Well, if you look at the issue primarilly from the perspective of Mars Global Surveyor, I'm sure you've heard about Mars Express...;)
(though landing on Titan not being that difficult is an...oversimplification)
BTW, how NASA is "owned" (especially in relation to ESA) might have proved to be a hindrance, IMHO. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but basically NASA activities (which includes deals with subcontractors) are financed from a "monolithic" federal budget, but where (to which states) that money goes has little relation to from where (from which states) most of it came from. Which might have worked fine during space race, when it was also a matter of national pride; but now it seems to take on characteristics of pork barrel politics (I think the recent mess with Constellation might be a good example)
Contrast that with ESA (which achieved nice successes with limited resources after all...), where the say of memberstates in regards to direction of activities and who actually does them is directly tied with financial input from each memberstate. I think that's more workable, more sustainable in the long term (yes, recent push towards towards private companies should gradually push things into sustainable tracks for NASA)
And do you wonder already how many times that wasn't the case? Sure, this time the perpetrator was sloppy...but it's relatively trivial to frame people like that "properly"
There is already some water recycling on ISS, spacecraft environment can be essentially closed, and considering ISS is just our training ground before long missions into deeper space... (you still want lots of water from smaller gravity well (makes the initial launch so much cheaper...) of course, as you say for fuel and also for shielding)
BTW, I don't know why you equate Helium-3 usefulness with cold fusion (which will likely remain a pipe dream). H3 is good for "hot fusion" because the process is much easier to handle (there's much less readiation of the kind which degrades reactor, easier to handle byproducts, etc.)
If you want to talk WW2 in relation to parent posters, don't forget how it helped to build economic strenght in the US...
And yes, Russia sometimes steamrolls into countries that they think they can dominate...US totally doesn't do that? Or, for that matter, did it do anything during recent such moves by Russia?
Don't kid yourself about geopolitical realities. Russia needs prosperous Europe. US too, plus staging bases.
How is having a huge library of software to do things (which weren't even possible on your first machines...), and approachable by huge number of people, bad?
Were your home built machines able to do anything close to what current ones are capable of doing? (I'm not talking about raw power, i/o, etc. per se; but what they enable)
I'm not sure why you think the 8080/Z80 "beat" the 6502. While it's true that many early 8-bit microcomputers were based on the 8080 and Z80, especially in the CP/M world, some very popular and successful 8-bit systems used the 6502, like the Apple II, Commodore 64, and Atari's home computers and game consoles.
Well, you likely wrote that on a computer which uses a descendant of 8080. There's also still quite a bit of Z80 around us, or so I've heard. 6502 lineage...died out.
(one can consider ARM as a spiritual descendant of 6502, sort of; but it's too big of a stretch, I think)
I don't see why you are comparing things with frames at the edge of your vision to something with frames in the middle of your vision.
So many people the thread seems to think the latter is the only possibility...apparently 3 big, widescreen monitors with borders comfortably in the peripheral vision are hard to imagine?
Oh, in this case it's safe to say that advantages of mobile phones make the better quality of those old cordless house ones even less usefull... (and the problem about how little population / area can be served even more pronounced)
Anyway, with the amount of voice traffic "on the other end" that goes through cellphones (also through VoIP backbone and/or private telephony switches with similar codecs?), higher potential quality of landline doesn't do much anymore... (and that's fine; it's a side effect of much more widespread availability, which is a damn good thing) Plus I linked to how cellphones are becoming better.
They may be more efficient in approaching and attaining a specific goal; but, especially when doing so, the rest of society / economy suffers (which directly impacts really big & long term goals or those down the line, of course; look at the initial progress of Soviet space program, their initial hiccups during moon race, and how much Buran program drained them (well, Space Shuttle also did...but it could be more gracefully handled in this case)
It seems quite a bit more complex (at least potentially; might be limited in practise by level design)
In Legacy of Kain you had only two states and nice looking, fluid, but unstoppable, shift between them. Here you can have another (fourth) set of coordinates except XYZ; a spectrum on which you can be anywhere you want.
I guess it looks similar to Legacy of Kain because there's really no other way to project it onto 3D space...and then project it onto 2D monitor.
I specifically said I'm talking about 3-monitors (or any other number than ill-concieved 6 (just to have the biggest number with workable implementation?)). In that case frames are also on the periphery of your vision.
Do the frames between windows of a car also drive you insane? Likewise when you wear glasses? (you might not need corrective ones but sunglasses are common enough) And those two translucent outlines of your nose, that you see all the time, must be really tormenting...
Seriously, it works rather fine (well, 6 monitors, with frame right in the center, is a poor choice...but not the only one)
Nevermind 6, let us talk 3 (since this works better in most types of games, also FPS). With three big monitors you can effectivelly almost fill your field of vision (perhaps even with the left and right one tilting slightly, so three monitors form a semi-arc)
With one big TV...not really; unless you sit so "close" that it's no longer an enjoyable experience.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if you look at the issue primarilly from the perspective of Mars Global Surveyor, I'm sure you've heard about Mars Express... ;)
(though landing on Titan not being that difficult is an...oversimplification)
BTW, how NASA is "owned" (especially in relation to ESA) might have proved to be a hindrance, IMHO. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but basically NASA activities (which includes deals with subcontractors) are financed from a "monolithic" federal budget, but where (to which states) that money goes has little relation to from where (from which states) most of it came from. Which might have worked fine during space race, when it was also a matter of national pride; but now it seems to take on characteristics of pork barrel politics (I think the recent mess with Constellation might be a good example)
Contrast that with ESA (which achieved nice successes with limited resources after all...), where the say of memberstates in regards to direction of activities and who actually does them is directly tied with financial input from each memberstate. I think that's more workable, more sustainable in the long term (yes, recent push towards towards private companies should gradually push things into sustainable tracks for NASA)
At least the good guys caught the bad guy here.
