Well, if you look at it this way, with current prices (from newegg, I'm sure it could be found cheaper elsewhere too) 10 TB of hard disk space is less than $2000 (14 750GB disks at $130/ea). I would say that "under $2k" is well within the reach of most consumers (albeit "enthusiasts"), so the future is now!
From reading about this elsewhere, the reason was because the antenna was a "snagging" hazard when they cast it off of the ISS. They didn't want to eject it, and then have it rip off important things from the ISS that they didn't want to lose:)
There's actually a good size portion of people that are getting into being 'car geeks'. Even some really hardcore stuff, like rewriting the assembly-language in the ECU to provide nifty features and/or more performance. There are quite a few clubs out there (mostly internet based) on reprogramming ECUs, and even DIY ECUs
Not really, because an EE would know that it's not just the RF output on a cellphone that works at 2.4 GHz, but also the signal processing unit. There is a digital system in the phone that natively controls the signal, rather than using older analog techniques. The general-purpose CPU for playing crappy java games and displaying inane text messages from your friends runs at something much lower than that, of course.
They're comparing this vehicle to complete passenger cars (although ultimate luxury sports cars). It would be more appropriate to compare it to something like a 7, or an Ariel Atom, which is faster than the Veyron 0-60 anyway.
Don't get me wrong, I love electric cars, and plan to convert my own some day, but don't compare apples-to-oranges, article.
What I was thinking was like a large shield that sits inbetween the satellite and earth. You could make it out of an inflatable mylar bag (highly reflective, and extremely light). That way, the satellite has a clear 'view' of all of space, and is only blocked to earth, so solar panels are still effective. Also, my comment about having retractable parts covers the need for communicating with earth when not under attack from giant lasers. Obviously it's more expensive, but machines of war often are.
The thing I'm not sure about, I have little experience with it is how much cooling you would need on a reflective surface. If the surface is 90% reflective, it will only have to absorb 10% of the laser's energy. I believe that reflective surfaces can be way better than 90% reflective, so that makes it even better.
I was just saying that it's probably easier to defend against laser-attacks as it is to create a laser weapon. Not to say either is the easiest thing in the world, but it seems that way to me.
Most of the frequencies they could/would use (near to visible, infrared) are easily reflectable by common things. It doesn't seem likely that they'd use a variety of frequencies though, it seems to be hard enough to focus one wavelength from one laser, let alone more than one; though the government's budget is obscene, so why not?
ur dumb: The laser travels at the speed of light, however things don't become instantly hot, it's not like the beams in star-wars that destruct things instantly, it's just like focusing a magnifying lens on ants, it takes a second. In that second, sensors can detect the bright light and get the hell out of dodge.
Or... our 'enemies' could just start building reflective satellites, or even just carrying a big, reflective 'shield' underneath them. It could be something as simple as a big, inflatable mylar bag. I don't know how much heat a very reflective mirror would have to dissipate when being hit by a laser, but it obviously can be done, if the adaptive optics in the 'gun' don't burn out, and that's right freaking next to the output of the laser, instead of through 100+ miles of atmosphere and space. Actually, a big shield might work really well. Any sensors that need to see around the shield could retract back quickly upon detecting a really freaking bright light source.
Gee, you think? The review even mentions it, that it's a nice effect, like flying through a historical photo. It's just a method for lending some 'historical' feel to it, rather than looking 'too clear'.
How is it any more scary than having a webcam perched on top of your monitor. The only difference is the camera will record your face straight-on, rather than from 10 degrees above it...
Unfortunately, those 10 people have enough money to buy 100 government officials, while none of the other 1,000,000 people have enough money individually (and don't pool their resources to buy officials, because hey, the government is for the people, right... right?)
Well, I don't have any direct sources, but: The interconnect barrier means that while chip size keeps decreasing, the interconnects between sections of chips, and even between individual chips themselves aren't able to be made much smaller, so things like resistance, capacitance, and inductance get in the way with the bigger interconnects. Basically, the interconnects can't keep up with the growth of the chips themselves.
I have some added information about "VR Sickness". I've never thought of it as the lag between visuals and movement that induced the sickness, though I could see that as being a reason. The problem that I've always noticed about VR motion-simulation "seats" or "pods" or what-have-you, is that to simulate things like accelerating forwards, they will rotate you backwards, so gravity is pulling you back into your seat. My inner-ear notices the backwards rotation though, and it usually doesn't correspond with the visual. I can go on any amusement park ride; gyroscopes, rollercoasters, turkish-twist; but those things like the Back-to-the-Future rides make me want to vomit almost immediately. I have to face away from the screen and look at the floor, or wall, or something that isn't part of the visuals, and actually does match up with what I feel. Also, reading in a moving vehicle almost immediately makes me want to hurl.
