I interned with a group at NASA Langley which is working to use mostly off the shelf components to build a portable cave. They already have a more than working prototype, or did when I was there 2 years ago.
Unfortunatly I do not remember prices, but I know for sure this was maxing at around $30,000. I don't have time to go hunting now, but here is a good jumping point: http://develop.larc.nasa.gov/projects/
Just google for nasa develop and cave
Assuming the processor can handle it, all you would need is a firmware hack, am I right? Although I think the processor could be a major part of it.
I guess the video out could also have too low of a refresh rate, but who knows.
Further along the same line, could you hack it to play video on the iPod itself (assuming refresh rates, and processor speed). All you would really have to do it add in the codecs, right?
I am not even close to an iPod hacker, so someone who is - what do you think?
A little more info:
Advertised 15 hour battery life
65k-color screen
220 x 176 pixel resolution
Same click wheel as previous generation
Not mentioned (at least in my first pass) is that, the dock will connect to tvs and display a slideshow.
Includes AV Cable (supposedly 3-plug RCA)
The new ipods are slightly thicker. Each of the new ones is.75 in compared to.57 and.69 in for the 20GB and 40GB previous model. The weight about the same however, 6.4 ounces compared to 5.6 and 6.2.
Does anyone else think that this a bit overkill. 60Gb is a LOT when you are just talking about music and pictures. It would be one thing if this generation included video playback, but... it doesnt. Not to mention $600 (and $500 for that matter) is really reaching, considering we are just talking about music and pictures
This rumor has been making its way around blogs for quite some time now. The only proof (and circumstantial at that) is the phantom mozilla bugs, and gbrowser.com.
Please mod the parent up. I don't have the link, but one of the founders also expressly denied this story
While this is a little bit of a common sense study, I think its a little bogus. There are so many other factors. One week to the next?? I know for a fact that last week I didnt do crap, this week I have worked like a dog, and its only gotten colder.
"Firefox will not be THE player until the day that people start writing pages that work under Firefox, ignore IE's "quirks""
This simply is not true. There are certainly sites out there that have problems on Firefox, but to say that they are few and far between is an overstatement to me. I almost never find one. And when I do, that is why there is the ieview extension.
Almost all page designs that are coming onto the web now are heavily CSS based, so "the latest and greatest" often works just find on firefox. Also, most page developers never really stopped designing for netscape as well, which saves firefox a great deal of the time.
The one or two times that I have run into a page that does not work on firefox does not even measure next to how much better the browser is for surfing the net.
The biggest issue is that you are talking about to very distinct types of flight. First, you have the airplane part of the mission, at (relatively) low speeds, getting most of your lift from wings. Then, you have to shift to extremely high speeds with no lift. Jet engines can only carry you so fast (around Mach 3 or 4). Scramjet or Ramjet engines, which are sort of a mix between a jet and a rocket, can't start until around mach 3 or so, and will only carry you to to about mach 10 - 12 (theoretically, the government is testing this now).
To get to orbital speeds, you need a rocket of some kind (with current technology). A plane can not take off and fly like an airplane while being powered by a rocket - its just to much. If you are going to provide power with a rocket from takeoff, you might as well go straight up.
Airplanes do have a distinct advantage, however, which is why these prototypes and ideas exist in the first place. It costs next to nothing for an airplane to climb to 60k ft, compared to a rocket. Lift is doing for only the cost of accelerating to ~300mph, what a rocket does by shooting straight up. And you just bypassed the densest part of the atmosphere. So, if like Rutan's Tier One, you can then launch a rocket, you are talking about serious cost savings. Two problems though: First, this is a complex system which would be expensive to develop (for the government at least), and for one or two launches it would not offset the cost savings. Second, this only works for lighter payloads. It would take a great deal more work (read money, development) to get something the size of the shuttle to altitude, with the rockets it would need to move into orbit.
The national spaceplane and similar designs all represent the dream here. You have some kind of ramjet/scramjet hybrid that allows you to take off like an airplane, use lift to climb as high as you can, and then accelerate to orbital velocity. The biggest restriction here is simply the propulsion technology does not quite exist yet (Although I want to see what Rutan has in mind. Personally, I think he could do it)
External Harddrive
on
Backups to CD-R?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Honestly I can't stress how much I value my external harddrive. I have a laptop, and beyond addition storage, I use the HD for a good deal of backups.
Sure it's more expensive than CD-Rs, but you get a ton more storage, and a heck of a lot faster (not to mention the added space if you want it), and you can get some great deals (I got an enclosure and 120GB for $90) on USB2 or firewire external drives from http://www.pricewatch.com/ (just be sure you are buying the combo and not just an enclosure).
With this kind of space and speed, you can zip or rar files and folders and copy them over. More importantly, you can easily image a drive using one of the utilities already mentioned, and not have to worry nearly as much about fitting it onto 700 or 650 MB.
And with HDs going for about $1 a GB I would also suggest not quickly running to CD, perhaps just by a second internal drive.
