NASA shifted in the late 90's to a series of relatively inexpensive probes with a narrow purpose (as opposed to the Voyager-class missions).
As opposed to Voyager?
Voyager was a relatively inexpensive probe with a narrow purpose.
The entire Voyager mission cost less than 1 space shuttle launch does. So you could fund a Voyager-type mission with the price you're paying for a single Shuttle mission to re-stock the Space Station.
The problem is that you can't really get too much cheaper. Even if you just launch a slab of concrete into space, it's still going to cost you hundreds of millions of dollars. You might as well make a more capable probe since that's only a small part of the total cost.
This requires both a source of warm, dry air and the proper ducting to get it where it needs to be. This adds weight to the vehicle and has the potential to change the aerodynamics of the vehicle.
Since this is only a problem during launch, you don't need to mount it to the vehicle, only the platform. Basically just a blow dryer that is retracted before liftoff.
The Challenger was partially caused by ice and freezing. So the solution was to use insulation (basically a light-weight spray on that is similar to styrofoam). Sadly the Columbia was hit by the same insulation.
Challenger's problem was with the O-rings sealing in the solid rocket boosters. They did not use foam to fix this.
Columbia was damaged by foam that fell off the main fuel tank, which doesn't have any connection at all to Challenger's problem.
Just because some people have an imperfect understanding of the word (imagine, on slashdot of all places), does not mean that the rest of us should be limited by their ignorance or misapprehension.
The problem is that it is mostly the people who think they have a good vocabulary who misuse words. They remind me of Damon Wayans' character on In Living Color.
Also, keep in mind what the headline said. Most people who agreed with the usage stated that "Go daddy usurped Network Solutions' position" is an acceptable usage. This is NOT what the headline said. The headline said "GoDaddy usurps Network Solutions". These two sentences have completely different meanings. The first means that GoDaddy took Network Solutions' position, while the second means that GoDaddy took Network Solutions.
I think many people take liberal advantage of English's flexibility and really bend the language to make use of words that don't really fit.
Usurp doesn't really work in this sentence, as has been pointed out by numerous people. Had the word fit perfectly, nobody would have mentioned anything about it.
It doesn't work. Only those who believe that they can use artistic liberty to butcher the language believe that this fits.
I'm just glad I'm not the only reasonable person who has pointed this out.
The reason the military uses turbojets is because turbojets provide more power than turbofans can, and in military aircraft such as Air Dominence fighters etc the more power you have, the better chance you have in combat, ie higher speeds, higher climbing characteristics
Actually that's not the case. Military aircraft would use higher bypass turbofans if they'd fit, but they won't fit in a fighter where the engines are mounted internally. But on planes where the engines are mounted externally, they do use higher bypass engines, like on the A-10 and S3 Viking.
The S3 Viking's engines look like little airliner engines:
That rumour has been circulating since 1993 when Apple was readying the PowerMacs. If anything, they'd bring AMD in to pick up the slack of IBM and Motorolla.
On the contrary, there has been talk of AMD dealing with IBM to pick up the slack to make Athlons. AMD doesn't have that kind of manufacturing capacity.
AMD and Intel both rushed dual core to market for bragging rights. Both companies are using a design that's really not much more than two dies on the same wafer with a little interconnect circuitry. I think the *most* optimistic estimate I've heard for a clean, shared cache design is 12-18 months away still. This is very new stuff for both companies.
This is untrue for AMD's dual-core chips. For Intel, maybe. For AMD, no.
AMD's K8 core was designed from the beginning to accomodate dual cores. All K8 "Hammer" chips have the memory controller integrated onto the die. The K8 architecture does dual-core just fine.
And a shared cache isn't something that I'd call an advantage. Each core having its own cache is optimal, since it doesn't have to share the cache.
Remember when "shared memory" was marketed as being a good thing for PC's? In reality it never worked well.
AMD single processors can't handle multiple threads at once?
No, they cannot. They quickly switch between threads, but cannot process them simultaneously. Intel chips with Hyperthreading process the threads simulataneously.
What planet do you live on?
Earth. Welcome, visitor.
So you're saying I can't run multiple threads of the same application on an athlon and do it effectively?