Yeah, that's all that I'm saying. The possibility certainly exists for it to be a mistake. It also seems _really_ brazen of AOL if they actually did it on-purpose, especially considering how obviously it is. Companies that do bad things don't typically do bad things that are out in the open and so blatantly obvious. Like... if they wanted to block it, why send back a response e-mail at all, just make the sender think their mail got through. If they were being malicious, they sure are bad at it:)
If they use heuristics and other methods for spam filtering that don't always work 100% reliably (I've had legit e-mail end up in the spam bin), it legitimately could have been because their spam filter just decided it was spam, and started dumping it. I'm not defending AOL, I think they suck, but just offering an alternate line of thought. Many ISPs use a human-based filter, the company I work for runs into it all the time, people sign up for our mailing list, and rather than cancel when they're done with it, they just click the "report as spam" button, and then all of our company is on their shit-list, even to those users who want to get our e-mails. Especially if somebody was mass-mailing AOL users that e-mail, it seems likely.
But it's much more cost effective for an ISP to just completely ignore the problem: They don't need to hire someone to monitor the junk / contact the customers, they don't lose their monthly $$ when they tell customers to fix their damn computers and the idiot customers just go to another ISP.
The guys that've been to the moon would disagree; the lunar dust was a huge problem, it would get into everything, including the pressure seals of the suits, where it would cause small leaks. You don't need air to throw dust around... that doesn't make sense.
Goddamnit, this isn't offtopic. THE ARTICLE links to trustix.org, and has multiple links to trustix.org that (should) lead to downloads of trustix, but don't...
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if you look at it this way, with current prices (from newegg, I'm sure it could be found cheaper elsewhere too) 10 TB of hard disk space is less than $2000 (14 750GB disks at $130/ea). I would say that "under $2k" is well within the reach of most consumers (albeit "enthusiasts"), so the future is now!
I live in Massachusetts (northeast US) and there's 5 someodd rotaries (what we call 'em) within a stone's throw of my apartment, north of Boston.
From reading about this elsewhere, the reason was because the antenna was a "snagging" hazard when they cast it off of the ISS. They didn't want to eject it, and then have it rip off important things from the ISS that they didn't want to lose :)
There's actually a good size portion of people that are getting into being 'car geeks'. Even some really hardcore stuff, like rewriting the assembly-language in the ECU to provide nifty features and/or more performance. There are quite a few clubs out there (mostly internet based) on reprogramming ECUs, and even DIY ECUs
-Jesse, car geek.Not really, because an EE would know that it's not just the RF output on a cellphone that works at 2.4 GHz, but also the signal processing unit. There is a digital system in the phone that natively controls the signal, rather than using older analog techniques. The general-purpose CPU for playing crappy java games and displaying inane text messages from your friends runs at something much lower than that, of course.
-JesseIt mentions in the article that if you run it at ~3.6 GHz with a screaming-loud air-cooled fan, it'll run OK.
He weighs 3 tons and stinks up the place with his noxious fumes?
They're comparing this vehicle to complete passenger cars (although ultimate luxury sports cars). It would be more appropriate to compare it to something like a 7, or an Ariel Atom, which is faster than the Veyron 0-60 anyway.
Don't get me wrong, I love electric cars, and plan to convert my own some day, but don't compare apples-to-oranges, article.
-JesseWhat I was thinking was like a large shield that sits inbetween the satellite and earth. You could make it out of an inflatable mylar bag (highly reflective, and extremely light). That way, the satellite has a clear 'view' of all of space, and is only blocked to earth, so solar panels are still effective. Also, my comment about having retractable parts covers the need for communicating with earth when not under attack from giant lasers. Obviously it's more expensive, but machines of war often are.
The thing I'm not sure about, I have little experience with it is how much cooling you would need on a reflective surface. If the surface is 90% reflective, it will only have to absorb 10% of the laser's energy. I believe that reflective surfaces can be way better than 90% reflective, so that makes it even better.
I was just saying that it's probably easier to defend against laser-attacks as it is to create a laser weapon. Not to say either is the easiest thing in the world, but it seems that way to me.
Good post though, I like thought-out replies.
-JesseMost of the frequencies they could/would use (near to visible, infrared) are easily reflectable by common things. It doesn't seem likely that they'd use a variety of frequencies though, it seems to be hard enough to focus one wavelength from one laser, let alone more than one; though the government's budget is obscene, so why not?
