Because webOS was great compared to the crap small device OSes at the time. Namely PalmOS, WinCE, or EPOC/Symbian.
PalmOS had like no memory protection it was like MS-DOS. WinCE had several UI limitations. While EPOC/Symbian had a really quirky system API no one liked to write code for.
Now with iOS and Android it isn't as much of a big deal.
A smartphone is a general purpose computing device just like a PC. The form factor doesn't matter. It's not like computers had keyboards or screens to begin with. Initially the were programmed with toggle switches and lights. Then keyboards and printers. Then keyboards and monitors.
Well Toyota did make the Prius so they helped the segment get started. I would say the most meaningful vehicles along the way were probably the Toyota Prius, Nissan Leaf, and now the Chevrolet Bolt and the Tesla Model S.
None of which has anything to do with reducing CO2 emissions. A lot of us think it's perfectly fine to reduce NOx (acid rain), CO (cardiovascular issues), etc without reducing CO2.
Just like I said above, you put liquid propellant beneath the skin of the vehicle, to absorb the heat on the skin of the vehicle, and dumb it with the exhaust for more speed. It's similar to some regenerative engine nozzles.
It does not take a genius to recognize film dirt and scratches. Look at the XB-70 videos for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Vertical scratches and specs of dirt on film. If it was horizontal white noise scratches then it would have been tape. The video also seems to have heavy amounts of dithering in it possibly from the video encoding filter. Magnify the video to full screen and when there is movement you will see the horizontal line band tearing typical of interlaced video. So, like the other guy said above, this was film converted to NTSC video, encoded with VP9 in.webm (at least the version I'm looking at).
Yes I get paid to work on video as a secondary occupation. I've shot and edited commercials. I've also converted old video on request for clients. Quite possibly a large part of the original image was even cut in the transfer as most film is not 4:3 like that video.
It is nice that they took the trouble to put these up. But 480p? Plus it looks like the source is interlaced and they didn't merge the fields properly. Considering that most of these look like old film reels couldn't NASA clean them up and get us some high definition videos?
I guess they don't pay the NASA archival guys nearly enough.
It's because in central and southern Spain it can often be like 40C around noon. So back when people worked outdoors in farming and the like it made sense to have an extended break and only resume work when it became cooler again. Now that people do office work in air conditioned buildings it doesn't make sense anymore.
They've been working on these for a long time. Still have kinks on them. Initially the work in the 1980s was with chemical lasers but because those are hard to handle, now they're using solid state fiber lasers. Why didn't they use those before? Poor efficiency meant a regular ship couldn't power one with any decent output. Even here notice they're talking about drones. I remember hearing years ago that you need at least a 100 kW laser to have something approaching battlefield capability and 1 MW would be better. This one is 30 kW...
There are several ways of doing it. Remember that a reentering spacecraft also needs to withstand a lot of friction and heating. The reflective surface does not need to reflect the entire spectrum just the wavelength(s) of the laser. If it's a liquid fueled rocket (the Russians have some of those like the R-36) you can store propellant under the skin of the vehicle and push the heated propellant out through the exhaust. You can also add an ablative coating to the missile similar to a reentry TPS.
Look at Britain for an example of that. No real auto manufacturers left. Except for a couple of token plants owned by foreign companies. Which are there because cars have the steering wheel and gas exhaust on the opposite side of nearly everywhere else. Still even Poland has more car factories than Britain. Britain basically survives on North Sea oil and stock market swindles.
Well I'm exaggerating a bit. Rolls Royce still manufactures aircraft engines. Thankfully the Conservative government back in 1971 was smart enough to save the company from bankruptcy. Afterwards RR was able to produce the RB211 aircraft engine. Thank God Thatcher wasn't the PM back then or else even RR wouldn't be left anymore.
To a large degree these differences have been shrinking. Wages have risen in the Chinese coastal areas and the pollution standards in China have been becoming increasingly more tight. The main issue I think is lack of inspections in China. Plus the fact that these factories have more economies of scale because the production is concentrated there. I doubt it would be much more expensive if Microsoft moved the line to the USA. Other companies have been able to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
Which Windows 7 fuckups? Windows 7 was pretty decent actually. Windows 8 was the horrible one with the forced transition to that touch screen GUI.
Because webOS was great compared to the crap small device OSes at the time. Namely PalmOS, WinCE, or EPOC/Symbian.
PalmOS had like no memory protection it was like MS-DOS. WinCE had several UI limitations. While EPOC/Symbian had a really quirky system API no one liked to write code for.
Now with iOS and Android it isn't as much of a big deal.