And do you wonder already how many times that wasn't the case? Sure, this time the perpetrator was sloppy...but it's relatively trivial to frame people like that "properly"
A witch accusation of our times, it seems.
Fuel depot on the Moon doesn't sound usefull to you, also for unmanned probes?
There is already some water recycling on ISS, spacecraft environment can be essentially closed, and considering ISS is just our training ground before long missions into deeper space...
(you still want lots of water from smaller gravity well (makes the initial launch so much cheaper...) of course, as you say for fuel and also for shielding)
BTW, I don't know why you equate Helium-3 usefulness with cold fusion (which will likely remain a pipe dream). H3 is good for "hot fusion" because the process is much easier to handle (there's much less readiation of the kind which degrades reactor, easier to handle byproducts, etc.)
Like the myth about US never being involved in imperialistic tendencies much?
Plus with how US military is overstretched now...
If you want to talk WW2 in relation to parent posters, don't forget how it helped to build economic strenght in the US...
And yes, Russia sometimes steamrolls into countries that they think they can dominate...US totally doesn't do that? Or, for that matter, did it do anything during recent such moves by Russia?
Don't kid yourself about geopolitical realities. Russia needs prosperous Europe. US too, plus staging bases.
How is having a huge library of software to do things (which weren't even possible on your first machines...), and approachable by huge number of people, bad?
FYI, I started with C64.
Were your home built machines able to do anything close to what current ones are capable of doing? (I'm not talking about raw power, i/o, etc. per se; but what they enable)
I'm not sure why you think the 8080/Z80 "beat" the 6502. While it's true that many early 8-bit microcomputers were based on the 8080 and Z80, especially in the CP/M world, some very popular and successful 8-bit systems used the 6502, like the Apple II, Commodore 64, and Atari's home computers and game consoles.
Well, you likely wrote that on a computer which uses a descendant of 8080. There's also still quite a bit of Z80 around us, or so I've heard. 6502 lineage...died out.
(one can consider ARM as a spiritual descendant of 6502, sort of; but it's too big of a stretch, I think)
I don't see why you are comparing things with frames at the edge of your vision to something with frames in the middle of your vision.
So many people the thread seems to think the latter is the only possibility...apparently 3 big, widescreen monitors with borders comfortably in the peripheral vision are hard to imagine?
Rather the other way around?
(PS. Overall /me likes this one... ;) ...somehow too bad it's fiction; but otoh - which philosophy is or isn't?)
With most sites cought in self-imposed circlejerk of 1 IV stories, I can imagine that...no, there's actually not that much to report :/
(though that wouldn't excuse Slashdot, it being usually late with anything...except for the fraking April Fool's, apparently...sigh)
Oh, in this case it's safe to say that advantages of mobile phones make the better quality of those old cordless house ones even less usefull... (and the problem about how little population / area can be served even more pronounced)
Anyway, with the amount of voice traffic "on the other end" that goes through cellphones (also through VoIP backbone and/or private telephony switches with similar codecs?), higher potential quality of landline doesn't do much anymore... (and that's fine; it's a side effect of much more widespread availability, which is a damn good thing) Plus I linked to how cellphones are becoming better.
Proof obsoletes belief, and with it faith. If something proves anything about gods, then it's no longer palatable to the faithfull.
...meanwhile the rest is still using its fruits ;/
Yes, some older systems had better audio quality...and how miniscule portion of the population they could realistically serve?
Meanwhile GSM penetration in most of Europe is above 100%; and audio quality is in the process of improvement to nice levels right as we speak: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_Multi-Rate_Wideband
They may be more efficient in approaching and attaining a specific goal; but, especially when doing so, the rest of society / economy suffers (which directly impacts really big & long term goals or those down the line, of course; look at the initial progress of Soviet space program, their initial hiccups during moon race, and how much Buran program drained them (well, Space Shuttle also did...but it could be more gracefully handled in this case)
Did you really miss high resolution, widescreen monitors? Frame ends up approximatelly of the size and place like those in a car...
Asperger supertaskers, that will be...interesting.
It seems quite a bit more complex (at least potentially; might be limited in practise by level design)
In Legacy of Kain you had only two states and nice looking, fluid, but unstoppable, shift between them. Here you can have another (fourth) set of coordinates except XYZ; a spectrum on which you can be anywhere you want.
I guess it looks similar to Legacy of Kain because there's really no other way to project it onto 3D space...and then project it onto 2D monitor.
...with screens rotated 90 degrees.
Well, I said that in post right next to the one you're replying to, anyway ;p (but I still said there are better numbers than 6)
I specifically said I'm talking about 3-monitors (or any other number than ill-concieved 6 (just to have the biggest number with workable implementation?)). In that case frames are also on the periphery of your vision.
Do the frames between windows of a car also drive you insane? Likewise when you wear glasses? (you might not need corrective ones but sunglasses are common enough) And those two translucent outlines of your nose, that you see all the time, must be really tormenting...
Seriously, it works rather fine (well, 6 monitors, with frame right in the center, is a poor choice...but not the only one)
Nevermind 6, let us talk 3 (since this works better in most types of games, also FPS). With three big monitors you can effectivelly almost fill your field of vision (perhaps even with the left and right one tilting slightly, so three monitors form a semi-arc)
With one big TV...not really; unless you sit so "close" that it's no longer an enjoyable experience.