Thank you Captain Jerk. Slashdot can't even keep the difference straight using the terms interchangeably. Now you are criticizing a non-technical individual for actually pointing out the difference in the terms?
If it is inaccurately worded, it is not true. I think I know what you mean and I go into detail on where it is inaccurate in another post in this thread. But the wording indicates that there is no traditional thruster. When I read this, I immediately had to check the project web page, because I have followed this mission and missed this peice of revolutionary news:)
So, I think we agree on what is really going on. And I appreciate the additional source of news. I just don't want others thinking that this mission is propellant free. Solar sails might be very valuable, but they don't provide enough force to do the type of adjustments necessary for this mission.
The author of this submission did a wikipedia search and found two things:
1) Wikipedia reports that this mission will MEASURE solar wind. 2) Wikipedia's solar wind article states "Both the Mariner 10 mission, which flew by the planets Mercury and Venus, and the MESSENGER mission to Mercury demonstrated the use of solar pressure as a method of attitude control in order to conserve attitude-control propellant."
The article submitter then took that grain of usage and made it the sole method of propulsion. Bad article submitter.
Um. no. This is NOT what most folks mean when they mean free. Ask the average person and they will tell you that it means zero cents. The average person doesn't give two shits about open source.
So you like pictures of gaping anuses? I can definitely see why some folks find this fascinating. Can you please go into more detail on why this is the case?
If you are prou or envious of sleeping with (other men's) wives, then you have a serious problem. For the record, I did once as a youngster. It is the most shameful action i have ever done.
". During its 6-year journey it used solar panels as sails, relying on the solar wind instead of thrusters to adjust its trajectory"
I do not think this is true;
"These views of MESSENGER show the orientation at the start of trajectory correction maneuver 43 (TCM-43). Because TCM-43 will use the large bi-propellant thruster to place the spacecraft into orbit about Mercury, TCM-43 is also called Mercury orbit insertion (MOI). "
"MESSENGER’s dual-mode propulsion system includes a 660-newton (150-pound) bipropellant thruster for large maneuvers and 16 hydrazine-propellant thrusters for smaller trajectory adjustments and attitude control. The Large Velocity Adjust (LVA) thruster requires a combination of hydrazine fuel and an oxidizer, nitrogen tetroxide. Fuel and oxidizer are stored in custom-designed, lightweight titanium tanks integrated into the spacecraft’s composite frame. Helium pressurizes the system and pushes the fuel and oxidizer through to the engines."
And I know I read about this mission using chemical propulsion several times during the mission to make course adjustment.
yes. you need to drop it to zero cents. Then only a few will pirate it.
You see, we have a lot of folks who want to wax phiosophical about why software should be free, why piracy is a good thing, and hey.... information wants to be free.
The reality is people are cheap bastards that want the world to pay them well for little effort but don't want to pay for other people's efforts. Rich, poor, people are all alike in that regard. Some of us are smart enough to see our own shortcomings and deal with it in a grown up fashion. The rest troll Slashdot.
I have no problem with caps as long as they are well advertised and your usage is plainly knowable real-time. I am not sure why we think you should be able to consume as much as you want for no addition fee. My mom likely uses 1GB or less a month... why should she get charged the same as me who uses 100GB easily? Granted, it shouldn't be linear... but I put more load on the system, I should pay more.
On the liberal side, I think we should mandate competition in every market and a minimum 1Mb line for all Americans.
Geez dude. Maybe you should learn to rely on spellcheck.
"relay" should by rely. Technology is not capitalized. "to the thinking way"... I think you left out the word "do". "to much" should be "too much". "person" should be "personal". "responsibly" should be "responsibility".
Thanks for the information. The hype abounds for the iPad 2 and there is very little in the way of real information. If I were just looking for video capability, I likely would not consider the iPad. but with other corporate needs pointing this way, I am inclined to investigate it further.
Does anyone have a clue what the face time bandwidth requirements are for face time? I run an IT department for a company with four locations. I've wanted to go the video route for a long time, but haven't had any really good options.
I am looking into iPads for our Executive and Sales teams anyhow... I might be able to kill two birds with one stone. However, I want to make sure I am not going to kill our data plan and/or my corporate internet bandwidth.
Any concrete numbers would be appreciated. Bonus points for info from others who have successfully impleneted video conferencing in a smaller (100 employee) environment across multiple locations. I am willing to award an internet for good info:)
1) Oh, get over it. Apple consumers are no more conditioned to buy shiny things than anybody else
Disagree. Apple is a wonderful marketing company.
2) absolutely everybody is scrambling to go to a locked down marketplace so they can "monetize the eyeballs"
Absolutely agree. Apple does it much better than the other big companies. Evidence? Look at their MASSIVE stock price premium as compared to quarterly or annual earnings per share. Investors aren't stupid. They know Apple has positioned themselves well.
3) Apple does a better job of providing an integrated experience that just 'works' without all sorts of extraneous fiddly bits that 99% of the people will never use.
Again, we agree.
