It's a low resolution monochromatic camera (looking through filter transparent to IR); it's just that the data output is not as a video stream, but as locations of light sources tracked in its FOV.
Actual measurements of power consumed are very close, with upper Intel chips often consuming more; with perf differences that can't be noticed anyway (TDP is not consumption, and Intel uses more optimistic method anyway)
Though I sometimes wonder what attaching, say, two large turbofans could give; as a "zero" stage of sorts. Widely available (though not with afterburners, which would be good here), well understood, reliable, many rockets use the same fuel (though, considering the complexity & weight of plumbing plus small amount the turbofan would use, it's most likely better to integrate small tank in "booster module"), large thrust-to-mass of such module...
Of course would be good only to ~20km max, but considering that's the most tough range for rocket engines? Oh well, I guess since nobody is doing it, the calculations don't add up / complexity of additional staging is not worth it.
Yes, it was long ago and previous jump was smaller, as you said; and at the time of its cradle ("too little too early"?) / now they weren't supposed to change from something still limited and very close to S40? The "switch" to Qt happens just now - but old-style apps are still working, it's just a recommended way forward; and still functioning on 4-year old phones. Ovi has apps and growth as it is anyway.
iPhone is not a good example, it had a barely better battery life from Maemo tablets...
So forcing Maemo, eliminating devices between it and S40, wouldn't be similarly idiotic?... (and you know, those people happy with S40 can just continue to get them, just less expensively for example; you can still buy S30, tons of people do)
Did Nokia close down S40? Even S30 is going strong... Both strategically important, don't listen to the pundits caressing their new wave of smartphones, that I mentioned.
S40 is the "feature phone" platform running on very lightweight internal RTOS and modest hardware - I doubt using it on top of heavy kernel would be a good idea for this class of devices, or indeed that it can do that... And it would mean abandoning lower price segments.
How long ago was the 8 to 9 shift? And now Qt is the only recommended way, supporting 4 year old phones.
Completely dropping Symbian in favor of Maemo Nokia would more than nullify the advantages of the former - remember how large those early Maemo devices were, and with how short battery life? NVM how it would ignore their modus operandi - vast spectrum of device classes and pricepoints; Symbian goes where S40 was.
Seems you focus on Challenger. But Columbia accident was also caused by that unfortunate side configuration, size, reliance on wings to have the required crossrange (which seem to be present in most early concepts, not really a case of changes?), etc. Without those, the specific mode of failure doesn't really exist.
Those were your arguments, your examples. I've just shown what they ultimately are. Funny to see how they become garbage, with you trying to attach them to me, once they've proven...problematic.
Is that the way you imagine "precise" mortality data?
My view is that the US doesn't have a stake in making its mortality statistics look better than they actually are. OTOH, any country with a nationalized health care system does have a significant interest in distorting its statistics.
Why? Seriously, look at the stakes, at the amount of drama with all the debates, at the money involved especially in the US (which is at the top in "healthcare cost per capita", but not at the top in most rankings - using your logic it would make it more likely to "cheat")
And how conveniently you omitted rest of the point - being how those risky behaviors are primarily a symptom of health in themselves.
Plus you're wrong on a more general level (next you'll try to claim the US doesn't do tons of preventive healthcare... oh, you used "force", don't try to twist it like that again)
(though the second description is still not very precise - the sail doesn't influence the mass of the air so completely, and not only the mass it has "contact" with; just like with airfoil... (also described wrong even in school books) And BTW keel is another one, another "sail"; it's behavior more dynamic than just maintaining the same heading as movement)
It's the job of those maintaining World Factbook (and considering the status of information there on themselves...and perhaps how some lobbyist-loving industry would prefer to look better...) Curious how those differences can only work for "worse" too...
And don't you see how "indulging in risky behavior" is completely and legitimately within context? Or do you prefer health rankings to be washed out of any meaning? Last time I checked - drug use, suicides or risky sex (I'm assuming you mean here something not within expected behaviors of homo sapiens) are itself an indicator of health (mostly psyche, but it plays both ways with soma anyway)
I'm not sure if even nuclear would make much of a difference, assuming technologies practical for surface-to-LEO launchers(*). Saturn V with NERVA upper stage would launch 2-3 times more to LEO - certainly noticeably more, but still within an order of magnitude; and, IIRC, while nuclear thermal rockets like NERVA have 2x higher specific impulse from chemical, their max thrust is limited (so pretty much restricted to that upper stage role) The above requiring much more strict care during launch procedures. Probably much rarer, too. Even more expensive.
