In 1966, HP introduced the 2753A Tape Punch, which boasted a blistering fast tape pinch speed of 120 characters per second and sold for $4,150.
The paper tape system developed for the Colossus project was a bit more impressive: they settled on 5000 char/s, but found they could crank up the speed to about 9000 char/s before the tape would disintegrate. The fastest commercial system I could find got 2000 char/s, with burst speeds up to 10x that.
The Russians built it to spec in secret, and the Russian Concorde crashed the first day it ever flew (in its first test flight).
No, it didn't. The first flight of the Tu-144 was in 1968, the crash you're probably thinking of (at the Paris air show) was in 1973. The exact cause of the crash still isn't clear, but the most common explanation is that the pilot tried to avoid a midair collision and put the aircraft outside its flight envelope.
The Tu-144 is different enough that it's obvious the Russians did their own design work. They may have had access to some Concorde data, but a straight copy? No.
You'd have to be careful with at least PET, because that degrades when exposed to H2O2 for more than a minute or so. So I'd check for possible side-effects before attempting to spruce up your preciousss with this.
3) Re-Entry radar and guidance: Unlike the spaceshuttle, the spaceplane is much smaller in size, so it has to depend on both inertial guidance AND GPS. Why? GPS is screwed it needs inertial.
Your argument makes no sense. Why can't GPS be used? And if you really need inertial, so what? We've been building compact inertial guidance units for decades.
TRS-80s are far less susceptible to atomic-level deterioration (electron migration, etc.) than today's ICs. And I've had plenty of hardware crap out on me after less than 10 years, let alone 50.
The chances are extremely slim that the Airbus bid will involve an Airbus being built in the US.
There is a precedent: one of the two contenders for the USAF's next generation aerial tanker (KC-X project) is the Airbus A330, which would be assembled in the US in Northrop Grumman's factories. Airbus won the contract early in 2008, but Boeing (the other contender) has succeeded in torpedoing the procurement process so the USAF will have to make the decision again early this year.
In my example Screens 1 and 3 were typically at a high resolution, while Screen 2 was lower (to make it easier to read), so yes there were multiple resolutions.
"making things easier to read" starts with selecting the highest resolution possible, then zooming in or selecting a larger font in your application. A lower resolution makes things larger but also grainier, which impedes, not helps, legibility.
Now I grant this isn't always as easy as it should be (we still don't have true resolution independence in the major OSes), but it's a whole lot better than having to live with low resolutions.
Your example consists of three screens that all benefit from having the highest possible resolution available, so in practice you wouldn't use resolution switching for this. The two examples you mention in your OP (DVD playing and emulators) are a bit more valid, but only if you use a CRT display. LCDs can't do resolution switching, you you'd have to rely on the software to provide interpolation anyway. So the type of screen switching you want is only relevant for obsolete hardware.
Having three dedicated screens was far more elegant than having a bunch of windows overlapping and competing for space on just One single screen. Perhaps one of these days Macintosh will "innovate" and produce a similar function.
Already done with Spaces on OS X, and Unix has long known similar options. It's a matter of preference though, I prefer having all my applications in a single space so I can easily interact with >1 application at once (drag&drop is impossible when you segregate apps into separate spaces). If you want to minimise distractions, there's always the Maximise/Zoom option.
YMMV, of course, but given the choice between having a laptop (with compromised hardware) OR having two machines (incl. the chore of keeping them synchronised), I'll take a laptop, thanks. I've got a 20" monitor plus KB and mouse at the two places I use it most, and can live with just the laptop and a mouse when I'm on the road.
What continues to bug me is the insistence people have on having no wires. For me, the tradeoffs are such that it's rarely, if ever, worth it. The BT mouse and keyboard I use with my media PC eat batteries; I can't sync my Palmpilot over BT because my laptop switches off BT to save power, which throws away the BT conduit so I have to set up again every time I want to sync, wifi is slow if there's more than one user on the network. There's always something that doesn't work properly, and all this can be avoided if you just use a damn wire. It's nice to have the option, but it's not a solution that works everywhere, all the time. It's a COMPROMISE, not something to drool over.
Wireless, schmireless. You need a power cord anyway (unless your work day is 4h, and even that is optimistic). Then there's the monitor (laptop screens just aren't big enough to work comfortably) and the inevitable USB peripherals. Any nontrivial-size Wifi network sucks, so you need an Ethernet cable as well. Might as well go whole hog and use wired KB and mouse, with the added benefit that if you choose a decent KB, you get a USB hub thrown in [1]. Plus there's more choice in wired keyboards, and you don't get the hassle of changing batteries.
Wireless sacrifices a lot in the name of not having to plug stuff in.
1: unless your favorite keyboard is stuck in the PS2 stone age (get with the program, Microsoft!)
