...and the cycle of creating future adherents can continue.
(NE US is worst with this? And compared with one of the states of, more or less, Midwest? (which seems like one of the strongholds, a bit) There's this one mob after all...)
Yeah, yeah, you will always have the rights & means to shutdown any rocket launch, heh...
You underestimate what millions of objects on erratic orbits would do. And it doeasn't have to be strictly metal ball bearings...or not ball bearing at all. Might as well be some fairly undetectable material, it doesn't matter - at those impact speeds, mass is the only thing that matters, any solid matter behaving like liquid anyway. Well, and this one type of spacecraft might have a chance at escaping, sometimes, quickly wasting practically all its fuel to do so; well, mission accomplished.
But that would not make it more "real spaceship"; just another contribution to the immense waste of US defense (nice newspeak) industry.
And it makes space warfare nowhere near practical. Weaponising LEO is moronic. At first sight of it, any entity which thinks it can "lose" will simply launch few dumb rockets with millions of ball bearings, triggering Kessler syndrome.
I see, so instead of simply lying fiber and dealing with last mile how is appropriate for given area...you would like to see "wireless fiber", with lasers travelling through the air (coordinated in some magical way between moving users (going inside is useless, everybody can get used to little rain, snow and cold) and satellites), and all this at nice a cost of, say, trillions of dollars.
What? Somebody still believes the fairytale that satellite access can be better & cheaper (and less wasteful...) from cables and cellular towers? O_o
In case you didn't notice, the business plan for Iridium was: - go in deep debt building ridiculously overpriced communication network, valuable to few customers with much influence (military) - go bankrupt - debts dissapear - rely on profits from said customers with much influence
Plus Iridium orbit is not much higher than this thing does now; 100 vs 70 satelllites also doesn't make much difference.
Gliders don't use their wings to counteract the aerodynamic resistance, quite the contrary (somewhat; directed in a specific way). Fall all the time, and are way below the Karman line.
Shuttle can have only short mission because it depends on fuel cells simply for powering ("keeping alive", up there) its systems; actually, it has a possibility to "steal" this power from ISS and prolong it's mission...a bit.
But several months alone is nowhere near impressive. Almost every damn spacecraft did at least that, "spacecraft"/"spaceship" not being somehow more real if it looks like the popular depiction of "spaceplane" - the latter (and hence X-37B) are actually very poor all around "real spaceships". Built primarily with atmospheric phase of the flight in mind; which might make sense for military LEO vehicle, and not much else.
BTW it's probably largely due to carriers / consumers, not quite "Mobile Phone Makers Marketing Departments decided", at least not completelly. For the mentioned example of Nokia - some quite recent Symbian smartphones had a version without camera; E50 and E51 certainly, also few other from that gen; there might be still some in the current lineup. As well as all present S30 devices (they are a total low-end), and small part of recent S40.
But in some parts of the world carriers simply don't...carry those variants.
Further, there haven't been a large number of Symbian-based smartphones (in the U.S, that is; I'm not sure of other areas of the world)
...where does one start with something like this...
Maybe just...look at his list (or, at the least, the table at the bottom). "Phones in boldface indicates that the phone is a Symbian-powered smartphone". Or when looking just at the table - every N-Gage, N & E-series device, most Communicators, most of C & X-series; plus many from "numeric series". Don't think about the US as anything but a very atypical market.
Symbian, for all practical purposes, deals strictly with smartphones. Sure, there's not-so-quite-open Japanese MOAP(S); or Ericsson R380, the first device sold as "smartphone" 10 years ago...a device which really wasn't one (closed). But when talking about Symbian in this part of the world, and druing most of last decade, we don't really mean those...
Perhaps you're confusing S40, which consitutes majority of Nokia phones sold, as a Symbian derivative. But's isn't one - S40 is not Symbian. It uses different "OS", internal to Nokia.