4) Well, given that I read my news primarily in my Google news, I don't know who is going to subscribe to Murdoch's magazine (hint, it won't be "young and trendy"). But, clearly, they feel that someone is lining up to purchase this.
Yet again we agree. The "folks willing to purchase" this category lines up well with Apple's target demographic.
For agreeing with me on almost all points, your sure took a hostile tone. I really don't get the crux of where you think we differ.
Because Apple does a much better job about delivering a large set of eyeballs attached to people who are already trained to pay out money for cool shiny things. Apple is primarilly a marketing company and they are damn good at it. I am not in their target demographic: young, trendy, willing to spend money for the cool factor. So Apple delivers the right audience for online magazines.
I suspect most droid users would say "fuck it... I can get the same info for free if I just spend 10 seconds and Google it".
While I appreciate the link and the thoughfulness of your reply, I have a couple points.
1) As far as i am aware, Dell does not manufacture anything themselves. If I am incorrect, please show me where I can find this info.
2) Dell is reducing suppliers. That we agree on. However, Dell is still the "middleman" in the sense that they do not produce but act as the distribution system to customers. So Michael's credo aside, they ARE the middleman.
3) I stand behind the fact that Dell is hurt by this merger. They are getting into a production and design phase that they know NOTHING about. They are getting into an area that wold detract from their core strength... driving down costs and seeking to make it up through volume. AMD is not about minimizing costs... they are about huge investments, hoping (forecasting) to recoup investments through entering new markets or taking market away from competitors. These two mindsets are almost diametrically opposed and would lead to huge management problems.
1) Apple is in a slightly different Market (read 'slightly' as 'hugely'). And Apple does not own the actual production. They outsource a lot so they can be nimble and cut ties with a supplier at their whim. As far as Anti-trust, Dell and HP are the lion's share of the market. Intel and AMD are an even bigger lion's share. Any merger in this area should be scrutinized heavily.
2) Dell still does not own the production. They are a middleperson in the process and that is where they want to be.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you Captain Jerk. Slashdot can't even keep the difference straight using the terms interchangeably. Now you are criticizing a non-technical individual for actually pointing out the difference in the terms?
Why do you feel the need to be a jerk about this?
As near as I can tell, the dropdown does not send any data back to the server. It seems completely worthless even by Slashdot standards.
[first; second; third; other] post!
You should try this new website called /.
WTF?
'Inaccurately worded, but true none-the-less."
wait. what?
If it is inaccurately worded, it is not true. I think I know what you mean and I go into detail on where it is inaccurate in another post in this thread. But the wording indicates that there is no traditional thruster. When I read this, I immediately had to check the project web page, because I have followed this mission and missed this peice of revolutionary news :)
So, I think we agree on what is really going on. And I appreciate the additional source of news. I just don't want others thinking that this mission is propellant free. Solar sails might be very valuable, but they don't provide enough force to do the type of adjustments necessary for this mission.
I think I see the source of the confusing
The author of this submission did a wikipedia search and found two things:
1) Wikipedia reports that this mission will MEASURE solar wind.
2) Wikipedia's solar wind article states "Both the Mariner 10 mission, which flew by the planets Mercury and Venus, and the MESSENGER mission to Mercury demonstrated the use of solar pressure as a method of attitude control in order to conserve attitude-control propellant."
The article submitter then took that grain of usage and made it the sole method of propulsion. Bad article submitter.
Um. no. This is NOT what most folks mean when they mean free. Ask the average person and they will tell you that it means zero cents. The average person doesn't give two shits about open source.
So you like pictures of gaping anuses? I can definitely see why some folks find this fascinating. Can you please go into more detail on why this is the case?
If you are prou or envious of sleeping with (other men's) wives, then you have a serious problem. For the record, I did once as a youngster. It is the most shameful action i have ever done.
". During its 6-year journey it used solar panels as sails, relying on the solar wind instead of thrusters to adjust its trajectory"
I do not think this is true;
"These views of MESSENGER show the orientation at the start of trajectory correction maneuver 43 (TCM-43). Because TCM-43 will use the large bi-propellant thruster to place the spacecraft into orbit about Mercury, TCM-43 is also called Mercury orbit insertion (MOI). "
"MESSENGER’s dual-mode propulsion system includes a 660-newton (150-pound) bipropellant thruster for large maneuvers and 16 hydrazine-propellant thrusters for smaller trajectory adjustments and attitude control. The Large Velocity Adjust (LVA) thruster requires a combination of hydrazine fuel and an oxidizer, nitrogen tetroxide. Fuel and oxidizer are stored in custom-designed, lightweight titanium tanks integrated into the spacecraft’s composite frame. Helium pressurizes the system and pushes the fuel and oxidizer through to the engines."
And I know I read about this mission using chemical propulsion several times during the mission to make course adjustment.
This 17 year-old is breaking age stereotypes. I applaud that someone this old is still contributing to the field of mathematics. Kudos you old man!
(insert obligatory XKCD here)
yes. you need to drop it to zero cents. Then only a few will pirate it.