Naval reactors are typically built to be space-efficient. One of the consequences is that they use highly enriched fuel, i.e. they provide a better starting point for making nuclear weapons than commercial reactor designs would. They are also designed with continuous monitoring in mind. For remote areas, you want a reactor design that's failsafe enough to operate unmanned.
If you enjoy explaining things to people, maybe writing technical manuals, help systems etc. is worth looking into. And not just for software; a CS degree is a decent start for writing documentation for appliances and industrial machinery as well.
The company I work for provides tech writing services, but also the IT infrastructure to support those (we build e.g. databases to store documents in, and XML manipulation scripts and application extensions to support the writers).
Logitech has more or less the correct idea with their Dinovo Edge: keyboard and trackpad in one. It also includes a dedicated volume control slider (much better than +/- buttons). The round trackpad is dumb, but probably works well enough. The only thing missing is an IR transmitter so you can use the keyboard as the remote to all non-computers in the media center (i.e. basically integrate a Logitech Harmony into the keyboard). But $199? Bloody hell. I'll stick with my Apple wireless keyboard, a mouse and a Griffin Powermate volume control. The Logitech is also pretty big. Heck, even the Apple wireless kb is larger than I'd like, which makes controlling the media center less comfortable than it could be.
In my limited experience of using battery banks (2-4 AAs or Cs in series or parallel), the most common cause of failure is having them in series while charging: small changes in cell chemistry mean that the batteries in a pack don't discharge at the same rate, so when you start charging one battery is at 0% and the other at 20%. This kills the battery that was at 0%. Battery life is extended greatly if you charge every cell individually instead of putting them in series (as most home-grade battery chargers do).
From the diagram, it looks like each module contains hundreds of cells, with the cells connected by busbars. Looks like a recipe for failure to me. What's the secret?
Slashdot Mirror
From TFA:
In 1966, HP introduced the 2753A Tape Punch, which boasted a blistering fast tape pinch speed of 120 characters per second and sold for $4,150.
The paper tape system developed for the Colossus project was a bit more impressive: they settled on 5000 char/s, but found they could crank up the speed to about 9000 char/s before the tape would disintegrate. The fastest commercial system I could find got 2000 char/s, with burst speeds up to 10x that.
Top Gear has shown it's possible. If the goal is science, not "because we can", not taking three months would be a bonus.
The Russians built it to spec in secret, and the Russian Concorde crashed the first day it ever flew (in its first test flight).
No, it didn't. The first flight of the Tu-144 was in 1968, the crash you're probably thinking of (at the Paris air show) was in 1973. The exact cause of the crash still isn't clear, but the most common explanation is that the pilot tried to avoid a midair collision and put the aircraft outside its flight envelope.
The Tu-144 is different enough that it's obvious the Russians did their own design work. They may have had access to some Concorde data, but a straight copy? No.
You'd have to be careful with at least PET, because that degrades when exposed to H2O2 for more than a minute or so. So I'd check for possible side-effects before attempting to spruce up your preciousss with this.
Still, having to install INS is not a limiting factor for a spaceplane.
3) Re-Entry radar and guidance: Unlike the spaceshuttle, the spaceplane is much smaller in size, so it has to depend on both inertial guidance AND GPS. Why? GPS is screwed it needs inertial.
Your argument makes no sense. Why can't GPS be used? And if you really need inertial, so what? We've been building compact inertial guidance units for decades.
Both were ballistic missile submarines. For those, following other submarines at distances where crashes are a significant risk is not SOP.
TRS-80s are far less susceptible to atomic-level deterioration (electron migration, etc.) than today's ICs. And I've had plenty of hardware crap out on me after less than 10 years, let alone 50.
The World's Oldest Weapons-grade Plutonium sitting ignominously in some waste dump? It should be in a museum!
he should continue to due science work even after taking office and there is no reason why he couldnt.
Right, because as Secretary of Energy he'll have oodles of spare time. It's not as if the nation needs governing or anything.
Actually, it looks more like the Avro 730 concept for a high-speed reconnaisance aircraft. Including the four engines at each wingtip.
image
The chances are extremely slim that the Airbus bid will involve an Airbus being built in the US.
There is a precedent: one of the two contenders for the USAF's next generation aerial tanker (KC-X project) is the Airbus A330, which would be assembled in the US in Northrop Grumman's factories. Airbus won the contract early in 2008, but Boeing (the other contender) has succeeded in torpedoing the procurement process so the USAF will have to make the decision again early this year.
In my example Screens 1 and 3 were typically at a high resolution, while Screen 2 was lower (to make it easier to read), so yes there were multiple resolutions.
"making things easier to read" starts with selecting the highest resolution possible, then zooming in or selecting a larger font in your application. A lower resolution makes things larger but also grainier, which impedes, not helps, legibility.
