You are right, but in a way it would not have mattered. I think we would have had a limited Apple-os to start - similar in spec to the first MACs. I remember running GEM on the first Amstrad PCs off floppies. But it was the idea, now really accepted by most modern O/Ss, of being transportable over many systems. Apple really missed the boat, and got bogged down in competing in a tough hardware market. Dont forget MS made thier cash from software, not hardware. The other mistake they made was not licensing thier hardware to clone builders at a bottom rate price..
There was actually a chopped down 8 bit version, the 68008. I dont know if it was about at the time of the PCdev. It was used in the Sinclair QL later. There was a 68K CPM too, later I believe - but not binary compatible of course. I just remember reading that early spec on the 68K and thinking how awesome it was, and how we could *never* use 16mb of RAM.. (the 68k only had 24 address lines)
Well the first part is not too far off what I was saying. The military needs of WW1 really pushed the science and engineering of flight forward, but flight remained incredibly expensive. In fact the first Atlantic flights (Alcock+Brown, Lindberg) had X-prize style rewards attatched. The point is that it took a competitive environment to bring prices down to an affordable level. Often the same companies develop Commercial and Military aircraft, so you will see a lot of cross-fertilisation of ideas..
The problem with Space is finding short-term financial reasons to do the low-orbit stuff - and that needs to be improved (CATS) before you can go to the more interesting places.
The Shuttle is no longer a useful craft - it just absorbs money, and the basic technology is outdated - I dont think the $3 billion spent this year, and next, is going to yeild anything useful at all. The X-Prize is an example of how prizes set for certain objectives could fund a far more efficient and effective program of commercial development. We need to actually see a much bigger range of different concepts and vehicles actually built and tried in real life - rather than just having NASA commission "Shuttle-2" and the monoculture that implies.
..to have had the Mac o/s on a PC in the late 80's, if you remember what a mess MS got into (whats new eh) with OS/2 & then the long delay before Win4.0/95.. I think it could have worked too, especially if it had some sort of DOS emulation, running win apps would have been less important. Mind you, the 486's were crappy compared to RISC, which did seem to be the future at the time.
Other wishes?
The Amiga O/S on the PC in the late 80's.. (with optional plug in vid board)
I brought one of the first books on 68000 asm in around 1980/81 - I wish the guys designing the first IBM PC had done the same!
Well you can take normal air-flight as an example. The Military (Air force) did a lot to improve designs, but it took private companies and innovators to open up the skys to all. Sure there are problems - regulatory bodies have to ensure fair trade practices, but its still better than none at all.
It could be the same with space - and Cheap Access To Space (CATS) is a critical step for so many other things we want to do up there, manned and unmanned. At the moment it costs way too much to shift payload into LEO - the Shuttle isnt even flying - $3 billion/year for 0 payload - and I am not convinced that NASA/Shuttle-2 will give us true CATS either.
The US should stop wasting money on the Shuttle tomorrow - graceful retire the old hardware & put in in a museum with other 60's/70's vintage hardware. NASA could then build a simple Soyuz type capsule to fit on one of the best available/reliable commercial rockets for now, and set up X-Prize style competitions to generate true cheap re-usable vehicles.
I knew a guy who would phone up his mates late at night, and hum a really annoying song down the phone. Sure enough, they would have the wretched tune running through theirs heads all the next day..
Not going to work, Im afraid. You can deflect the photons at an angle and get the force to steer left/right a bit, but never against the direction of the photon wind.
Your best bet is to turn around and use the light from the destination star to decelerate - if the destination is a binary, maybe some complex orbit would allow you to loop both stars until a slow speed is achieved.
I would guess both - I think the designers realise that there will be micro-meteor holes in the sail, also less particles will slow the sail down somewhat. A lot depends on the density of particles in interstellar regions, anyone got a more definative answer? I would guess that would be one reason we are travelling into interstellar space!
Better still, scrap the Shuttle altogether, go back to a simple soyuz style rocket/capsule system for now until we have a better LEO access reusable vehicle..
Thats ok, and the answer is yes - the laser will feel a
reaction. Photons of light actually have weight. From memory,
about 2 pounds of sunlight falls on Earth each day. Not much
weight, but a heck of a lot of energy.
So in space, where there is no friction, a Solar
sail can accelerate indefinately, but only in the direction
of the prevailing photon wind- to do it all with sun-power would
require huge sails, or you could use a smaller sail and
supplement it with drive from super-accurate laser power, maybe
from space, or the moon..
Alas you could not have the laser on board the craft, that is
like your fan-drives-the-sail-boat cartoon analogy..
Theoretically you could also have a light emmiter on board the
craft and drive it just by the reactive force from the light,
although it would have to be a mother-of-a-laser, and you are
back to carrying your fuel again..
Now, did I say they used the same principle? Thanks, I did RTFA.:-)
Laser driven Space Sails (ok not solar in this case, but light-driven, although they would prob use solar as well) use the momentum of the photons to push the craft forward - but you still need a damn powerful laser to do it effectively..
Laser driven space sails are one of the few feasable technologies we really have that could be used for sending probes interstellar distances in a viable time-scale.