It might be that simplifying to the limits is the way to go, also with engines (so there's no pity in discarding them; what Ares V was partially doing, abandoning SSME in favor of RS-68); or at least some clever engineering and materials science replacing complexity and high-tech alloys.
(*)for pure spacecraft, operating outside the atmosphere, the realities are different of course. Even reusability has different meaning and essentially works.
IIRC it never went into polar orbit. Which, by itself, doesn't require such suboptimal vehicle anyway - returning to the area of start after one or two orbits (supposedly important in military scenario...), high crossrange capability, does.
Never used of course. But it and general insistence on large winged spacecraft causes a waste of ~70 tons of LEO capability on each mission / necessity to use needlessly huge rocket (and more than 7 lives lost...)
What you again fail to understand - the sail moves sideways (sure, a quite specific case of sideways - it rotates; but there is no difference from the perspective of the wind)
From what I saw, it's not unlikely that most of the people taken by this (possibly including at least some early explanations from the creators; I'm not sure, it's been a while) actually don't have very good understanding of what happens - which wouldn't be anything new. For thousands of years sailors and boatbuilders didn't have very precise understanding of how sails work, too (otherwise we would probably have at least gliders a lot sooner), most of them still don't.
But it basically just reshuffles the configuration of a tacking sailboat; it's dynamically identical.
There's no "bringing the air to full stop" anywhere... (except when in a boat traveling directly downwind, sort of - but that's actually not the most efficient scenario, and one where keel isn't involved much)
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming enough people actually & honestly want that...
I keep voting and nothing new happens.
Oh but it does, just not for you; it is a reflection of society though, integral part of its dynamics.
It's a low resolution monochromatic camera (looking through filter transparent to IR); it's just that the data output is not as a video stream, but as locations of light sources tracked in its FOV.
Stalinist libertarians disagree with you.
Now that AMD is about to integrate decent GFX...one can see why Nvidia wants to focus primarily on the "pro" market.
Last two performance-starved areas, games and video editing/encoding, should quickly become mostly covered even by entry CPUs...
Actual measurements of power consumed are very close, with upper Intel chips often consuming more; with perf differences that can't be noticed anyway (TDP is not consumption, and Intel uses more optimistic method anyway)
All those things you mention don't really require PCIe - if they are provided by Intel chipset.
I and everyone else should be able to get GPUs independent of CPUs, or any other hardware for that matter
How about FPU?
Though I sometimes wonder what attaching, say, two large turbofans could give; as a "zero" stage of sorts. Widely available (though not with afterburners, which would be good here), well understood, reliable, many rockets use the same fuel (though, considering the complexity & weight of plumbing plus small amount the turbofan would use, it's most likely better to integrate small tank in "booster module"), large thrust-to-mass of such module...
Of course would be good only to ~20km max, but considering that's the most tough range for rocket engines? Oh well, I guess since nobody is doing it, the calculations don't add up / complexity of additional staging is not worth it.
Yes, it was long ago and previous jump was smaller, as you said; and at the time of its cradle ("too little too early"?) / now they weren't supposed to change from something still limited and very close to S40? The "switch" to Qt happens just now - but old-style apps are still working, it's just a recommended way forward; and still functioning on 4-year old phones. Ovi has apps and growth as it is anyway.
iPhone is not a good example, it had a barely better battery life from Maemo tablets...
So forcing Maemo, eliminating devices between it and S40, wouldn't be similarly idiotic?... (and you know, those people happy with S40 can just continue to get them, just less expensively for example; you can still buy S30, tons of people do)
Did Nokia close down S40? Even S30 is going strong... Both strategically important, don't listen to the pundits caressing their new wave of smartphones, that I mentioned.
Yes, you chose the most impressively looking number. Without keeping it in the context of growing sales for all mobile phones.
S40 is the "feature phone" platform running on very lightweight internal RTOS and modest hardware - I doubt using it on top of heavy kernel would be a good idea for this class of devices, or indeed that it can do that...
And it would mean abandoning lower price segments.
How long ago was the 8 to 9 shift? And now Qt is the only recommended way, supporting 4 year old phones.