And he sets up the strawman, and he misses. No, I didn't say that and nowhere from reading my post could a reasonable person draw that conclusion. I only said that the single core Athlons couldn't process multiple threads simulataneously, but now with dual cores they can, giving AMD's dual core chips a bigger boost in benchmarks than Intel's dual core chips received.
While this may not be as effective as Intel's hyperthreading technology, I'd take an athlon64 3200+ 939 pin or athlon xp 3200+ over a pentium4 3.2ghz any day, simply because of the fact that I haven't noticed any difference with hyperthreading on or off on the intel systems.
Me too, and I did choose an Athlon 64 3200 over a P4.
All it does is make a fake virtual cpu out of a single cpu and reduce the processing time given to a single thread.
It does a lot more than that. It actually improves performance quite a bit, and anyone who has analysed benchmarks would see its effect in multi-threaded tasks.
Educate yourself on the subject before making a post flaming me.
Now, it's struck me as very peculiar that the benchmarks where the dual dual core setup from AMD really shines leave out any comparison whatsoever to the Intel dual-core offering.
They couldn't test a dual core multiprocessor chip from Intel because one doesn't exist yet. They've only released single processor dual core chips so far.
AMD introduced dual core on their multiprocessor server chips first, with desktop chips coming later on. Intel introduced dual core on their single CPU desktop chips first, with server chips coming later on this year, or in early 2006.
The problem is that you can easily run a single multiprocessor-capable CPU in a system, while you cannot run two single-processor-only chips in a system since they lack that capability.
On other benchmarks the AMD dual core gets 10-20% better performance! SiSoft Sandra is an exception, where there is a mixed bag between the two processors.
In the article on Anandtech, they do a pretty good job of explaining this.
Basically, in the past, programs that had multiple threads heavily favored Intel's Hyperthreading chips since they could handle multiple threads at once. AMD's chips lacked this capability. Intel's dual core chips did pick up a performance boost, but they didn't pick up the large boost that AMD's dual core chips did. AMD picked up such a large performance boost because their chips lacked hyperthreading, and now with two cores they're able to handle multiple threads at once whereas they couldn't before.
Awesome! Now 911 can have the blue screen of DEATH
on
Microsoft's 911 Patent
·
· Score: 1
You:
"911, my house is on fire. Why won't this button work, I hit it 10 times already"
PC:
A fatal exception 0E has occured in module:911. Longhorn has taken a minidump on Your.Life Press any key to continue
The article mentions no swash plate. If it has no collective pitch either, then there's no auto-rotation landing capability if the engine quits. Maybe they come equipped with a ballistic parachute.
It's an autogyro, not a helicopter. So it's always autorotating.
I believe that these lesser known programs such as Firefox, Opera, and OS's such as Linux and MacOS are secure due to their small marketshare.
While I'm sure these programs/OS's try their best to be scure, I think most of their security comes from their obscurity, not any technical advantage in security that they have.
As Firefox becomes more popular, I see more exploits for it being made. Whereas I used to never get popups, I do now.
Windows/IE is the most heavily affected due to their marketshare... most virus writers will want to target the software that is the most common.
I wonder if the threats did them any good, or if Intel have now got so used to the cries of wolf that they called Dell's bluff? Intel probably told Dell to shut the hell up or miss out on the launch.
That should read "or if Intel has..."
Company names are singular nouns. Besides not sounding right when you refer to a company name as a plural noun, it's also grammatically incorrect. You are referring to a company, a singular entity. It's a collective noun, like the word "group". While a group consists of individual members, when you refer to the group it is singular.
The only exception would be if you are referring to the individuals within that group.
Slashdot Mirror
NASA shifted in the late 90's to a series of relatively inexpensive probes with a narrow purpose (as opposed to the Voyager-class missions).
As opposed to Voyager?
Voyager was a relatively inexpensive probe with a narrow purpose.
The entire Voyager mission cost less than 1 space shuttle launch does. So you could fund a Voyager-type mission with the price you're paying for a single Shuttle mission to re-stock the Space Station.
The problem is that you can't really get too much cheaper. Even if you just launch a slab of concrete into space, it's still going to cost you hundreds of millions of dollars. You might as well make a more capable probe since that's only a small part of the total cost.
One of the NASA engineers is going to use his AAA card and tell the tow truck driver that it's his rover.
AAA is going to get shafted on this one, but problem solved.
