Hmm. Apparently capitalist governments are even more effective at sinking funds into projects like that, because its widely recognized that US beat the Soviets in the early space race.
Of course, for some inexplicable reason US didnt respond to Soviet challenge by leveraging the power of free markets, private industry and entrepreneurial spirit. They decided to beat massive Soviet state run design bureaus backed by their military industry complex by establishing their own massive state run design bureau backed by their military industrial complex. They even bagged members of the same team of germans as their design leads !
Funnily enough, Russians are now launching the lions share of commercial space payloads, whereas the recent SpaceX Falcon 9 first comsat launch was the first in years for US.
Im sure you wont mind valet taking you ferrari for a spin - its just sitting there. Wolowitz doing rover donuts in martian dunes would also be a total comedy.
There is also the notion of "long tail" investments. Many technology companies make a conscious choice to invest, or not to invest in long tail. The idea is that out of that long tail, you may some day get a breakthrough.
Re:Nice, impressive achievement
on
Opus 1.1 Released
·
· Score: 3, Informative
You didnt get it - the speech codecs encode data at 10 millisecond or 20 millisecond intervals, depending. Sometimes 50-60 millisecond multiframe packets. For the two cores to work asynchronously, you have to hand over the minimum of one frame, for efficiency's sake preferrably more. So minimum incurred latency is at least one frame or 10 milliseconds - normally more in offloads.
Surprising that Google and Amazon havent snapped one up or built their own streaming services already.
Re:Nice, impressive achievement
on
Opus 1.1 Released
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Also note - any sort of offload will add some latency, because you have to have a buffer between DSP and main CPU for them to run asynchronously. That latency is often undesireable.
Re:Nice, impressive achievement
on
Opus 1.1 Released
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The thing about audio encode/decode is that its relatively low MIPS - with todays mobile CPUs its almost not worth the complexity to offload it to DSP. During a call your CPU has to stay awake anyway and drain battery, there is very little wattage saving moving it to DSP. It would only make sense if you are dealing with multiple, and i mean more than 2 simultaneous encoded streams ( decode is cheap ). The story was different a few years ago when the dominant CPU was ARM9 running in a 150-200 mhz range, where audio codec easily chewed up 50% or more available MIPS.
Video encoding is a whole different matter of course.
I have done a lot of embedded system design, coding and integration in my life - baremetal, RTOS, bigger combined systems with RTOS and desktop os collaborating etc.
but none of it represents any technological incapacity.
Exactly in the same way as any middle class family man always knows he could buy a Porsche. Except that he does like his two SUVs in the family, has two kids college funds and a very nice house to take care of, and he is a responsible, sane man. So he is quietly and slightly envious of his yuppie neighbor, but he finds comfort in that he _knows_ he can buy the Porsche when he wants to. Whenever that happens.
The amount we spend on space is a tiny fraction of government spending.
If you take the non-defense discretionary spending slice, its actually not tiny at all. In fact, compared to budgets of NIH or NSF for example, NASA budget is disproportionally large.
Actually the Apollo missions did deploy a few UV telescopes on the lunar surface. They weren't much better than Earth-orbit telescopes, and so noone has bothered since.
See the link i posted.
The LUT instrument is the first long-term observatory to be deployed on the Moon. The Apollo 16 mission brought a far-UV telescope to the Moon for short-term observations, collecting nearly 200 images of quality that is considered very poor by today’s standards.
Telescopes are not really instruments for a short-term observation, or their utility and potential for discovery is severely limited.
The lack of raw data (and opacity of how it is processed) means that it is hard to compare to other sources, and belies any claim to actual scientific motivation. Chinese space program has become progressively more open over the last years, the live coverage and the amount of detail released in conference papers about Chang'e is unprecedented. They have also extended an open invitation to every space scientist for collaboration ( which US will ignore due to politics ).
We'll see if and how much data they will provide in the open - but no , other players do not often release raw data from instruments either until the researchers have had time to publish their papers or even years later.