Well, a laser is nearly instant, there's a satellite... bam; instead of: there's a satellite, fire the anti-satellite (hours pass) bam.
ur dumb: The laser travels at the speed of light, however things don't become instantly hot, it's not like the beams in star-wars that destruct things instantly, it's just like focusing a magnifying lens on ants, it takes a second. In that second, sensors can detect the bright light and get the hell out of dodge.
Or... our 'enemies' could just start building reflective satellites, or even just carrying a big, reflective 'shield' underneath them. It could be something as simple as a big, inflatable mylar bag. I don't know how much heat a very reflective mirror would have to dissipate when being hit by a laser, but it obviously can be done, if the adaptive optics in the 'gun' don't burn out, and that's right freaking next to the output of the laser, instead of through 100+ miles of atmosphere and space. Actually, a big shield might work really well. Any sensors that need to see around the shield could retract back quickly upon detecting a really freaking bright light source.
Gee, you think? The review even mentions it, that it's a nice effect, like flying through a historical photo. It's just a method for lending some 'historical' feel to it, rather than looking 'too clear'.
How is it any more scary than having a webcam perched on top of your monitor. The only difference is the camera will record your face straight-on, rather than from 10 degrees above it...
-JesseUnfortunately, those 10 people have enough money to buy 100 government officials, while none of the other 1,000,000 people have enough money individually (and don't pool their resources to buy officials, because hey, the government is for the people, right... right?)
-JesseWell, I don't have any direct sources, but: The interconnect barrier means that while chip size keeps decreasing, the interconnects between sections of chips, and even between individual chips themselves aren't able to be made much smaller, so things like resistance, capacitance, and inductance get in the way with the bigger interconnects. Basically, the interconnects can't keep up with the growth of the chips themselves.
I have some added information about "VR Sickness". I've never thought of it as the lag between visuals and movement that induced the sickness, though I could see that as being a reason. The problem that I've always noticed about VR motion-simulation "seats" or "pods" or what-have-you, is that to simulate things like accelerating forwards, they will rotate you backwards, so gravity is pulling you back into your seat. My inner-ear notices the backwards rotation though, and it usually doesn't correspond with the visual. I can go on any amusement park ride; gyroscopes, rollercoasters, turkish-twist; but those things like the Back-to-the-Future rides make me want to vomit almost immediately. I have to face away from the screen and look at the floor, or wall, or something that isn't part of the visuals, and actually does match up with what I feel. Also, reading in a moving vehicle almost immediately makes me want to hurl.
-JesseYeah, that's all that I'm saying. The possibility certainly exists for it to be a mistake. It also seems _really_ brazen of AOL if they actually did it on-purpose, especially considering how obviously it is. Companies that do bad things don't typically do bad things that are out in the open and so blatantly obvious. Like... if they wanted to block it, why send back a response e-mail at all, just make the sender think their mail got through. If they were being malicious, they sure are bad at it :)
-JesseIf they use heuristics and other methods for spam filtering that don't always work 100% reliably (I've had legit e-mail end up in the spam bin), it legitimately could have been because their spam filter just decided it was spam, and started dumping it. I'm not defending AOL, I think they suck, but just offering an alternate line of thought. Many ISPs use a human-based filter, the company I work for runs into it all the time, people sign up for our mailing list, and rather than cancel when they're done with it, they just click the "report as spam" button, and then all of our company is on their shit-list, even to those users who want to get our e-mails. Especially if somebody was mass-mailing AOL users that e-mail, it seems likely.
-JesseWe had a little bit of a scuffle about 230 years ago that made us no longer subject to British laws.
I'm trying to remember the name of that, it had some sorta name... I think Nintendo has something to do with it.
-JesseBut it's much more cost effective for an ISP to just completely ignore the problem: They don't need to hire someone to monitor the junk / contact the customers, they don't lose their monthly $$ when they tell customers to fix their damn computers and the idiot customers just go to another ISP.
They're only paying for the few chemicals needed to make biodiesel to fuel the generator that powers the cluster.
-Jesseand you can't raise dust with no air.
The guys that've been to the moon would disagree; the lunar dust was a huge problem, it would get into everything, including the pressure seals of the suits, where it would cause small leaks. You don't need air to throw dust around... that doesn't make sense.
-JesseGoddamnit, this isn't offtopic. THE ARTICLE links to trustix.org, and has multiple links to trustix.org that (should) lead to downloads of trustix, but don't...