Counting Symbian as a true smartphone player is not generous, it's factually correct - it has half of the "smartphone" market (even though it is less than 20% of what Nokia sells; but that only tells about how huge Nokia is)
How about a 720p or 1080p test with a large group of birds flying over a body of water, reflection visible.
You seem to be lost.
Let me help you with a link: http://emoforum.org/ (disclaimer to general/. population: this was the first result from googling, don't blame me if opening it will kick you out of your job)
However fun this always looks...not that practical, I guess. Not many applications which would justify not only the trouble (and additional expense / space consumed), but also actually standing inside. Those uses which do seem nice should be, well, nice enough with 3 screens filling most of FOV while you're sitting; basically a pimped-up three monitor thing. Requiring much less space, with quick setup in small room, easy to do with three cheap front projectors.
But you still need lots of additional energy for a "hop" of appreciable lenght; pointing your nose up is not enough. Lots of additions / modifications...not that far from "first stage to orbit" that I mentioned. Plus quite small and expensive.
And all this in a world which seem to try being a bit more sustainable; with high speed communication networks more and more prevalent.
Well, I was looking at the issue from the perspective mentioned by the grandparent poster; the one dealing with poor upgrade timelines (not to mention castrated features...) of branded devices. That deals with flashing already.
And what do you mean "When you get into the smartphone market" after the part you wrote about Symbian?...
Hm, while I am indeed used recently to the concept of prepaid 4 GB for ~$15 recharge, valid two months (and if next recharge will happen before that point, unused "transfer credit" is kept), perhaps you dismiss some sensible possibilites after all?
Plenty good enough internet "while commuting on a bus, train, or carpool" isn't that painful on the amount of data transferred. Even when I was getting, not that long ago, 250 MB for the price mentioned - with "plenty good enough" we're not talking about anything data intensive after all; some webpages, mail and IM basically. With 3rd party (non adware) IM client plus Opera Turbo now available (with adblocker and plugins/flash disabled...or even images), that's viable even with small amounts of data transferred.
But then again, we are probably on the verge of global resource wars amongst nations that have not.
What a sad state our greed and short sightedness has brought us to. Our capabilities as a species have changed enormously in the last century or so, but our insight into ourselves has not.
BTW, US seems to put itself in a, well, curious situation. With population so used to overconsumption relying on foreign resources (while largely preserving "domestic" caches of...the same resources), it's bound to end in confrontation sooner or later. Not saying that it will be very disastrous for the US, oh no - with the amount of resources wasted on "defense" (nice newspeak btw) industry, it should do reasonably fine; but it still might be nasty, also locally (and certainly when looking at humanity...); not a nice place to live. Nasty enough so that, perhaps, it is better to live in a place which now can't get rid of its resources quickly enough (while using the income for sustainable growth); one which will be largely "worthless" in any possible resource wars of the future. But is there such a place?
Don't count on it. The major focus now is to make travel less wasteful (not only making aircraft more efficient, also supplanting them with high speed rail where that's applicable...and where there's a will to do it). Perhaps in a few decades we might have something merely supersonic, with speeds comparable to Concorde, but also more compatible with the really real world.
This thing from TFA...mostly a nice first stage for orbital launches, I guess.
Aren't you forgetting about nuclear subs? Quite a few incidents.
And airplanes not only are more prone to those, they also don't enjoy the comfort of generous weight budgets and being essentially buried after any accident.
All of this is beside the point though - experiments with nuclear aircraft propulsion were performed by both the US and Soviet Union (the latter apparently actually had it propelling an aircraft, at least partially). If there's one thing they have shown, it is that even with the small crew and lack of comfort of a bomber, radiation shielding is a major concern. You simply don't have enough weight budget for it.
Slashdot Mirror
...and the cycle of creating future adherents can continue.
(NE US is worst with this? And compared with one of the states of, more or less, Midwest? (which seems like one of the strongholds, a bit) There's this one mob after all...)
And do you have an example of very energetic and practical to do nuclear reaction which emits just this kind of radiation?