If it were curiosity they would be doing something new
They are doing something new. They have scientific instruments on that mission that have never been used on lunar surface before, enabling completely new discoveries. See other links in the thread here. Chang'e-3 ( just as its predecessors ) is both a technology development mission, but also a scientific mission. Parts of their technology are same old and even based on previous Russian tech ( RHUs ) , parts are completely new. The science they will be doing will be completely new.
It is much more challenging to do tele-operated rovers on Mars
Nobody disputed that. A rover on the moon however is a different thing than a rover on the Mars. First, its on an entirely different celestial body - hey, there are scientific discoveries there, and potential for development. Second, teleoperated rover on the moon will have substantially different capabilities compared to martian ones - instead of 10 minute signal lag, you have 1-2 seconds, and can actually do things interactively.
A rover on mars and a rover on moon are different things and one is not "more or less" than another. US, or "west", have done one, but not the other.
And before you jump back with "but we had men there" - again, men on the moon are a different capability than having a long lasting rover there. Chang'e-3 mission is designed for 3 months, and it will carry out continuous observations with its instruments. Thats a tall order for any human crew for a long time to come.
are playing catch up in the space race, they are catching up pretty quickly.
Chang'e-3 is not playing catch up - its doing many things that "west" has never done. First, only two space agencies have sent probes to land on lunar surfacce before. US never sent a teleoperated rover. Russians did, but 40 years ago with much older set of instruments.
It also carries multiple scientific instruments that have never been used on the lunar surface before ( obviously, because it has been 37 years since anyone bothered to go there ) . Namely, it has a radar underneath it that is intended to scan deep under the surface - this has never been done before. Second, it carries a telescope, which will for the first ever telescope landed on another planetary body.
Nothing. They are completely random marketing labels, and often designed to be misleading. So the commenter above has no clue. This is not T-34 to T-54 "new tank is better than old tank" series here.
If graphics chip marketing guys would have had their say made soviet tanks then T-34 would have been something like CrossFire DUAL 54200 Extreme Edition and T-54 something like 6700 HDD RXX 2GB Edition.
My C++ compiler does not compile signal: or slot: tokens. Qt is not C++ in the same way as Microsoft COM is not C++, even though its mostly built with C++ and MIDL generator spits out C++ boilerplate as an option.
The U.S. saw individual freedom as their biggest selling point, so they tried to label "individual freedom" on everything. And everything the U.S: was against was labeled "socialist" or "communist", completely independent of any normal definition of socialism or communism or even individual freedom.
Only orthogonally related, but something that i have found amusing forever. When Soviets embarked on a moon race, they did so with a central design bureau controlled state socialist approach, leveraging their military industrial complex.
Somewhat unsurprisingly, the response by US of A was NOT to leverage the power of free enterprise to conquer space. Instead, they established their own massive central design bureau, employing a state socialist approach leveraging their military industrial complex. Irony that has escaped historians for a while now.
After the USSR imploded, their space industry had to reinvent themselves and they have the majority share of commercial space launch market now - they became capitalist.
US of A stayed the course and is still employing tens of thousands civil servants and contractors in a "space program" without any articulated economic benefit or much direct applications. The slice of commercial space launch market served by US launchers is close to zero.
There are plenty of modern air-air heat pumps around that function down to -25deg celsius. Look around anywhere in scandinavian countries. But then, air-air pumps are a pretty bad investment anyway for saving on energy costs, most houses will install ground source heat pumps nowadays.
Generally, if you want to see actually decent modern energy efficient heating technology go visit Sweden, Norway or Finland.
You lose your fingerprint data every time you step out of your private quarters, unless you wear latex gloves every all day. Copying and faking your fingerprints costs about $10
Fingerprints are the most easily collected biometric information on you - using them for any sort of authentication is stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm. Apparently capitalist governments are even more effective at sinking funds into projects like that, because its widely recognized that US beat the Soviets in the early space race.
Of course, for some inexplicable reason US didnt respond to Soviet challenge by leveraging the power of free markets, private industry and entrepreneurial spirit. They decided to beat massive Soviet state run design bureaus backed by their military industry complex by establishing their own massive state run design bureau backed by their military industrial complex. They even bagged members of the same team of germans as their design leads !
