What usage scenarios would you point as those an iPad is an easy replacement? E-mail and media consumption is the only one that comes to my mind. The iPad, as it is, is a poor replacement for a generic computer
Sun didn't give away servers. Sun is a hardware company.
An appallingly poorly managed hardware company, with conflicting product lines (x86 servers _and_ SPARC-based ones), stupid projects (Looking Glass?!), but with some top-notch software (OpenSolaris, Glassfish and Java).
Oracle could just straighten up the product line and Sun would, probably, make more money than they spend. If they tweaked the Solaris licensing and support contracts a little, I bet they could grab a lot business out of IBM, HP and Dell's hands.
After all, it's easier to support Oracle software on Oracle (I can't believe I am saying it) hardware.
Well... The shuttle doesn't meet the requirements initially set for its development - it's not reusable, but it can be fixed. I remember the way it was proposed: mount it on a rocket, put it in space, let it do whatever has to be done and land like a plane, then it goes back to the Cape mounted on a 747 and gets mounted on a rocket and off it goes. Nobody told it would require half a year of repairs between one flight and the next.
It was also designed to bring cargo back from space, something it did, IIRC, once.
It's a single vehicle that tries to do far too many things and fails to do any of them better than previous technologies. It's cool, but that's about it.
I would not oppose maintaining the shuttle while alternative heavy lift capability is not attained. I am also against scrapping all of its technologies: shuttle C could be a nice complementary technology for when all you need it to haul something heavy into LEO.
And having to rely on shuttle caused a lot of delays and cost overruns of the ISS. Of course it was used to build most of it: it consumed all resources that could otherwise be used to develop other less costly ways to build the ISS and, thus, was the only thing that could be used.
Mind you: on every shuttle flight you send all the mass that will land. If nothing returned, you would have to send up a lot less mass.
Executing what the DIRECT folks proposed would cost a fraction of what Ares would have costed.
I am sure if NASA were willing to pay the horrendous amount of money a shuttle launch costs to re-suply the ISS to a private company, they would line up at their door.
It will be ugly, as pork barrel politics often get, but I believe, in the end, reason will prevail.
Ares should be axed. What we need is cheaper ways to haul large loads to space. The shuttle more or less taught us how not to do it, but the Ares I first stage has proven to be too problematic. A shuttle-derived vehicle, such as suggested by the DIRECT folks, would be a better choice and would use the Orion, which is more salvageable part of this project.
It would make a lot of sense to develop a series of modular vehicles, with modular engines and structures. That way you protect the money invested in developing each component.
What frightens me is the possibility this new plan also fails to deliver viable vehicles.
In that case, maybe we shoud give up the idea of being a spacefaring civilization.
There are a couple good reasons to place it at the altitude it is. One is the higher it is the less cargo you can ferry there (you trade height for fuel mass). Another is space junk. If it is in a height that needs regular boosts to stay there, it also means junk that happens to be in that altitude will fall down to Earth, rendering that space relatively junk free. The station would need more bulletproofing if it were to go higher.
Slashdot Mirror
Experience.
What usage scenarios would you point as those an iPad is an easy replacement? E-mail and media consumption is the only one that comes to my mind. The iPad, as it is, is a poor replacement for a generic computer
The incident will make his allegations be investigated. He can still file the harassment complaint. Or sue the TSA
Who would want a server running Windows, anyway?
"CHARGE FOR STUFF."
Sun didn't give away servers. Sun is a hardware company.
An appallingly poorly managed hardware company, with conflicting product lines (x86 servers _and_ SPARC-based ones), stupid projects (Looking Glass?!), but with some top-notch software (OpenSolaris, Glassfish and Java).
Oracle could just straighten up the product line and Sun would, probably, make more money than they spend. If they tweaked the Solaris licensing and support contracts a little, I bet they could grab a lot business out of IBM, HP and Dell's hands.
After all, it's easier to support Oracle software on Oracle (I can't believe I am saying it) hardware.
Now. if you excuse me, I'll wash my hands.
