AFAIK Apple removed the headphone jack with the excuse that it was too thick for their increasingly thin phones. Well that would have been as simple as replacing the 3.5mm plug with a 2.5mm plug.
I purchased a Nintendo Super NES Classic Edition and I use emulators regularly. Not only did the SNES CE have a more comfortable form factor BUT it was a way of giving back to the company which made the games in the first place. Nintendo also had not doing been all that well financially of late so I bought one despite personally loathing the company because of issues like this. I also bought a Raspberry Pi around the same time to emulate platforms and games for which emulation are not readily available. I could have simply used that instead of purchasing the SNES CE, which cost me QUITE a bit more, but I still got one.
Nintendo is a bit like the Disney of gaming really. All games need to be "family friendly" and any competition or fan works are meant to be crushed.
We really risk losing a couple of decades of cultural history due to this stupid legislation. Much like a lot of books from the XIXth century were lost forever because of the use of acid tree paper to print books. I regret that a lot of these sites closed. Take Mortal Kombat for example. I played it in the arcade with dual joysticks, you can only replicate that with a cabinet or MAME. If you go to some place like GoG.com you can only get the remarkably putrid PC port of the game. Why don't they just include MAME with the ROM files is beyond me. Other companies do that with DOSBox and PC data files. Yet this is not an obscure game! Good luck with replicating some of the more obscure titles if sites like these vanish.
Personally I think if software companies did not make the product available through their catalog for a set amount of years the copyright should simply lapse. Period.
This is the AI version of buzzword bingo, typically played by stupid HR departments, except this time it is outsourced. There is a reason by people go by connections. It is a way to know you are dealing with someone that is trustworthy.
I expect a thriving business of SEO like businesses popping up. All of a sudden the AI will signal an abundance of qualified laborers from India or the like.
Actually AFAIK the Russian Orlan spacesuit is still better than what NASA currently uses since it's faster to put on. But at least the most recent US space suits now also have a hard torso like the Orlan which makes them easier to manufacture. But these are EVA suits. Where NASA has a major disadvantage right now in flight suits but both SpaceX and Boeing have contracted private companies to design new generation flight suits for their capsules. So NASA does not need to do one damn thing there since that's been subcontracted.
As for the lunar exploration space suits there are several prototypes. But since there is neither a launch vehicle that can place astronauts directly on the lunar surface, or a capsule which can do that, or a lunar orbital architecture that can do that. I think that's putting the cart before the horse really.
What NASA and the Congress need is to re-evaluate a new lunar exploration architecture taking into account the new launch vehicles which did not exist back a decade ago when SLS was proposed like the Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, and soon the Bezos rockets. A single-launch architecture makes no sense with reusable rockets, they need to reconsider the launch architecture to use multiple launches and orbital way stations and depots. For the price of SLS, enough commercial flights could have been purchased, to put people on the lunar surface already and develop the necessary vehicles and payloads.
Europe does not build their own space suits and the Chinese have both a copy of the Russian Orlan EVA suit and the Russian Sokol flight suits and their own Chinese EVA suit design which is kind of a mix of Russian and US EVA spacesuit design.
The ECA variant is not "less capable" it is optimized for GEO satellites at higher orbits and has a LOX/LH2 powered upper stage. The ES variant is hypergolic powered so it's lower performance in terms of payload to higher orbits but it is capable of multiple restarts to insert satellites into multiple orbits. Had the ESC-B variant with the Vinci engine been introduced as supposed to that would have been LOX/LH2 with multiple restarts. i.e. high payload capable and capable of multiple orbit insertion. Interestingly one reason why it was cancelled, although the Vinci engine had already been developed, was because Soyuz was cheaper. Yet they had to end up using Ariane 5 in the end to launch Galileo anyway. I kinda of expected this to happen though.
Ariane 4 used to have low launch costs. But most customers who use the Ariane 5 right now do it mostly because of the high reliability of the rocket vs large Russian rockets like the Proton. Of course SpaceX has been snatching away that market from all the other operators.
You do know there are commercial Soyuz rocket cargo flights right? Arianespace is one of the operators. The manned version is more expensive for several reasons.
Soyuz uses a launch escape tower. It was developed so it could handle all the tasks necessary including going to the Moon if so required. The launch escape tower was even used in an incident on the launch pad and it worked as expected.