Funnily enough, Russians are now launching the lions share of commercial space payloads, whereas the recent SpaceX Falcon 9 first comsat launch was the first in years for US.
Im sure you wont mind valet taking you ferrari for a spin - its just sitting there. Wolowitz doing rover donuts in martian dunes would also be a total comedy.
And, who exactly funds "science" like this.
There is also the notion of "long tail" investments. Many technology companies make a conscious choice to invest, or not to invest in long tail. The idea is that out of that long tail, you may some day get a breakthrough.
You didnt get it - the speech codecs encode data at 10 millisecond or 20 millisecond intervals, depending. Sometimes 50-60 millisecond multiframe packets. For the two cores to work asynchronously, you have to hand over the minimum of one frame, for efficiency's sake preferrably more. So minimum incurred latency is at least one frame or 10 milliseconds - normally more in offloads.
Surprising that Google and Amazon havent snapped one up or built their own streaming services already.
Also note - any sort of offload will add some latency, because you have to have a buffer between DSP and main CPU for them to run asynchronously. That latency is often undesireable.
The thing about audio encode/decode is that its relatively low MIPS - with todays mobile CPUs its almost not worth the complexity to offload it to DSP. During a call your CPU has to stay awake anyway and drain battery, there is very little wattage saving moving it to DSP. It would only make sense if you are dealing with multiple, and i mean more than 2 simultaneous encoded streams ( decode is cheap ). The story was different a few years ago when the dominant CPU was ARM9 running in a 150-200 mhz range, where audio codec easily chewed up 50% or more available MIPS.
Video encoding is a whole different matter of course.
I have done a lot of embedded system design, coding and integration in my life - baremetal, RTOS, bigger combined systems with RTOS and desktop os collaborating etc.
Read this
http://it.slashdot.org/story/07/02/25/2038217/software-bug-halts-f-22-flight
but none of it represents any technological incapacity.
Exactly in the same way as any middle class family man always knows he could buy a Porsche. Except that he does like his two SUVs in the family, has two kids college funds and a very nice house to take care of, and he is a responsible, sane man. So he is quietly and slightly envious of his yuppie neighbor, but he finds comfort in that he _knows_ he can buy the Porsche when he wants to. Whenever that happens.
The amount we spend on space is a tiny fraction of government spending.
If you take the non-defense discretionary spending slice, its actually not tiny at all. In fact, compared to budgets of NIH or NSF for example, NASA budget is disproportionally large.
Actually the Apollo missions did deploy a few UV telescopes on the lunar surface. They weren't much better than Earth-orbit telescopes, and so noone has bothered since.
See the link i posted.
The LUT instrument is the first long-term observatory to be deployed on the Moon. The Apollo 16 mission brought a far-UV telescope to the Moon for short-term observations, collecting nearly 200 images of quality that is considered very poor by today’s standards.
Telescopes are not really instruments for a short-term observation, or their utility and potential for discovery is severely limited.
The lack of raw data (and opacity of how it is processed) means that it is hard to compare to other sources, and belies any claim to actual scientific motivation.
Chinese space program has become progressively more open over the last years, the live coverage and the amount of detail released in conference papers about Chang'e is unprecedented. They have also extended an open invitation to every space scientist for collaboration ( which US will ignore due to politics ).
We'll see if and how much data they will provide in the open - but no , other players do not often release raw data from instruments either until the researchers have had time to publish their papers or even years later.
If it were curiosity they would be doing something new
They are doing something new. They have scientific instruments on that mission that have never been used on lunar surface before, enabling completely new discoveries. See other links in the thread here.
Chang'e-3 ( just as its predecessors ) is both a technology development mission, but also a scientific mission. Parts of their technology are same old and even based on previous Russian tech ( RHUs ) , parts are completely new. The science they will be doing will be completely new.
