You are right; and thats why making big solids is tricky. The shuttle SRBs are a notable exception of course - but being solids they were simple enough to send up without much testing.
If it still works, and we paid for it, then leave it as is.
The trouble is, it doesn't still work, and we haven't paid for it. In fact, those things were never the case. The Shuttle was a failure from the beginning because it always required much more extensive and expensive maintenance than it was designed to need.
In other words, keeping a Shuttle in orbit would be more trouble and expense than it's worth. If you want to do that sort of thing, do it with a Soyuz.
And the Geo Metro XFI, with an engine the same size as the one in the Smart, got 46 mpg about 15 years ago. And the Honda CRX HF got 45mpg with a 4 cylinder engine 20 years ago.
I don't think they're specifically looking for investment in oil and gas companies, this just happened to be one of their investments (I'm not saying that it's OK, but RMS can blow things way out of proportion).
Investing in general is one thing. Investing as a charity is completely different, because you'd expect that they'd do the due diligence to ensure that the investment wasn't completely negating the point of the charity!
Could I have your definition of broadband, please?... Relative to other countries, sure, the U.S. has much, much, MUCH slower internet.
My definition of "broadband" is "fast on an absolute scale." The excuse that "the U.S. is big and has low population density" is bullshit; at the very least we ought to have parity with, say, Hong Kong (or whichever of those other countries that has 50Mbit fiber) in large urban areas. But we don't have parity. (I should know; I live in Atlanta -- not the suburbs, the city proper -- and the best I can do is shitty Comcast cable.) Therefore, we don't have broadband.
The way I see it, the U.S. is [supposed to be] the technological leader of the world. Therefore, the definition of "broadband" ought to coincide with the fastest reasonably-priced residential Internet access worldwide, minus a little bit. I think 10Mbps, preferably in both directions, is enough to be considered "broadband" for the time being -- especially for the purpose of setting availability goals. Better to aim higher rather than lower, don't you think?
Redefine "broadband:" The Federal Communications Commission today defines "broadband" as an astonishingly low 200 kbps. This distorts federal policy and hamstrings efforts to broaden broadband access. Obama will define "broadband" for purposes of national policy at speeds demanded by 21st century business and communications.
i really do not get this whole idea that the US sucks because of lack of broad band adaptation.
The US doesn't suck because people choose not to get broadband, it sucks because they can't get it even if they want it.
I mean, I have broadband, and it's nice for what i do.
No, you almost certainly don't. Maybe you think you do, because you have cable or DSL, but those are too slow to count as broadband. The only real broadband in the US (not including business leased lines, of course) is Verizon's FIOS, and that's available in so few areas it might as well be mythical.
Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1
on
A Year of GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
Without the DRM and content agreements there is no TiVo as a business.
Why not? VCR makers didn't need any DRM or content agreements; I don't see how TiVo is any different!
I don't think they're waiting at all; I think they just haven't had time to accomplish it yet. Remember, AMD and ATI didn't merge that long ago.
Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1
on
A Year of GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
TiVo cannot do that because of DRM and various agreements with content producers.
Right, so then I've successfully made my point that it is the insistence on DRM and various agreements that are the problem, not the hardware.
Wether[sic] it is a restriction on the software or hardware side really doesn't matter.
Anti-GPLv3 FUDsters, such as that "Timothy Brownawell" fellow I originally replied to, seem to think it does matter, which is why I felt the need to refute his argument.
but can we PLEASE work on getting apps to run on more than just ONE core/processor for now?
Why?
The kind of parallelism needed for a few cores (coarse-grained task parallelism) is entirely different than the kind of parallelism needed for hundreds or thousands of cores (fine-grained data parallelism). Designing for a few cores won't do us a damn bit of good when we have hundreds or thousands.
Eventually the processors will take another big jump (having a thousand cores would qualify) and then everyone will want to do all this stuff on the CPU again, because a) it will be able to do it and b) you won't have to mess with two processors to get one job done.
I'm just waiting for ATI/AMD to stick a hypertransport controller on a Radeon and be done with it.
The average automobile has over 300 processors in it.
By that standard, so does your PC! Each ALU in your (superscalar) CPU, each cache controller in your CPU, the disk controllers on your hard drives, the 2^N cores in your GPU, the memory controller on your video card, the northbridge, the southbridge, various minor ones on other expansion cards, etc. There's probably even one in your mouse.
Here on Slashdot, you shouldn't expect anybody to even notice your screen name, let alone infer your gender from it. Remember, this is the Internet: men are men, women are men, and little girls are FBI agents.
Also, in English, "he" is the correct pronoun to use to refer to a singular person of unknown gender.
Eventually this can come back as a cost to society that the government (which is ultimately you and me) will have to shoulder.