PS: If China did invade Taiwan, do you really think the US would go to war with China? At worst it would be a repeat of the Phoney War again. Both sides still would have a couple of years left to continue to rearm until the war escalated further. Now if China invaded Indochina, or the Philippines, or Korea, that might be a different question. Still the US might not bother themselves to respond militarily at least in the start. The question is does China need to do that? As it is they can trade for the resources they need right now and their military is still now fully upgraded. Only half their airplanes have been upgraded to 4th generation for example.
A Chinese General stated once that, in case of an US attack on China, they would retaliate by hitting the major US population centers with their nukes (unlike the Nork target map which basically showed naval and military targets). They have enough nukes to do that if they wanted to. Also, since they never did sign agreements with the US for bilateral inspections, like Russia does, the fact is no one knows the actual number of warheads or missiles the Chinese have. My estimation is by their number of regiments, units per regiment, warheads per missile, etc. By these estimates they have actually been substantially growing their nuclear arsenal while the US and Russia reduced theirs in the past after the Cold War. Russia has also been rebuilding theirs of late. It is know that the Chinese got gas centrifuge technology for decades now so they should have had plenty of time to stockpile U-235 over decades to make a lot of bombs economically. Supposedly they have hundreds of ICBMs which can target the US and recently they have been adapting MIRV technology to those (e.g. DF-31AG, DF-41). The Chinese likely have thousands of MRBMs (e.g. DF-21) which can hit all the major US allies in their neighborhood in Asia.
Their immediate objective is to invade Taiwan and for that they already have plenty of resources as it is. They have anti-ship ballistic missiles, an air force with hundreds of 4th generation aircraft (>400 Su-27 derivatives like the Su-30MKK, J-11, J-16, J-15, >300 J-10), at least two squadrons of 5th generation aircraft (J-20), supersonic anti-ship missiles, ballistic (hypersonic) anti-ship missiles, 4x Type 071 LPDs, with LCACs and amphibious IFVs/tanks comparable with the US San Antonio class in displacement, with more in construction. They also have over-the-horizon radar and an anti-air missile umbrella that can cover the entire island of Taiwan from the Chinese coast if need be. Then there is their continuously growing fleet of destroyers (like the Type 052C/D) : x15, and frigates (Type 054A) : 27x. In fact they even launched two 13kt cruisers to the water just two days ago (Type 055).
It's like saying the single engine F-35 costs more than the twin engine F-22 because the production hasn't ramped up yet. Look at historical prices and see what happened.
It makes it "easier" from an operations point of view. It's easier to ignite. But if there's an accident it can cause a large ecological disaster. The fuel is corrosive and toxic and if it bursts into flames (remember you only need to mix the oxidizer with the propellant. it's also hygroscopic which means it burns into contact with water or water vapor).
But the Proton rocket has like 6 large first stage engines, 4 second stage engines, 1 third stage engine, and another engine for the fourth stage. That's 12 engines total. Angara A5 has like 5 large first stage engines, 1 second stage engine, and 1 third stage engine. Like 7 engines total. Once production goes into full swing I doubt it will be more expensive given that it will likely have less parts total.
The Chinese and Westinghouse already designed the next generation of AP1000 for the Chinese market, which is called CAP1400, that one can generate 1.4GWe with plans for a 1.7GWe version in the future.
Two decades? That's the EPR reactor in Finland, which is a basket case. The South Koreans recently built some reactors in like 5 years. The Russians can also build them relatively quickly in like 7 years. Historically, back when nuclear reactors construction was in full swing it typically took like 4-5 years to build one.
Vogtle is being built by a private energy company consortium, with some state loans, but that's because the major issue with such large timescale projects is the loan rate variability and loan size can kill the project. Similar issues with hydroelectric.
Slashdot Mirror
Well it isn't $200 for sure. Not with California's property prices.
Well, that's why I've heard Intel still used VAX/VMS to run their factories until at least recently.
It's not just software it has its own specific sensor for it.
AFAIK Apple removed the headphone jack with the excuse that it was too thick for their increasingly thin phones. Well that would have been as simple as replacing the 3.5mm plug with a 2.5mm plug.
Honestly I have better things to do than carry lithium ion batteries on my hears:
https://www.engadget.com/2017/...
