, many don't.
4. Gain from *not* having to upgrade due to it no longer being supported. Proprietary software forces you to upgrade and infact is built into their model. If you don't buy they go bankrupt
Absolutely false. Presumably a company is looking at these solutions because they DON'T want to have to deal with development of the product in house, or else they'd just roll their own. If company X is using OS software Y and project Y is abandoned, company X is just as likely to start looking to migrate. Will bugs never be found in OS software? Will you never have to upgrade? Not all proprietary software companies charge you for every little upgrade (esp in the enterprise space). Isn't it just as likely that an open source project will stop "supporting" an older version that you're using forcing you to either live with it or upgrade?
5. Allows you to *gain* from quick bug fixes, security patches and the like
How is this any different than prop. software? If company X is good about bug fixing and company Y bad, how is that any different than OS project X being good about bug fixing vs project Y that isn't? Lots of enterprise level software agreements have bug fix turnaround guarantees and they rock. Call company X, report the bug, they guarantee to have the thing turned around to you in three days (or whatever).
I think that in general people have to realize that people do use software other than that written by the evil empire and to glom all prop. software under that umbrella is simply missing the point. I've been in projects that relied heavily on both prop software and OS software and there are advantages and disadvantages to both and being OS is NOT the holy grail. It's a great alternative (and many times the superior), but take off your OS colored glasses and see that it's not the only answer.
No need to respond to my linux or bjarne comment, I was joking, I've heard the pronunciations, please, stop :)
First and foremost my statement was a simple statement of fact, not one that endorses the existence of the iMac. Secondly, since they do still sell it (and Apple is not known to be a company that's fond of keeping slow/no selling models around nowdays) I can only assume that either A) people are still buying it or B) they have a warehouse full of them and they're just selling them off. Plus if you're just using the thing to primarily surf and do homework, then $300 is $300. Keep in mind at these price points that $300 represents a 30% increase in price.
I think they're referring to the methane powered TiVOs.