The 2 concepts have the same sort of principle idea - if you dont have to carry fuel, a craft can keep aloft/accelerating for very long periods of time..
I suppose, in their view, they may not mind if it did. For a relatively small investment they have pumped up SCO stock, and have a (admittedly small) chance of aquiring the IP rights to a system, Linux, that could be worth $Millions/Billions in licences. Even if that was only a small % chance, they are calculating its worth a gamble for such a big prize..
The worse that could happen is that they fold, maybe less of a loss to these guys than you think..
Oh, what did Delaware, boys? Oh, what did Delaware? Oh, what did Delaware, boys? Oh, what did Delaware? Oh, what did Delaware, boys? Oh, what did Delaware? I ask you now as a personal friend, what did Delaware?
She wore her new Red hat, boys. She wore her new Red hat. She wore her new Red hat, boys. She wore her new Red hat. She wore her new Red hat, boys. She wore her new Red hat. I tell you now as a personal friend, she wore her new Red hat.
(Apologies to/.ers under the age of 5000 who dont know the song..:-)
The Wi-Fi Alliance says Wi-Fi networks are safe. The radio
waves in a Wi-Fi network use the same frequency as wireless home
phones, and have one-thirtieth the power of cordless phones, said
Grimm, the spokesman for the group
"No, impossible to fix a tile in-flight.." then "Well, ok, we will look into it.." then "Ah, we can use a $1 foam brush from the hardware store.."
Do you ever get the feeling the US is paying $600 million per shuttle launch to the wrong guys? How about opening up competition for a cheap reusable LEO vehicle to some other guys? The X-Prize style competition could be a way to go..
..what is probably the more significant link in
the article. Worry less about 1-2 phones exploding per year,
and more about the consequences 20 years down the line of putting a powerful microwave
transmitter up to your head - to quote from the linked text:
Voice-only devices are giving way to real heavy
Internet-ready devices with a lot more guts that, at least
theoretically, may not be that great to have right next to your
head, said Bryan Prohm, a wireless industry analyst at
market research firm Dataquest.
Slashdot Mirror
& only 1 rated >3 so far. Have /.ers used up the Worlds resources of overload/beowulf/soviet/profit jokes?
You are right, but in a way it would not have mattered. I think we would have had a limited Apple-os to start - similar in spec to the first MACs. I remember running GEM on the first Amstrad PCs off floppies. But it was the idea, now really accepted by most modern O/Ss, of being transportable over many systems. Apple really missed the boat, and got bogged down in competing in a tough hardware market. Dont forget MS made thier cash from software, not hardware. The other mistake they made was not licensing thier hardware to clone builders at a bottom rate price..
There was actually a chopped down 8 bit version, the 68008. I dont know if it was about at the time of the PCdev. It was used in the Sinclair QL later. There was a 68K CPM too, later I believe - but not binary compatible of course. I just remember reading that early spec on the 68K and thinking how awesome it was, and how we could *never* use 16mb of RAM.. (the 68k only had 24 address lines)
Well the first part is not too far off what I was saying. The military needs of WW1 really pushed the science and engineering of flight forward, but flight remained incredibly expensive. In fact the first Atlantic flights (Alcock+Brown, Lindberg) had X-prize style rewards attatched. The point is that it took a competitive environment to bring prices down to an affordable level. Often the same companies develop Commercial and Military aircraft, so you will see a lot of cross-fertilisation of ideas..
The problem with Space is finding short-term
financial reasons to do the low-orbit stuff - and that needs to be improved (CATS) before you can go to the more interesting places.
The Shuttle is no longer a useful craft - it just absorbs money, and the basic technology is outdated - I dont think the $3 billion spent this year, and next, is going to yeild anything useful at all. The X-Prize is an example of how prizes set for certain objectives could fund a far more efficient and effective program of commercial development. We need to actually see a much bigger range of different concepts and vehicles actually built and tried in real life - rather than just having NASA commission "Shuttle-2" and the monoculture that implies.
..to have had the Mac o/s on a PC in the late 80's, if you remember what a mess MS got into (whats new eh) with OS/2 & then the long delay before Win4.0/95.. I think it could have worked too, especially if it had some sort of DOS emulation, running win apps would have been less important. Mind you, the 486's were crappy compared to RISC, which did seem to be the future at the time.
Other wishes?
The Amiga O/S on the PC in the late 80's.. (with optional plug in vid board)
I brought one of the first books on 68000 asm in around 1980/81 - I wish the guys designing the first IBM PC had done the same!
..with Linux liners?
Well you can take normal air-flight as an example. The Military (Air force) did a lot to improve designs, but it took private companies and innovators to open up the skys to all. Sure there are problems - regulatory bodies have to ensure fair trade practices, but its still better than none at all.
It could be the same with space - and Cheap Access To Space (CATS) is a critical step for so many other things we want to do up there, manned and unmanned. At the moment it costs way too much to shift payload into LEO - the Shuttle isnt even flying - $3 billion/year for 0 payload - and I am not convinced that NASA/Shuttle-2 will give us true CATS either.