I think the next steps forward will come with flexible displays and improved printed circuit technologies or better circuit integration.
Many of these sites were also a community for discussing games. This way the community was basically lost.
That's a different issue in my perspective. That's kinda similar to trademark protection.
I purchased a Nintendo Super NES Classic Edition and I use emulators regularly. Not only did the SNES CE have a more comfortable form factor BUT it was a way of giving back to the company which made the games in the first place. Nintendo also had not doing been all that well financially of late so I bought one despite personally loathing the company because of issues like this. I also bought a Raspberry Pi around the same time to emulate platforms and games for which emulation are not readily available. I could have simply used that instead of purchasing the SNES CE, which cost me QUITE a bit more, but I still got one.
Nintendo is a bit like the Disney of gaming really. All games need to be "family friendly" and any competition or fan works are meant to be crushed.
We really risk losing a couple of decades of cultural history due to this stupid legislation. Much like a lot of books from the XIXth century were lost forever because of the use of acid tree paper to print books. I regret that a lot of these sites closed. Take Mortal Kombat for example. I played it in the arcade with dual joysticks, you can only replicate that with a cabinet or MAME. If you go to some place like GoG.com you can only get the remarkably putrid PC port of the game. Why don't they just include MAME with the ROM files is beyond me. Other companies do that with DOSBox and PC data files. Yet this is not an obscure game! Good luck with replicating some of the more obscure titles if sites like these vanish.
Personally I think if software companies did not make the product available through their catalog for a set amount of years the copyright should simply lapse. Period.
This is the AI version of buzzword bingo, typically played by stupid HR departments, except this time it is outsourced. There is a reason by people go by connections. It is a way to know you are dealing with someone that is trustworthy.
I expect a thriving business of SEO like businesses popping up. All of a sudden the AI will signal an abundance of qualified laborers from India or the like.
It depends on how the nuclear power plant is designed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Actually AFAIK the Russian Orlan spacesuit is still better than what NASA currently uses since it's faster to put on. But at least the most recent US space suits now also have a hard torso like the Orlan which makes them easier to manufacture. But these are EVA suits. Where NASA has a major disadvantage right now in flight suits but both SpaceX and Boeing have contracted private companies to design new generation flight suits for their capsules. So NASA does not need to do one damn thing there since that's been subcontracted.
As for the lunar exploration space suits there are several prototypes. But since there is neither a launch vehicle that can place astronauts directly on the lunar surface, or a capsule which can do that, or a lunar orbital architecture that can do that. I think that's putting the cart before the horse really.
What NASA and the Congress need is to re-evaluate a new lunar exploration architecture taking into account the new launch vehicles which did not exist back a decade ago when SLS was proposed like the Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, and soon the Bezos rockets. A single-launch architecture makes no sense with reusable rockets, they need to reconsider the launch architecture to use multiple launches and orbital way stations and depots. For the price of SLS, enough commercial flights could have been purchased, to put people on the lunar surface already and develop the necessary vehicles and payloads.
Europe does not build their own space suits and the Chinese have both a copy of the Russian Orlan EVA suit and the Russian Sokol flight suits and their own Chinese EVA suit design which is kind of a mix of Russian and US EVA spacesuit design.
That's bullshit. It was overblown. Name one of those NASA Muslim outreach missions.
The ECA variant is not "less capable" it is optimized for GEO satellites at higher orbits and has a LOX/LH2 powered upper stage. The ES variant is hypergolic powered so it's lower performance in terms of payload to higher orbits but it is capable of multiple restarts to insert satellites into multiple orbits. Had the ESC-B variant with the Vinci engine been introduced as supposed to that would have been LOX/LH2 with multiple restarts. i.e. high payload capable and capable of multiple orbit insertion. Interestingly one reason why it was cancelled, although the Vinci engine had already been developed, was because Soyuz was cheaper. Yet they had to end up using Ariane 5 in the end to launch Galileo anyway. I kinda of expected this to happen though.
Ariane 4 used to have low launch costs. But most customers who use the Ariane 5 right now do it mostly because of the high reliability of the rocket vs large Russian rockets like the Proton. Of course SpaceX has been snatching away that market from all the other operators.
I assume it was some clients who required more payload then they could safely recover (i.e. a huge satellite) or insisted on no reuse.