Yeah, yeah, you will always have the rights & means to shutdown any rocket launch, heh...
You underestimate what millions of objects on erratic orbits would do. And it doeasn't have to be strictly metal ball bearings...or not ball bearing at all. Might as well be some fairly undetectable material, it doesn't matter - at those impact speeds, mass is the only thing that matters, any solid matter behaving like liquid anyway. Well, and this one type of spacecraft might have a chance at escaping, sometimes, quickly wasting practically all its fuel to do so; well, mission accomplished.
Fuck yeah, America!
Plus sharks; there are quite a few rather small species, you can start with those.
But that would not make it more "real spaceship"; just another contribution to the immense waste of US defense (nice newspeak) industry.
And it makes space warfare nowhere near practical. Weaponising LEO is moronic. At first sight of it, any entity which thinks it can "lose" will simply launch few dumb rockets with millions of ball bearings, triggering Kessler syndrome.
I see, so instead of simply lying fiber and dealing with last mile how is appropriate for given area...you would like to see "wireless fiber", with lasers travelling through the air (coordinated in some magical way between moving users (going inside is useless, everybody can get used to little rain, snow and cold) and satellites), and all this at nice a cost of, say, trillions of dollars.
So we can transmit one HD video.
What? Somebody still believes the fairytale that satellite access can be better & cheaper (and less wasteful...) from cables and cellular towers? O_o
In case you didn't notice, the business plan for Iridium was:
- go in deep debt building ridiculously overpriced communication network, valuable to few customers with much influence (military)
- go bankrupt
- debts dissapear
- rely on profits from said customers with much influence
Plus Iridium orbit is not much higher than this thing does now; 100 vs 70 satelllites also doesn't make much difference.
Gliders don't use their wings to counteract the aerodynamic resistance, quite the contrary (somewhat; directed in a specific way). Fall all the time, and are way below the Karman line.
Shuttle can have only short mission because it depends on fuel cells simply for powering ("keeping alive", up there) its systems; actually, it has a possibility to "steal" this power from ISS and prolong it's mission...a bit.
But several months alone is nowhere near impressive. Almost every damn spacecraft did at least that, "spacecraft"/"spaceship" not being somehow more real if it looks like the popular depiction of "spaceplane" - the latter (and hence X-37B) are actually very poor all around "real spaceships". Built primarily with atmospheric phase of the flight in mind; which might make sense for military LEO vehicle, and not much else.
BTW it's probably largely due to carriers / consumers, not quite "Mobile Phone Makers Marketing Departments decided", at least not completelly. For the mentioned example of Nokia - some quite recent Symbian smartphones had a version without camera; E50 and E51 certainly, also few other from that gen; there might be still some in the current lineup. As well as all present S30 devices (they are a total low-end), and small part of recent S40.
But in some parts of the world carriers simply don't...carry those variants.
And yeah...
Further, there haven't been a large number of Symbian-based smartphones (in the U.S, that is; I'm not sure of other areas of the world)
...where does one start with something like this...
Maybe just...look at his list (or, at the least, the table at the bottom). "Phones in boldface indicates that the phone is a Symbian-powered smartphone". Or when looking just at the table - every N-Gage, N & E-series device, most Communicators, most of C & X-series; plus many from "numeric series". Don't think about the US as anything but a very atypical market.
Symbian, for all practical purposes, deals strictly with smartphones. Sure, there's not-so-quite-open Japanese MOAP(S); or Ericsson R380, the first device sold as "smartphone" 10 years ago...a device which really wasn't one (closed).
But when talking about Symbian in this part of the world, and druing most of last decade, we don't really mean those...
Perhaps you're confusing S40, which consitutes majority of Nokia phones sold, as a Symbian derivative. But's isn't one - S40 is not Symbian. It uses different "OS", internal to Nokia.
Counting Symbian as a true smartphone player is not generous, it's factually correct - it has half of the "smartphone" market (even though it is less than 20% of what Nokia sells; but that only tells about how huge Nokia is)
How about a 720p or 1080p test with a large group of birds flying over a body of water, reflection visible.