Completely dropping Symbian in favor of Maemo Nokia would more than nullify the advantages of the former - remember how large those early Maemo devices were, and with how short battery life? NVM how it would ignore their modus operandi - vast spectrum of device classes and pricepoints; Symbian goes where S40 was.
Seems you focus on Challenger. But Columbia accident was also caused by that unfortunate side configuration, size, reliance on wings to have the required crossrange (which seem to be present in most early concepts, not really a case of changes?), etc. Without those, the specific mode of failure doesn't really exist.
(BTW, one interesting abort)
Those were your arguments, your examples. I've just shown what they ultimately are. Funny to see how they become garbage, with you trying to attach them to me, once they've proven...problematic.
Is that the way you imagine "precise" mortality data?
Then you have no idea / chose to dismiss how much criticism of such health systems there is locally.
(and c'mon, if the media were able to not be divided on Iraqi WMDs...)
My view is that the US doesn't have a stake in making its mortality statistics look better than they actually are. OTOH, any country with a nationalized health care system does have a significant interest in distorting its statistics.
Why? Seriously, look at the stakes, at the amount of drama with all the debates, at the money involved especially in the US (which is at the top in "healthcare cost per capita", but not at the top in most rankings - using your logic it would make it more likely to "cheat")
And how conveniently you omitted rest of the point - being how those risky behaviors are primarily a symptom of health in themselves.
Plus you're wrong on a more general level (next you'll try to claim the US doesn't do tons of preventive healthcare... oh, you used "force", don't try to twist it like that again)
NVM, we used different frames of reference there.
(though the second description is still not very precise - the sail doesn't influence the mass of the air so completely, and not only the mass it has "contact" with; just like with airfoil... (also described wrong even in school books) And BTW keel is another one, another "sail"; it's behavior more dynamic than just maintaining the same heading as movement)
It's the job of those maintaining World Factbook (and considering the status of information there on themselves...and perhaps how some lobbyist-loving industry would prefer to look better...) Curious how those differences can only work for "worse" too...
And don't you see how "indulging in risky behavior" is completely and legitimately within context? Or do you prefer health rankings to be washed out of any meaning?
Last time I checked - drug use, suicides or risky sex (I'm assuming you mean here something not within expected behaviors of homo sapiens) are itself an indicator of health (mostly psyche, but it plays both ways with soma anyway)
I'm not sure if even nuclear would make much of a difference, assuming technologies practical for surface-to-LEO launchers(*). Saturn V with NERVA upper stage would launch 2-3 times more to LEO - certainly noticeably more, but still within an order of magnitude; and, IIRC, while nuclear thermal rockets like NERVA have 2x higher specific impulse from chemical, their max thrust is limited (so pretty much restricted to that upper stage role)
The above requiring much more strict care during launch procedures. Probably much rarer, too. Even more expensive.
It might be that simplifying to the limits is the way to go, also with engines (so there's no pity in discarding them; what Ares V was partially doing, abandoning SSME in favor of RS-68); or at least some clever engineering and materials science replacing complexity and high-tech alloys.
(*)for pure spacecraft, operating outside the atmosphere, the realities are different of course. Even reusability has different meaning and essentially works.
IIRC it never went into polar orbit. Which, by itself, doesn't require such suboptimal vehicle anyway - returning to the area of start after one or two orbits (supposedly important in military scenario...), high crossrange capability, does.
Never used of course. But it and general insistence on large winged spacecraft causes a waste of ~70 tons of LEO capability on each mission / necessity to use needlessly huge rocket (and more than 7 lives lost...)
What you again fail to understand - the sail moves sideways (sure, a quite specific case of sideways - it rotates; but there is no difference from the perspective of the wind)
From what I saw, it's not unlikely that most of the people taken by this (possibly including at least some early explanations from the creators; I'm not sure, it's been a while) actually don't have very good understanding of what happens - which wouldn't be anything new. For thousands of years sailors and boatbuilders didn't have very precise understanding of how sails work, too (otherwise we would probably have at least gliders a lot sooner), most of them still don't.
But it basically just reshuffles the configuration of a tacking sailboat; it's dynamically identical.
There's no "bringing the air to full stop" anywhere... (except when in a boat traveling directly downwind, sort of - but that's actually not the most efficient scenario, and one where keel isn't involved much)