Now I grant this isn't always as easy as it should be (we still don't have true resolution independence in the major OSes), but it's a whole lot better than having to live with low resolutions.
Your example consists of three screens that all benefit from having the highest possible resolution available, so in practice you wouldn't use resolution switching for this.
The two examples you mention in your OP (DVD playing and emulators) are a bit more valid, but only if you use a CRT display. LCDs can't do resolution switching, you you'd have to rely on the software to provide interpolation anyway. So the type of screen switching you want is only relevant for obsolete hardware.
Having three dedicated screens was far more elegant than having a bunch of windows overlapping and competing for space on just One single screen. Perhaps one of these days Macintosh will "innovate" and produce a similar function.
Already done with Spaces on OS X, and Unix has long known similar options. It's a matter of preference though, I prefer having all my applications in a single space so I can easily interact with >1 application at once (drag&drop is impossible when you segregate apps into separate spaces). If you want to minimise distractions, there's always the Maximise/Zoom option.
And the entity's name is Apple, not Macintosh.
they might transplant my brain...
into a chicken, perhaps?
Every one of my xD cards came with a hard plastic shell that holds up to 6 cards securely. The shell is large enough not to get lost easily.
YMMV, of course, but given the choice between having a laptop (with compromised hardware) OR having two machines (incl. the chore of keeping them synchronised), I'll take a laptop, thanks. I've got a 20" monitor plus KB and mouse at the two places I use it most, and can live with just the laptop and a mouse when I'm on the road.
What continues to bug me is the insistence people have on having no wires. For me, the tradeoffs are such that it's rarely, if ever, worth it. The BT mouse and keyboard I use with my media PC eat batteries; I can't sync my Palmpilot over BT because my laptop switches off BT to save power, which throws away the BT conduit so I have to set up again every time I want to sync, wifi is slow if there's more than one user on the network. There's always something that doesn't work properly, and all this can be avoided if you just use a damn wire. It's nice to have the option, but it's not a solution that works everywhere, all the time. It's a COMPROMISE, not something to drool over.
Wireless, schmireless. You need a power cord anyway (unless your work day is 4h, and even that is optimistic). Then there's the monitor (laptop screens just aren't big enough to work comfortably) and the inevitable USB peripherals. Any nontrivial-size Wifi network sucks, so you need an Ethernet cable as well. Might as well go whole hog and use wired KB and mouse, with the added benefit that if you choose a decent KB, you get a USB hub thrown in [1]. Plus there's more choice in wired keyboards, and you don't get the hassle of changing batteries.
Wireless sacrifices a lot in the name of not having to plug stuff in.
1: unless your favorite keyboard is stuck in the PS2 stone age (get with the program, Microsoft!)
Naval reactors are typically built to be space-efficient. One of the consequences is that they use highly enriched fuel, i.e. they provide a better starting point for making nuclear weapons than commercial reactor designs would. They are also designed with continuous monitoring in mind. For remote areas, you want a reactor design that's failsafe enough to operate unmanned.
and there have been several nuclear accidents on naval vessels, for starters look up the "thresher" a nuclear powered submarine.
Thresher sank due to a water leak. This was not a nuclear accident.
If you enjoy explaining things to people, maybe writing technical manuals, help systems etc. is worth looking into. And not just for software; a CS degree is a decent start for writing documentation for appliances and industrial machinery as well.
The company I work for provides tech writing services, but also the IT infrastructure to support those (we build e.g. databases to store documents in, and XML manipulation scripts and application extensions to support the writers).
neither in TFA nor on SpaceX's own site are there any pictures of the 9-engine cluster, just loads of boring photos of large cylinders.
Logitech has more or less the correct idea with their Dinovo Edge: keyboard and trackpad in one. It also includes a dedicated volume control slider (much better than +/- buttons). The round trackpad is dumb, but probably works well enough. The only thing missing is an IR transmitter so you can use the keyboard as the remote to all non-computers in the media center (i.e. basically integrate a Logitech Harmony into the keyboard).
But $199? Bloody hell. I'll stick with my Apple wireless keyboard, a mouse and a Griffin Powermate volume control.
The Logitech is also pretty big. Heck, even the Apple wireless kb is larger than I'd like, which makes controlling the media center less comfortable than it could be.
In my limited experience of using battery banks (2-4 AAs or Cs in series or parallel), the most common cause of failure is having them in series while charging: small changes in cell chemistry mean that the batteries in a pack don't discharge at the same rate, so when you start charging one battery is at 0% and the other at 20%. This kills the battery that was at 0%. Battery life is extended greatly if you charge every cell individually instead of putting them in series (as most home-grade battery chargers do).
From the diagram, it looks like each module contains hundreds of cells, with the cells connected by busbars. Looks like a recipe for failure to me. What's the secret?
Pumped storage is about 60-70% efficient, I wonder how this compares?