And only the Brits of Slashdot are responding upon what a travesty it was to replace the original joke with the awful "just finding the plans" joke, because they are the only ones who ever thought the original was funny. If Americans couldn't get that, why would they be complaining? Maybe because what you just said does not make sense.
Hehe, you've gotten me on an appeal to authority here, but hey, I got it from the people who are working on designing it.:P
Sure, more then $3, but, over it's (hopefully) long lifetime, the initial r & d costs, and the building costs will amortized. Somewhat.
The Germans were using them in WW2 even, for tank commanders and the like. It helped cut down on much of the confusing background noise of the tank firing.
Yeah, permanent orbital stations would have been *so* boring in the sixties....
As others have said, it's hellishly expensive. It would not have been made any cheaper with reusable rockets. A space shuttle is reusable, yet that's hardly cheap. $10,000 per pound in fact. You want to transport raw materials, including more fuel up there at those prices? Or would you rather do it at $3 per pound like the elevator could?
Of course that would be better, but, I would rather have a 747 filled with this stuff, because afterwards I'd have a personal jet that I could fly around the world.:P
So, if we attached a couple square inches of this stuff to a pigeon, or filled a 747 with some of these chips, and flew it around the world, how fast would the transfer rate be?
Er, was that sarcasm? First, it's a POWER5, one above a POWER4, which the G5 is based on, which might make the instruction set compatible, does not mean it can make full use of the other stuff, like SMT, nor, the special stuff like the vector processors.
Yes, tell me, how is Sony going to sell a $3000 gaming console to more than 50,000 people? Considering that it costs tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, to design a new chip, they are not going for the small high end market. Chances are, they're either taking a loss, or have found a way to make them for less, but considering the power, even $1000 would be cheap.
The Itanium? That *did* cost $3000 and was meant to replace x86 in the server! Then, it turned out to have horrible performance. If Cell processors have horrible performance, I will be disappointed, and I would certainly retract my statements.
Ooops. Thank you for the correction. I am in serious doubt anyway of what I wrote. I had heard about 35 nm processes though, but I doubt the Cell would be manufactured on that yet. Look to the future!;)
I think you misunderstood my point. Pray tell, when do you think Microsoft will port Longhorn to the Cell? It's a product of Sony afterall, it's big rival in the consumer home devices market. Will Apple? Possibly, but not in the near future. What's left? The *NIXes!
Well, it seems like it's being produced on a.3 meter process!
"The firms expect to begin production of Cell processors at IBM's 300mm plant in New York and Sony's Nagasaki fab later this year."
Why do I sense that the article is wrong? Maybe there is a grain of truth though, and I had heard about a 30 nm plant, but I could just be crazy.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Which means of course, nothing not done by NASA or the ESA will ever accomplish anything...
Yeah, and Scaled Composites really doesn't have a chance either...
And only the Brits of Slashdot are responding upon what a travesty it was to replace the original joke with the awful "just finding the plans" joke, because they are the only ones who ever thought the original was funny. If Americans couldn't get that, why would they be complaining? Maybe because what you just said does not make sense.
Hehe, you've gotten me on an appeal to authority here, but hey, I got it from the people who are working on designing it. :P
Sure, more then $3, but, over it's (hopefully) long lifetime, the initial r & d costs, and the building costs will amortized. Somewhat.
Of course, because the High and Mighty dbIII says so.... I'm sure you're more of an expert on the subject then anyone else.
There are other reusable craft out there in the world. They're not cheap either.
The Germans were using them in WW2 even, for tank commanders and the like. It helped cut down on much of the confusing background noise of the tank firing.
It's still less then $10,000.
Yeah, permanent orbital stations would have been *so* boring in the sixties.... As others have said, it's hellishly expensive. It would not have been made any cheaper with reusable rockets. A space shuttle is reusable, yet that's hardly cheap. $10,000 per pound in fact. You want to transport raw materials, including more fuel up there at those prices? Or would you rather do it at $3 per pound like the elevator could?
Because Google wants to ruin people's lives! It's a google conspiracy, oh no! Run for the hills!
Of course that would be better, but, I would rather have a 747 filled with this stuff, because afterwards I'd have a personal jet that I could fly around the world. :P
So, if we attached a couple square inches of this stuff to a pigeon, or filled a 747 with some of these chips, and flew it around the world, how fast would the transfer rate be?
Brilliant deduction. Looking at this, and your other "logic," I can see we have a real winner here.
You do realize of course, that Linux is *downloaded* more often that it is shipped? Or do you want to continue with bad statistics?
And a P Pro doesn't compare as well to a P4 either. (Err, the P3 and the P4 OTOH....) :P
Yeah, we caught all of those Iraqi's with GPS units and night vision goggles. Oh, wait, they didn't even have regular goggles? :P
The thing is, they are *cheap* POWER5's. That's a big advantage right there.
I think that's what I heard actually. Damn you people for continually correcting me! Er, really, thanks!
Correct, as do P4s. I believe there is a slight bit of difference between a G5 and a Cell. Just a *tad*.
Er, was that sarcasm? First, it's a POWER5, one above a POWER4, which the G5 is based on, which might make the instruction set compatible, does not mean it can make full use of the other stuff, like SMT, nor, the special stuff like the vector processors.
I meant hardware wise for the XBox 2! But you are most certainly correct on M$ bloatware!
Yes, tell me, how is Sony going to sell a $3000 gaming console to more than 50,000 people? Considering that it costs tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, to design a new chip, they are not going for the small high end market. Chances are, they're either taking a loss, or have found a way to make them for less, but considering the power, even $1000 would be cheap. The Itanium? That *did* cost $3000 and was meant to replace x86 in the server! Then, it turned out to have horrible performance. If Cell processors have horrible performance, I will be disappointed, and I would certainly retract my statements.
Ooops. Thank you for the correction. I am in serious doubt anyway of what I wrote. I had heard about 35 nm processes though, but I doubt the Cell would be manufactured on that yet. Look to the future! ;)
I think you misunderstood my point. Pray tell, when do you think Microsoft will port Longhorn to the Cell? It's a product of Sony afterall, it's big rival in the consumer home devices market. Will Apple? Possibly, but not in the near future. What's left? The *NIXes!
Well, it seems like it's being produced on a .3 meter process!
"The firms expect to begin production of Cell processors at IBM's 300mm plant in New York and Sony's Nagasaki fab later this year."
Why do I sense that the article is wrong? Maybe there is a grain of truth though, and I had heard about a 30 nm plant, but I could just be crazy. :)