You see, we have a lot of folks who want to wax phiosophical about why software should be free, why piracy is a good thing, and hey.... information wants to be free.
The reality is people are cheap bastards that want the world to pay them well for little effort but don't want to pay for other people's efforts. Rich, poor, people are all alike in that regard. Some of us are smart enough to see our own shortcomings and deal with it in a grown up fashion. The rest troll Slashdot.
Because it is about allocation.
If infrastructure costs x dollars and i have y users, I can charge x/y per customer
If y=10 and one of my users uses as much as the other nine, should I countinue to charge x/y? Or should I go with x/u where u is usage.
Which is the more "fair" way of allocating this cost?
Your first calculation is about 1/3 of a T1 line, your second around 2/3. And that is flooding it constantly 24x7. I don't see it as an awful cap.
I have no problem with caps as long as they are well advertised and your usage is plainly knowable real-time. I am not sure why we think you should be able to consume as much as you want for no addition fee. My mom likely uses 1GB or less a month... why should she get charged the same as me who uses 100GB easily? Granted, it shouldn't be linear... but I put more load on the system, I should pay more.
On the liberal side, I think we should mandate competition in every market and a minimum 1Mb line for all Americans.
Geez dude. Maybe you should learn to rely on spellcheck.
"relay" should by rely.
Technology is not capitalized.
"to the thinking way"... I think you left out the word "do".
"to much" should be "too much".
"person" should be "personal".
"responsibly" should be "responsibility".
Thanks for the information. The hype abounds for the iPad 2 and there is very little in the way of real information. If I were just looking for video capability, I likely would not consider the iPad. but with other corporate needs pointing this way, I am inclined to investigate it further.
Does anyone have a clue what the face time bandwidth requirements are for face time? I run an IT department for a company with four locations. I've wanted to go the video route for a long time, but haven't had any really good options.
I am looking into iPads for our Executive and Sales teams anyhow... I might be able to kill two birds with one stone. However, I want to make sure I am not going to kill our data plan and/or my corporate internet bandwidth.
Any concrete numbers would be appreciated. Bonus points for info from others who have successfully impleneted video conferencing in a smaller (100 employee) environment across multiple locations. I am willing to award an internet for good info :)
I have a paper and exam due tomorrow. And then I read this. I am fucked.
Thanks a lot!
And any clue why Slashdot randomly doublespaces the way it displays my comments?
1) Oh, get over it. Apple consumers are no more conditioned to buy shiny things than anybody else
Disagree. Apple is a wonderful marketing company.
2) absolutely everybody is scrambling to go to a locked down marketplace so they can "monetize the eyeballs"
Absolutely agree. Apple does it much better than the other big companies. Evidence? Look at their MASSIVE stock price premium as compared to quarterly or annual earnings per share. Investors aren't stupid. They know Apple has positioned themselves well.
3) Apple does a better job of providing an integrated experience that just 'works' without all sorts of extraneous fiddly bits that 99% of the people will never use.
Again, we agree.
4) Well, given that I read my news primarily in my Google news, I don't know who is going to subscribe to Murdoch's magazine (hint, it won't be "young and trendy"). But, clearly, they feel that someone is lining up to purchase this.
Yet again we agree. The "folks willing to purchase" this category lines up well with Apple's target demographic.
For agreeing with me on almost all points, your sure took a hostile tone. I really don't get the crux of where you think we differ.
Because Apple does a much better job about delivering a large set of eyeballs attached to people who are already trained to pay out money for cool shiny things. Apple is primarilly a marketing company and they are damn good at it. I am not in their target demographic: young, trendy, willing to spend money for the cool factor. So Apple delivers the right audience for online magazines.
I suspect most droid users would say "fuck it... I can get the same info for free if I just spend 10 seconds and Google it".
While I appreciate the link and the thoughfulness of your reply, I have a couple points.
1) As far as i am aware, Dell does not manufacture anything themselves. If I am incorrect, please show me where I can find this info.
2) Dell is reducing suppliers. That we agree on. However, Dell is still the "middleman" in the sense that they do not produce but act as the distribution system to customers. So Michael's credo aside, they ARE the middleman.
3) I stand behind the fact that Dell is hurt by this merger. They are getting into a production and design phase that they know NOTHING about. They are getting into an area that wold detract from their core strength... driving down costs and seeking to make it up through volume. AMD is not about minimizing costs... they are about huge investments, hoping (forecasting) to recoup investments through entering new markets or taking market away from competitors. These two mindsets are almost diametrically opposed and would lead to huge management problems.
1) Apple is in a slightly different Market (read 'slightly' as 'hugely'). And Apple does not own the actual production. They outsource a lot so they can be nimble and cut ties with a supplier at their whim. As far as Anti-trust, Dell and HP are the lion's share of the market. Intel and AMD are an even bigger lion's share. Any merger in this area should be scrutinized heavily.
2) Dell still does not own the production. They are a middleperson in the process and that is where they want to be.
3) Glad we are kinda agreed :)