A smartphone is a general purpose computing device just like a PC. The form factor doesn't matter. It's not like computers had keyboards or screens to begin with. Initially the were programmed with toggle switches and lights. Then keyboards and printers. Then keyboards and monitors.
It should not be a problem. Especially not with two working parents. There used to a time where even one working parent was enough.
This clearly shows, to me, that the California housing market and transportation infrastructure is out of whack.
Well Toyota did make the Prius so they helped the segment get started. I would say the most meaningful vehicles along the way were probably the Toyota Prius, Nissan Leaf, and now the Chevrolet Bolt and the Tesla Model S.
I suspected you were joking on the second sentence but that last one really took the cake. :-)
Are you a retard or do you only play one in Slashdot?
There are two things they can do. Ultra-low-sulfur diesel and the improved combustion scheme (i.e. the first option the parent posted talked about).
Maybe they stopped selling diesels in the USA. But not in Europe. I bought one here around that time.
None of which has anything to do with reducing CO2 emissions. A lot of us think it's perfectly fine to reduce NOx (acid rain), CO (cardiovascular issues), etc without reducing CO2.
It's still no excuse not to deinterlace the videos properly before uploading them as 480p.
So you're telling me no one preserved the original film? I don't think so.
s/dumb/dump/g
Just like I said above, you put liquid propellant beneath the skin of the vehicle, to absorb the heat on the skin of the vehicle, and dumb it with the exhaust for more speed. It's similar to some regenerative engine nozzles.
It does not take a genius to recognize film dirt and scratches. Look at the XB-70 videos for example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Vertical scratches and specs of dirt on film. If it was horizontal white noise scratches then it would have been tape. The video also seems to have heavy amounts of dithering in it possibly from the video encoding filter. Magnify the video to full screen and when there is movement you will see the horizontal line band tearing typical of interlaced video. So, like the other guy said above, this was film converted to NTSC video, encoded with VP9 in .webm (at least the version I'm looking at).
Yes I get paid to work on video as a secondary occupation. I've shot and edited commercials. I've also converted old video on request for clients.
Quite possibly a large part of the original image was even cut in the transfer as most film is not 4:3 like that video.
It is nice that they took the trouble to put these up. But 480p? Plus it looks like the source is interlaced and they didn't merge the fields properly. Considering that most of these look like old film reels couldn't NASA clean them up and get us some high definition videos?
I guess they don't pay the NASA archival guys nearly enough.
Bingo.
Desert animals don't have artificial light.
It's because in central and southern Spain it can often be like 40C around noon. So back when people worked outdoors in farming and the like it made sense to have an extended break and only resume work when it became cooler again. Now that people do office work in air conditioned buildings it doesn't make sense anymore.
If you care about bandwidth that much just use Opus.
https://youtu.be/vjFG-4Ge668?t...
They've been working on these for a long time. Still have kinks on them.
Initially the work in the 1980s was with chemical lasers but because those are hard to handle, now they're using solid state fiber lasers. Why didn't they use those before? Poor efficiency meant a regular ship couldn't power one with any decent output. Even here notice they're talking about drones.
I remember hearing years ago that you need at least a 100 kW laser to have something approaching battlefield capability and 1 MW would be better. This one is 30 kW...
There are several ways of doing it. Remember that a reentering spacecraft also needs to withstand a lot of friction and heating. The reflective surface does not need to reflect the entire spectrum just the wavelength(s) of the laser. If it's a liquid fueled rocket (the Russians have some of those like the R-36) you can store propellant under the skin of the vehicle and push the heated propellant out through the exhaust. You can also add an ablative coating to the missile similar to a reentry TPS.
Look at Britain for an example of that. No real auto manufacturers left. Except for a couple of token plants owned by foreign companies. Which are there because cars have the steering wheel and gas exhaust on the opposite side of nearly everywhere else. Still even Poland has more car factories than Britain. Britain basically survives on North Sea oil and stock market swindles.
Well I'm exaggerating a bit. Rolls Royce still manufactures aircraft engines. Thankfully the Conservative government back in 1971 was smart enough to save the company from bankruptcy. Afterwards RR was able to produce the RB211 aircraft engine. Thank God Thatcher wasn't the PM back then or else even RR wouldn't be left anymore.
To a large degree these differences have been shrinking. Wages have risen in the Chinese coastal areas and the pollution standards in China have been becoming increasingly more tight. The main issue I think is lack of inspections in China. Plus the fact that these factories have more economies of scale because the production is concentrated there. I doubt it would be much more expensive if Microsoft moved the line to the USA. Other companies have been able to do it.