Slashdot Mirror
I interned with a group at NASA Langley which is working to use mostly off the shelf components to build a portable cave. They already have a more than working prototype, or did when I was there 2 years ago. Unfortunatly I do not remember prices, but I know for sure this was maxing at around $30,000. I don't have time to go hunting now, but here is a good jumping point: http://develop.larc.nasa.gov/projects/ Just google for nasa develop and cave
Much to the chagrin of the RIAA and MPAA I can't remember the last time I payed to download something
Assuming the processor can handle it, all you would need is a firmware hack, am I right? Although I think the processor could be a major part of it.
I guess the video out could also have too low of a refresh rate, but who knows.
Further along the same line, could you hack it to play video on the iPod itself (assuming refresh rates, and processor speed). All you would really have to do it add in the codecs, right?
I am not even close to an iPod hacker, so someone who is - what do you think?
A little more info: .75 in compared to .57 and .69 in for the 20GB and 40GB previous model. The weight about the same however, 6.4 ounces compared to 5.6 and 6.2.
... it doesnt. Not to mention $600 (and $500 for that matter) is really reaching, considering we are just talking about music and pictures
Advertised 15 hour battery life
65k-color screen
220 x 176 pixel resolution
Same click wheel as previous generation
Not mentioned (at least in my first pass) is that, the dock will connect to tvs and display a slideshow.
Includes AV Cable (supposedly 3-plug RCA) The new ipods are slightly thicker. Each of the new ones is
Does anyone else think that this a bit overkill. 60Gb is a LOT when you are just talking about music and pictures. It would be one thing if this generation included video playback, but
In other apple news Apple Launches 9 Euro iTunes Music Stores
Please! Let this die!!
This rumor has been making its way around blogs for quite some time now. The only proof (and circumstantial at that) is the phantom mozilla bugs, and gbrowser.com.
Please mod the parent up. I don't have the link, but one of the founders also expressly denied this story
While this is a little bit of a common sense study, I think its a little bogus. There are so many other factors. One week to the next?? I know for a fact that last week I didnt do crap, this week I have worked like a dog, and its only gotten colder.
"Firefox will not be THE player until the day that people start writing pages that work under Firefox, ignore IE's "quirks""
This simply is not true. There are certainly sites out there that have problems on Firefox, but to say that they are few and far between is an overstatement to me. I almost never find one. And when I do, that is why there is the ieview extension.
Almost all page designs that are coming onto the web now are heavily CSS based, so "the latest and greatest" often works just find on firefox. Also, most page developers never really stopped designing for netscape as well, which saves firefox a great deal of the time.
The one or two times that I have run into a page that does not work on firefox does not even measure next to how much better the browser is for surfing the net.
The biggest issue is that you are talking about to very distinct types of flight. First, you have the airplane part of the mission, at (relatively) low speeds, getting most of your lift from wings. Then, you have to shift to extremely high speeds with no lift. Jet engines can only carry you so fast (around Mach 3 or 4). Scramjet or Ramjet engines, which are sort of a mix between a jet and a rocket, can't start until around mach 3 or so, and will only carry you to to about mach 10 - 12 (theoretically, the government is testing this now).
To get to orbital speeds, you need a rocket of some kind (with current technology). A plane can not take off and fly like an airplane while being powered by a rocket - its just to much. If you are going to provide power with a rocket from takeoff, you might as well go straight up.
Airplanes do have a distinct advantage, however, which is why these prototypes and ideas exist in the first place. It costs next to nothing for an airplane to climb to 60k ft, compared to a rocket. Lift is doing for only the cost of accelerating to ~300mph, what a rocket does by shooting straight up. And you just bypassed the densest part of the atmosphere. So, if like Rutan's Tier One, you can then launch a rocket, you are talking about serious cost savings. Two problems though: First, this is a complex system which would be expensive to develop (for the government at least), and for one or two launches it would not offset the cost savings. Second, this only works for lighter payloads. It would take a great deal more work (read money, development) to get something the size of the shuttle to altitude, with the rockets it would need to move into orbit.
The national spaceplane and similar designs all represent the dream here. You have some kind of ramjet/scramjet hybrid that allows you to take off like an airplane, use lift to climb as high as you can, and then accelerate to orbital velocity. The biggest restriction here is simply the propulsion technology does not quite exist yet (Although I want to see what Rutan has in mind. Personally, I think he could do it)
Honestly I can't stress how much I value my external harddrive. I have a laptop, and beyond addition storage, I use the HD for a good deal of backups.
Sure it's more expensive than CD-Rs, but you get a ton more storage, and a heck of a lot faster (not to mention the added space if you want it), and you can get some great deals (I got an enclosure and 120GB for $90) on USB2 or firewire external drives from http://www.pricewatch.com/ (just be sure you are buying the combo and not just an enclosure).
With this kind of space and speed, you can zip or rar files and folders and copy them over. More importantly, you can easily image a drive using one of the utilities already mentioned, and not have to worry nearly as much about fitting it onto 700 or 650 MB.
And with HDs going for about $1 a GB I would also suggest not quickly running to CD, perhaps just by a second internal drive.