You do know there are commercial Soyuz rocket cargo flights right? Arianespace is one of the operators. The manned version is more expensive for several reasons.
Soyuz uses a launch escape tower. It was developed so it could handle all the tasks necessary including going to the Moon if so required. The launch escape tower was even used in an incident on the launch pad and it worked as expected.
What I read from the summary is that it isn't Apple spending the money. They are forcing their supplies to cough up the money instead.
PS: If China did invade Taiwan, do you really think the US would go to war with China? At worst it would be a repeat of the Phoney War again. Both sides still would have a couple of years left to continue to rearm until the war escalated further. Now if China invaded Indochina, or the Philippines, or Korea, that might be a different question. Still the US might not bother themselves to respond militarily at least in the start. The question is does China need to do that? As it is they can trade for the resources they need right now and their military is still now fully upgraded. Only half their airplanes have been upgraded to 4th generation for example.
A Chinese General stated once that, in case of an US attack on China, they would retaliate by hitting the major US population centers with their nukes (unlike the Nork target map which basically showed naval and military targets). They have enough nukes to do that if they wanted to. Also, since they never did sign agreements with the US for bilateral inspections, like Russia does, the fact is no one knows the actual number of warheads or missiles the Chinese have. My estimation is by their number of regiments, units per regiment, warheads per missile, etc. By these estimates they have actually been substantially growing their nuclear arsenal while the US and Russia reduced theirs in the past after the Cold War. Russia has also been rebuilding theirs of late. It is know that the Chinese got gas centrifuge technology for decades now so they should have had plenty of time to stockpile U-235 over decades to make a lot of bombs economically. Supposedly they have hundreds of ICBMs which can target the US and recently they have been adapting MIRV technology to those (e.g. DF-31AG, DF-41). The Chinese likely have thousands of MRBMs (e.g. DF-21) which can hit all the major US allies in their neighborhood in Asia.
Their immediate objective is to invade Taiwan and for that they already have plenty of resources as it is. They have anti-ship ballistic missiles, an air force with hundreds of 4th generation aircraft (>400 Su-27 derivatives like the Su-30MKK, J-11, J-16, J-15, >300 J-10), at least two squadrons of 5th generation aircraft (J-20), supersonic anti-ship missiles, ballistic (hypersonic) anti-ship missiles, 4x Type 071 LPDs, with LCACs and amphibious IFVs/tanks comparable with the US San Antonio class in displacement, with more in construction. They also have over-the-horizon radar and an anti-air missile umbrella that can cover the entire island of Taiwan from the Chinese coast if need be. Then there is their continuously growing fleet of destroyers (like the Type 052C/D) : x15, and frigates (Type 054A) : 27x. In fact they even launched two 13kt cruisers to the water just two days ago (Type 055).
It's like saying the single engine F-35 costs more than the twin engine F-22 because the production hasn't ramped up yet. Look at historical prices and see what happened.
It makes it "easier" from an operations point of view. It's easier to ignite. But if there's an accident it can cause a large ecological disaster. The fuel is corrosive and toxic and if it bursts into flames (remember you only need to mix the oxidizer with the propellant. it's also hygroscopic which means it burns into contact with water or water vapor).
But the Proton rocket has like 6 large first stage engines, 4 second stage engines, 1 third stage engine, and another engine for the fourth stage. That's 12 engines total. Angara A5 has like 5 large first stage engines, 1 second stage engine, and 1 third stage engine. Like 7 engines total. Once production goes into full swing I doubt it will be more expensive given that it will likely have less parts total.
The Chinese and Westinghouse already designed the next generation of AP1000 for the Chinese market, which is called CAP1400, that one can generate 1.4GWe with plans for a 1.7GWe version in the future.
Yes they still need to have pumps to top it off but they don't need to be as high power.
Two decades? That's the EPR reactor in Finland, which is a basket case. The South Koreans recently built some reactors in like 5 years. The Russians can also build them relatively quickly in like 7 years. Historically, back when nuclear reactors construction was in full swing it typically took like 4-5 years to build one.
Vogtle is being built by a private energy company consortium, with some state loans, but that's because the major issue with such large timescale projects is the loan rate variability and loan size can kill the project. Similar issues with hydroelectric.