You seem to be lost.
Let me help you with a link: http://emoforum.org/ (disclaimer to general /. population: this was the first result from googling, don't blame me if opening it will kick you out of your job)
You're allowed to bring with you a DSLR (heck, and use it)...but not cameraphone, due to "security"?
However fun this always looks...not that practical, I guess. Not many applications which would justify not only the trouble (and additional expense / space consumed), but also actually standing inside. Those uses which do seem nice should be, well, nice enough with 3 screens filling most of FOV while you're sitting; basically a pimped-up three monitor thing. Requiring much less space, with quick setup in small room, easy to do with three cheap front projectors.
But you still need lots of additional energy for a "hop" of appreciable lenght; pointing your nose up is not enough. Lots of additions / modifications...not that far from "first stage to orbit" that I mentioned. Plus quite small and expensive.
And all this in a world which seem to try being a bit more sustainable; with high speed communication networks more and more prevalent.
Well, I was looking at the issue from the perspective mentioned by the grandparent poster; the one dealing with poor upgrade timelines (not to mention castrated features...) of branded devices. That deals with flashing already.
And what do you mean "When you get into the smartphone market" after the part you wrote about Symbian?...
Hm, while I am indeed used recently to the concept of prepaid 4 GB for ~$15 recharge, valid two months (and if next recharge will happen before that point, unused "transfer credit" is kept), perhaps you dismiss some sensible possibilites after all?
Plenty good enough internet "while commuting on a bus, train, or carpool" isn't that painful on the amount of data transferred. Even when I was getting, not that long ago, 250 MB for the price mentioned - with "plenty good enough" we're not talking about anything data intensive after all; some webpages, mail and IM basically. With 3rd party (non adware) IM client plus Opera Turbo now available (with adblocker and plugins/flash disabled...or even images), that's viable even with small amounts of data transferred.
But then again, we are probably on the verge of global resource wars amongst nations that have not.
What a sad state our greed and short sightedness has brought us to. Our capabilities as a species have changed enormously in the last century or so, but our insight into ourselves has not.
BTW, US seems to put itself in a, well, curious situation. With population so used to overconsumption relying on foreign resources (while largely preserving "domestic" caches of...the same resources), it's bound to end in confrontation sooner or later. Not saying that it will be very disastrous for the US, oh no - with the amount of resources wasted on "defense" (nice newspeak btw) industry, it should do reasonably fine; but it still might be nasty, also locally (and certainly when looking at humanity...); not a nice place to live.
Nasty enough so that, perhaps, it is better to live in a place which now can't get rid of its resources quickly enough (while using the income for sustainable growth); one which will be largely "worthless" in any possible resource wars of the future.
But is there such a place?
With Predators and similar UAVs constantly patrolling the areas of interest in the future, that's probably unnecessary...
Don't count on it. The major focus now is to make travel less wasteful (not only making aircraft more efficient, also supplanting them with high speed rail where that's applicable...and where there's a will to do it). Perhaps in a few decades we might have something merely supersonic, with speeds comparable to Concorde, but also more compatible with the really real world.
This thing from TFA...mostly a nice first stage for orbital launches, I guess.
Aren't you forgetting about nuclear subs? Quite a few incidents.
And airplanes not only are more prone to those, they also don't enjoy the comfort of generous weight budgets and being essentially buried after any accident.
All of this is beside the point though - experiments with nuclear aircraft propulsion were performed by both the US and Soviet Union (the latter apparently actually had it propelling an aircraft, at least partially). If there's one thing they have shown, it is that even with the small crew and lack of comfort of a bomber, radiation shielding is a major concern. You simply don't have enough weight budget for it.
The browser?...
Hm? I said "perhaps even in 1st or 2nd millenium BC", that easily falls under one of commonly accepted estimates (which that Wiki link mentions)
What temperature rise? The energy that "heats" the river...came from the river.