Blow warm dry air over it?
This requires both a source of warm, dry air and the proper ducting to get it where it needs to be. This adds weight to the vehicle and has the potential to change the aerodynamics of the vehicle.
Since this is only a problem during launch, you don't need to mount it to the vehicle, only the platform. Basically just a blow dryer that is retracted before liftoff.
The Challenger was partially caused by ice and freezing. So the solution was to use insulation (basically a light-weight spray on that is similar to styrofoam). Sadly the Columbia was hit by the same insulation.
Challenger's problem was with the O-rings sealing in the solid rocket boosters. They did not use foam to fix this.
Columbia was damaged by foam that fell off the main fuel tank, which doesn't have any connection at all to Challenger's problem.
Just because some people have an imperfect understanding of the word (imagine, on slashdot of all places), does not mean that the rest of us should be limited by their ignorance or misapprehension.
The problem is that it is mostly the people who think they have a good vocabulary who misuse words. They remind me of Damon Wayans' character on In Living Color.
Also, keep in mind what the headline said. Most people who agreed with the usage stated that "Go daddy usurped Network Solutions' position" is an acceptable usage. This is NOT what the headline said. The headline said "GoDaddy usurps Network Solutions". These two sentences have completely different meanings. The first means that GoDaddy took Network Solutions' position, while the second means that GoDaddy took Network Solutions.
#1- Put down the pipe
#2- there's no secret message.
#3- you're not even responding to the right thread. This is about GoDaddy.
I think many people take liberal advantage of English's flexibility and really bend the language to make use of words that don't really fit.
Usurp doesn't really work in this sentence, as has been pointed out by numerous people. Had the word fit perfectly, nobody would have mentioned anything about it.
It doesn't work. Only those who believe that they can use artistic liberty to butcher the language believe that this fits.
I'm just glad I'm not the only reasonable person who has pointed this out.
The reason the military uses turbojets is because turbojets provide more power than turbofans can, and in military aircraft such as Air Dominence fighters etc the more power you have, the better chance you have in combat, ie higher speeds, higher climbing characteristics
e b/A10.jpg
Actually that's not the case. Military aircraft would use higher bypass turbofans if they'd fit, but they won't fit in a fighter where the engines are mounted internally. But on planes where the engines are mounted externally, they do use higher bypass engines, like on the A-10 and S3 Viking.
The S3 Viking's engines look like little airliner engines:
http://web.singnet.com/~jtann/plane17.jpg
As do the A-10's:
http://www.math.univ-montp2.fr/~mohamadi/dasilvaw
They're way too fat to fit inside the airframe of a small fighter, so they have to use much narrower low-bypass engines in fighters.
The problem with blogs is that anything can publish anything. It doesn't have to be true.
Apple is not going to use Intel compatible chips anytime soon.
That rumour has been circulating since 1993 when Apple was readying the PowerMacs. If anything, they'd bring AMD in to pick up the slack of IBM and Motorolla.
On the contrary, there has been talk of AMD dealing with IBM to pick up the slack to make Athlons. AMD doesn't have that kind of manufacturing capacity.
AMD and Intel both rushed dual core to market for bragging rights. Both companies are using a design that's really not much more than two dies on the same wafer with a little interconnect circuitry. I think the *most* optimistic estimate I've heard for a clean, shared cache design is 12-18 months away still. This is very new stuff for both companies.
This is untrue for AMD's dual-core chips. For Intel, maybe. For AMD, no.
AMD's K8 core was designed from the beginning to accomodate dual cores. All K8 "Hammer" chips have the memory controller integrated onto the die. The K8 architecture does dual-core just fine.
And a shared cache isn't something that I'd call an advantage. Each core having its own cache is optimal, since it doesn't have to share the cache.
Remember when "shared memory" was marketed as being a good thing for PC's? In reality it never worked well.
*This is an honest question, this is not a troll*
Why is it front-page-newsworthy when Apple updates their product line, but it is not newsworthy when Dell, Microsoft, or Intel updates theirs?
I have no idea how accurate those calculations were, but he's a smart guy with more degrees than I have.
So does the unabomber, but I would take what he says with a grain of salt.
AMD single processors can't handle multiple threads at once?
No, they cannot. They quickly switch between threads, but cannot process them simultaneously. Intel chips with Hyperthreading process the threads simulataneously.