The US should stop wasting money on the Shuttle tomorrow - graceful retire the old hardware & put in in a museum with other 60's/70's vintage hardware. NASA could then build a simple Soyuz type capsule to fit on one of the best available/reliable commercial rockets for now, and set up X-Prize style competitions to generate true cheap re-usable vehicles.
HeHeHeHeHe..
I knew a guy who would phone up his mates late at night, and hum a really annoying song down the phone. Sure enough, they would have the wretched tune running through theirs heads all the next day..
Not going to work, Im afraid. You can deflect the photons at an angle and get the force to steer left/right a bit, but never against the direction of the photon wind.
:-)
Your best bet is to turn around and use the light from the destination star to decelerate - if the destination is a binary, maybe some complex orbit would allow you to loop both stars until a slow speed is achieved.
Otherwise it will be a very fast flyby..
I would guess both - I think the designers realise that there will be micro-meteor holes in the sail, also less particles will slow the sail down somewhat. A lot depends on the density of particles in interstellar regions, anyone got a more definative answer? I would guess that would be one reason we are travelling into interstellar space!
Better still, scrap the Shuttle altogether, go back to a simple soyuz style rocket/capsule system for now until we have a better LEO access reusable vehicle..
Thats ok, and the answer is yes - the laser will feel a reaction. Photons of light actually have weight. From memory, about 2 pounds of sunlight falls on Earth each day. Not much weight, but a heck of a lot of energy.
So in space, where there is no friction, a Solar sail can accelerate indefinately, but only in the direction of the prevailing photon wind- to do it all with sun-power would require huge sails, or you could use a smaller sail and supplement it with drive from super-accurate laser power, maybe from space, or the moon..
Alas you could not have the laser on board the craft, that is like your fan-drives-the-sail-boat cartoon analogy..
Theoretically you could also have a light emmiter on board the craft and drive it just by the reactive force from the light, although it would have to be a mother-of-a-laser, and you are back to carrying your fuel again..
Now, did I say they used the same principle? Thanks, I did RTFA. :-)
Laser driven Space Sails (ok not solar in this case, but light-driven, although they would prob use solar as well) use the momentum of the photons to push the craft forward - but you still need a damn powerful laser to do it effectively..
Laser driven space sails are one of the few feasable technologies we really have that could be used for sending probes interstellar distances in a viable time-scale.
The 2 concepts have the same sort of principle idea - if you dont have to carry fuel, a craft can keep aloft/accelerating for very long periods of time..
Solar sails in space next?
I suppose, in their view, they may not mind if it did. For a relatively small investment they have pumped up SCO stock, and have a (admittedly small) chance of aquiring the IP rights to a system, Linux, that could be worth $Millions/Billions in licences. Even if that was only a small % chance, they are calculating its worth a gamble for such a big prize..
The worse that could happen is that they fold, maybe less of a loss to these guys than you think..
Oh, what did Delaware, boys? Oh, what did Delaware?
/.ers under the age of 5000 who dont know the song.. :-)
Oh, what did Delaware, boys? Oh, what did Delaware?
Oh, what did Delaware, boys? Oh, what did Delaware?
I ask you now as a personal friend, what did Delaware?
She wore her new Red hat, boys. She wore her new Red hat.
She wore her new Red hat, boys. She wore her new Red hat.
She wore her new Red hat, boys. She wore her new Red hat.
I tell you now as a personal friend, she wore her new Red hat.
(Apologies to
The Wi-Fi Alliance says Wi-Fi networks are safe. The radio waves in a Wi-Fi network use the same frequency as wireless home phones, and have one-thirtieth the power of cordless phones, said Grimm, the spokesman for the group
Grimm? Sounds like a fairy-tale to me.. :-)
..so we started with
"No, impossible to fix a tile in-flight.."
then "Well, ok, we will look into it.."
then "Ah, we can use a $1 foam brush from the hardware store.."
Do you ever get the feeling the US is paying $600 million per shuttle launch to the wrong guys?
How about opening up competition for a cheap reusable LEO vehicle to some other guys? The X-Prize style competition could be a way to go..
..what is probably the more significant link in the article. Worry less about 1-2 phones exploding per year, and more about the consequences 20 years down the line of putting a powerful microwave transmitter up to your head - to quote from the linked text:
Voice-only devices are giving way to real heavy Internet-ready devices with a lot more guts that, at least theoretically, may not be that great to have right next to your head, said Bryan Prohm, a wireless industry analyst at market research firm Dataquest.
..then we can sue them under bioterrorism laws..
So we can say
if (humour > troll + flamebait)
mod ++;
else
mod --;
1: Welcome our beowulf cluster in soviet russia overlords,
2: but can they run Linux???
3: Profit!!!
Serious point - what is the origin of the beowulf/soviet/overlord/profit!!/etc jokes? Anyone done an FAQ? Anyone care?
..Microsoft, after the latest virus attack, have declared an instability melt..
Yeh, have you seen Pong?
..pix of the crash test dummies when they smash the laptops into walls at 40 mph..