It is much more challenging to do tele-operated rovers on Mars
Nobody disputed that. A rover on the moon however is a different thing than a rover on the Mars. First, its on an entirely different celestial body - hey, there are scientific discoveries there, and potential for development. Second, teleoperated rover on the moon will have substantially different capabilities compared to martian ones - instead of 10 minute signal lag, you have 1-2 seconds, and can actually do things interactively.
A rover on mars and a rover on moon are different things and one is not "more or less" than another. US, or "west", have done one, but not the other.
And before you jump back with "but we had men there" - again, men on the moon are a different capability than having a long lasting rover there. Chang'e-3 mission is designed for 3 months, and it will carry out continuous observations with its instruments. Thats a tall order for any human crew for a long time to come.
That won't happen until the Chinese do something we haven't done before,
"West" has never sent a teleoperated rover to the moon. Russians did, 40 years ago.
are playing catch up in the space race, they are catching up pretty quickly.
Chang'e-3 is not playing catch up - its doing many things that "west" has never done. First, only two space agencies have sent probes to land on lunar surfacce before. US never sent a teleoperated rover. Russians did, but 40 years ago with much older set of instruments.
It also carries multiple scientific instruments that have never been used on the lunar surface before ( obviously, because it has been 37 years since anyone bothered to go there ) . Namely, it has a radar underneath it that is intended to scan deep under the surface - this has never been done before. Second, it carries a telescope, which will for the first ever telescope landed on another planetary body.
See here for details : http://www.spaceflight101.com/change-3.html
Nothing. They are completely random marketing labels, and often designed to be misleading. So the commenter above has no clue. This is not T-34 to T-54 "new tank is better than old tank" series here.
If graphics chip marketing guys would have had their say made soviet tanks then T-34 would have been something like CrossFire DUAL 54200 Extreme Edition and T-54 something like 6700 HDD RXX 2GB Edition.
Or you could go Convergence and use a distributed, agile trust model.
My C++ compiler does not compile signal: or slot: tokens. Qt is not C++ in the same way as Microsoft COM is not C++, even though its mostly built with C++ and MIDL generator spits out C++ boilerplate as an option.
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/169348-nasa-activates-622-mbps-laser-link-between-the-earth-and-moon
With the lazors on it, and 600 meg downlink these terabytes would fill up in no time.
The longer term plan for the LLCD is to use communications satellites to bounce transmissions between ground stations at 1.25 gigabits per second.
In other news, server lag from lunar orbit will remain a bitch for the foreseeable future.
And Qt is not really C++ as it relies on MOC.
Its about time for a GUI toolkit that actually fully leverages what C++11 has to offer.
The U.S. saw individual freedom as their biggest selling point, so they tried to label "individual freedom" on everything. And everything the U.S: was against was labeled "socialist" or "communist", completely independent of any normal definition of socialism or communism or even individual freedom.
Only orthogonally related, but something that i have found amusing forever. When Soviets embarked on a moon race, they did so with a central design bureau controlled state socialist approach, leveraging their military industrial complex.
Somewhat unsurprisingly, the response by US of A was NOT to leverage the power of free enterprise to conquer space. Instead, they established their own massive central design bureau, employing a state socialist approach leveraging their military industrial complex. Irony that has escaped historians for a while now.
After the USSR imploded, their space industry had to reinvent themselves and they have the majority share of commercial space launch market now - they became capitalist. US of A stayed the course and is still employing tens of thousands civil servants and contractors in a "space program" without any articulated economic benefit or much direct applications. The slice of commercial space launch market served by US launchers is close to zero.
There are plenty of modern air-air heat pumps around that function down to -25deg celsius. Look around anywhere in scandinavian countries. But then, air-air pumps are a pretty bad investment anyway for saving on energy costs, most houses will install ground source heat pumps nowadays. Generally, if you want to see actually decent modern energy efficient heating technology go visit Sweden, Norway or Finland.
You lose your fingerprint data every time you step out of your private quarters, unless you wear latex gloves every all day. Copying and faking your fingerprints costs about $10 Fingerprints are the most easily collected biometric information on you - using them for any sort of authentication is stupid.
Betteridge's law