You're right: I was about to advocate just cutting off Welfare and Medicare and letting the idiots die in the street, but then I realized we'd still have to pay to have the bodies disposed of.
Plumbing? Pretty much the worst that can happen is you flood your basement.
Nah, the worst that can happen is that you hook stuff up wrong in such a way that raw sewage backs up into the house or yard or something and somebody dies of E. Coli poisoning.
Slashdot Mirror
See also: Challenger.
The trouble is, it doesn't still work, and we haven't paid for it. In fact, those things were never the case. The Shuttle was a failure from the beginning because it always required much more extensive and expensive maintenance than it was designed to need.
In other words, keeping a Shuttle in orbit would be more trouble and expense than it's worth. If you want to do that sort of thing, do it with a Soyuz.
Did you know that you can link to a specific revision of any Wikipedia article? I suggest doing so in the future, to prevent this problem.
I think you misspelled "continue."
And the Geo Metro XFI, with an engine the same size as the one in the Smart, got 46 mpg about 15 years ago. And the Honda CRX HF got 45mpg with a 4 cylinder engine 20 years ago.
Investing in general is one thing. Investing as a charity is completely different, because you'd expect that they'd do the due diligence to ensure that the investment wasn't completely negating the point of the charity!
Holy cow, it's just like his strategy for software: break stuff so that you increase the market for fixes!
Between that and this, Gates really does sound evil!
Feel free to download the plans, modify it however you see fit, and fabricate the result!
My definition of "broadband" is "fast on an absolute scale." The excuse that "the U.S. is big and has low population density" is bullshit; at the very least we ought to have parity with, say, Hong Kong (or whichever of those other countries that has 50Mbit fiber) in large urban areas. But we don't have parity. (I should know; I live in Atlanta -- not the suburbs, the city proper -- and the best I can do is shitty Comcast cable.) Therefore, we don't have broadband.
The way I see it, the U.S. is [supposed to be] the technological leader of the world. Therefore, the definition of "broadband" ought to coincide with the fastest reasonably-priced residential Internet access worldwide, minus a little bit. I think 10Mbps, preferably in both directions, is enough to be considered "broadband" for the time being -- especially for the purpose of setting availability goals. Better to aim higher rather than lower, don't you think?
Interestingly enough, Obama wants to redefine the government's definition of broadband to be more in line with mine:
The US doesn't suck because people choose not to get broadband, it sucks because they can't get it even if they want it.
No, you almost certainly don't. Maybe you think you do, because you have cable or DSL, but those are too slow to count as broadband. The only real broadband in the US (not including business leased lines, of course) is Verizon's FIOS, and that's available in so few areas it might as well be mythical.
Why not? VCR makers didn't need any DRM or content agreements; I don't see how TiVo is any different!
I don't think they're waiting at all; I think they just haven't had time to accomplish it yet. Remember, AMD and ATI didn't merge that long ago.
Right, so then I've successfully made my point that it is the insistence on DRM and various agreements that are the problem, not the hardware.
Anti-GPLv3 FUDsters, such as that "Timothy Brownawell" fellow I originally replied to, seem to think it does matter, which is why I felt the need to refute his argument.
Why?
The kind of parallelism needed for a few cores (coarse-grained task parallelism) is entirely different than the kind of parallelism needed for hundreds or thousands of cores (fine-grained data parallelism). Designing for a few cores won't do us a damn bit of good when we have hundreds or thousands.
I'm just waiting for ATI/AMD to stick a hypertransport controller on a Radeon and be done with it.
By that standard, so does your PC! Each ALU in your (superscalar) CPU, each cache controller in your CPU, the disk controllers on your hard drives, the 2^N cores in your GPU, the memory controller on your video card, the northbridge, the southbridge, various minor ones on other expansion cards, etc. There's probably even one in your mouse.
Really? Neat! Could you cite your source for that for me?
No, I understood that. In fact, I think that was part of my point.
The other part of my point, however, is that that is a restriction on something other than the hardware.
Most people get insurance through their employer and can't afford it otherwise. They don't have any choice.
Why? It seems to me that landfills would be more concentrated and easier to mine than natural ores are!
Here on Slashdot, you shouldn't expect anybody to even notice your screen name, let alone infer your gender from it. Remember, this is the Internet: men are men, women are men, and little girls are FBI agents.
Also, in English, "he" is the correct pronoun to use to refer to a singular person of unknown gender.
You're right: I was about to advocate just cutting off Welfare and Medicare and letting the idiots die in the street, but then I realized we'd still have to pay to have the bodies disposed of.
Nah, the worst that can happen is that you hook stuff up wrong in such a way that raw sewage backs up into the house or yard or something and somebody dies of E. Coli poisoning.