Wasn't Wonderland a second-life like thing? OpenSolaris was called, AFAIK, Project Indiana.
I still like ZFS
> Now I can code in all kinds of languages, assembly, PHP, Ruby, Javascript, etc..
Just make sure you are not writing FORTRAN code in assembly, PHP, Ruby, Javascript, etc.. ;-)
Well... If it left the Moon at lunar escape velocity and came straight to Earth accelerating at 1g, it would make a remarkable splash.
It's already out of Earth's gravity well. That's what makes it useful.
Well... The shuttle doesn't meet the requirements initially set for its development - it's not reusable, but it can be fixed. I remember the way it was proposed: mount it on a rocket, put it in space, let it do whatever has to be done and land like a plane, then it goes back to the Cape mounted on a 747 and gets mounted on a rocket and off it goes. Nobody told it would require half a year of repairs between one flight and the next.
It was also designed to bring cargo back from space, something it did, IIRC, once.
It's a single vehicle that tries to do far too many things and fails to do any of them better than previous technologies. It's cool, but that's about it.
I would not oppose maintaining the shuttle while alternative heavy lift capability is not attained. I am also against scrapping all of its technologies: shuttle C could be a nice complementary technology for when all you need it to haul something heavy into LEO.
And having to rely on shuttle caused a lot of delays and cost overruns of the ISS. Of course it was used to build most of it: it consumed all resources that could otherwise be used to develop other less costly ways to build the ISS and, thus, was the only thing that could be used.
Mind you: on every shuttle flight you send all the mass that will land. If nothing returned, you would have to send up a lot less mass.
Executing what the DIRECT folks proposed would cost a fraction of what Ares would have costed.
Indeed.
If you buy a new LCD TV, a new Bluray player or a new computer with recovery money, you are probably financing China.
I am sure if NASA were willing to pay the horrendous amount of money a shuttle launch costs to re-suply the ISS to a private company, they would line up at their door.
"Even less than Ariane 1 has achieved."
After how many years?
Just pointing out how such discussions start: some Alabamans prioritize saving their pork over the success of the program.
I sincerely doubt a significant part of the Alabaman workforce involved in the program has much hope it will not end in a disaster like the shuttle.
A rather competent one, I must add.
It will be ugly, as pork barrel politics often get, but I believe, in the end, reason will prevail.
Ares should be axed. What we need is cheaper ways to haul large loads to space. The shuttle more or less taught us how not to do it, but the Ares I first stage has proven to be too problematic. A shuttle-derived vehicle, such as suggested by the DIRECT folks, would be a better choice and would use the Orion, which is more salvageable part of this project.
It would make a lot of sense to develop a series of modular vehicles, with modular engines and structures. That way you protect the money invested in developing each component.
What frightens me is the possibility this new plan also fails to deliver viable vehicles.
In that case, maybe we shoud give up the idea of being a spacefaring civilization.
I think you misread his attempt at humour.
Oh... I forgot a very good one: http://opensolaris.org/
You can also repair the computers by installing software that's free, technically superior and reasonably more secure than Windows.
You can download yours from: http://www.ubuntu.com/ http://www.debian.org/ http://freebsd.org/ and so on.
I agree with realsilly. L4t3r4lu5: you have to watch a launch first hand.
Actually, if more people did, manned space flight would be much more supported.
There are a couple good reasons to place it at the altitude it is. One is the higher it is the less cargo you can ferry there (you trade height for fuel mass). Another is space junk. If it is in a height that needs regular boosts to stay there, it also means junk that happens to be in that altitude will fall down to Earth, rendering that space relatively junk free. The station would need more bulletproofing if it were to go higher.
Only 19 launches and "near-perfect" does not inspire much confidence.
But, well... Since when strapping yourself to a rocket and ride it into orbit was expected to even sound safe?
Or, to put it in a simpler picture most of them will understand:
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com/imagens/us_and_them.gif/view
How exactly do you know what happens when you drop a warp core into a black hole? What is a warp core anyway?