What planet do you live on?
Earth. Welcome, visitor.
So you're saying I can't run multiple threads of the same application on an athlon and do it effectively?
And he sets up the strawman, and he misses. No, I didn't say that and nowhere from reading my post could a reasonable person draw that conclusion. I only said that the single core Athlons couldn't process multiple threads simulataneously, but now with dual cores they can, giving AMD's dual core chips a bigger boost in benchmarks than Intel's dual core chips received.
While this may not be as effective as Intel's hyperthreading technology, I'd take an athlon64 3200+ 939 pin or athlon xp 3200+ over a pentium4 3.2ghz any day, simply because of the fact that I haven't noticed any difference with hyperthreading on or off on the intel systems.
Me too, and I did choose an Athlon 64 3200 over a P4.
All it does is make a fake virtual cpu out of a single cpu and reduce the processing time given to a single thread.
It does a lot more than that. It actually improves performance quite a bit, and anyone who has analysed benchmarks would see its effect in multi-threaded tasks.
Educate yourself on the subject before making a post flaming me.
http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=50000319
Now, it's struck me as very peculiar that the benchmarks where the dual dual core setup from AMD really shines leave out any comparison whatsoever to the Intel dual-core offering.
They couldn't test a dual core multiprocessor chip from Intel because one doesn't exist yet. They've only released single processor dual core chips so far.
AMD introduced dual core on their multiprocessor server chips first, with desktop chips coming later on. Intel introduced dual core on their single CPU desktop chips first, with server chips coming later on this year, or in early 2006.
The problem is that you can easily run a single multiprocessor-capable CPU in a system, while you cannot run two single-processor-only chips in a system since they lack that capability.
On other benchmarks the AMD dual core gets 10-20% better performance! SiSoft Sandra is an exception, where there is a mixed bag between the two processors.
In the article on Anandtech, they do a pretty good job of explaining this.
Basically, in the past, programs that had multiple threads heavily favored Intel's Hyperthreading chips since they could handle multiple threads at once. AMD's chips lacked this capability. Intel's dual core chips did pick up a performance boost, but they didn't pick up the large boost that AMD's dual core chips did. AMD picked up such a large performance boost because their chips lacked hyperthreading, and now with two cores they're able to handle multiple threads at once whereas they couldn't before.
You:
"911, my house is on fire. Why won't this button work, I hit it 10 times already"
PC:
A fatal exception 0E has occured in module:911. Longhorn has taken a minidump on Your.Life
Press any key to continue
Have no fear, that's just a glass of water sitting on top of a candy bar!
*Flies away*
I couldn't understand any of it, but then this line caught me:
Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
lol
I see that you were referring to a different aircraft. I was referring to the CarterCopter. My mistake.
I thought he was referring to the CarterCopter.
The article mentions no swash plate. If it has no collective pitch either, then there's no auto-rotation landing capability if the engine quits. Maybe they come equipped with a ballistic parachute.
It's an autogyro, not a helicopter. So it's always autorotating.
I believe that these lesser known programs such as Firefox, Opera, and OS's such as Linux and MacOS are secure due to their small marketshare.
While I'm sure these programs/OS's try their best to be scure, I think most of their security comes from their obscurity, not any technical advantage in security that they have.
As Firefox becomes more popular, I see more exploits for it being made. Whereas I used to never get popups, I do now.
Windows/IE is the most heavily affected due to their marketshare... most virus writers will want to target the software that is the most common.
Flying cars have been "right around the corner" for the last 50 years. And yet in 2005 we aren't much closer.
I wonder if the threats did them any good, or if Intel have now got so used to the cries of wolf that they called Dell's bluff? Intel probably told Dell to shut the hell up or miss out on the launch.
o unssingularorpluralcompanyisvcompanyare
y le-book/singular-plural.htm
That should read "or if Intel has..."
Company names are singular nouns. Besides not sounding right when you refer to a company name as a plural noun, it's also grammatically incorrect. You are referring to a company, a singular entity. It's a collective noun, like the word "group". While a group consists of individual members, when you refer to the group it is singular.
The only exception would be if you are referring to the individuals within that group.
http://alt-usage-english.org/intro_d.shtml#Groupn
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/public-affairs/uon-st