The reason is because those that are pushing these technologies (generally liberals) are pushing something that is not economically viable in the open marketplace without subsidies that mean taking from others in the form of taxes to pay for these cars to make them look competetive.
Subsidy means someone else is paying part of the cost. The true cost of running these cars is what you pay as the owner plus what someone else pays as a subsidy through their taxes. When you add those two together, electric is still not competetive and probably won't be until someone discovers how to say increase the energy density of batteries by about 50% or more.
This story is disingenuous. If they had said the cars are competetive costwise without the subsidies, the title would have been justified. The way it is, its propoganda for the liberal agenda.
We let taxi drivers buy half million dollar houses. We're all gonna get our power from solar and wind farms. Everybody's gonna be driving electric cars in a couple of years. Why shouldn't laymen be able to write computer code?
So we spend hundreds of millions of dollars specifically to send a spacecraft across the void to look for signs of life and water. Did anybody actually think to put a few seeds onboard to just toss out and see if they might grow? I mean, we can do molecular spectroscopy from 10 million miles away an nobody thought to thow some seeds in there?
was the first computer I owned. It had a cassette tape drive for mass storage. The Model I was followed by a Model III with dual 8" floppy drives and the finally a hard drive in the first IBM PC. I also had one of the first 128 Kbyte Macs.
The first computer I ever used was a DEC PDP-8 on which I spent many hours writing BASIC programs using stolen accounts (I was in junior high and used to look over the shoulders of the college kids when they logged in after I had snuck into the local college computer center).
This is the holy grail. IF this happens, it could represent the biggest challenge yet to the existing mobile phone network. The mobile phone network does this really well and currently the only thing out there that does.
The problem is, this is really hard given the basic architecture of the Internet protocol suite. Lots of things just rely on your IP address not changing in the middle of a TCP session or a VoIP call or whatever. If you move between base stations with current WiFi, you have to change your IP address.
The cell phone network solves this by essentially rerouting things on the fly at layer 2. This is really hard to do in the Internet. My guess that some kind of Layer 2 technology will be adopted to allow groups of WiMax base stations (all under the control of a single provider in all likelihood) to move an IP address from one base station to another quickly. Beyond that it takes sharing agreements and all that and that will be really tuff!!
If he's so worried about M$ copying him, why doesn't he just release a version of Tiger for x86 and be done with it? He can bitch and moan all he wants but until he actually competing with Gates, WTF does he expect him to do?
I'm getting really tired of hearing all these "the shuttle is 60s/70s technology" arguments. The only parts of the Shuttle that are left from that time are the airframe and some of the tiles. The SSME, solids, APUs, avionics, etc. etc. have all been continuously upgraded over time. The Shuttles flying today are not the same as they were in 1980 any more than a 747-400 resembles the original 747 that flew decades ago.
Look at aircraft design, the most popular commercial jetliner in this country is the 737. That airframe design originated decades ago. Are the current 737's the same as the original? No. There have been engine changes, avionics changes, tweaks to aerodynamics, and on and on.
BS, the only thing left on the Shuttle thats really "60s/70s" technology is the airframe and thermal system. The SSME, solids, avionics, APUs, etc. etc. have all been continuously upgraded over time.
You're correct that the computer code to do an automated landing is in the software loads. However, if I recall correctly, there has never been a test of the automated landing system. Thats a hell of a risk with a multi-billion dollar spacecraft.
Also, the astronauts take over manual control of the landing at some low altitude. This is primarily a testosterone things dating back to the Right Stuff test pilot days. The good news is most of the Shuttle pilots are ex F-14 guys with like 300 carrier landings and thousands of hours in a Shuttle simulator so I think they're probably pretty qualified to do it.
When I think pate, I think of an aggregate of material that hangs together, something that demonstrates viscosity. That stuff looks pretty dry and crumbly to me, like one good sneeze would mean a really bad day!
Cynical yes, blatant promotion of my company no. What does a supercomputer have to do with a SIP User Agent?
I used to work for NASA, thats why this makes me angry to see. I could care less if they buy a big supercomputer, but to label it as helping the return to flight is just bs. This really is nothing more than a fat subsidy for Ames and California.
What a crock of sh$#! This is pure pork through and through. So Ames in CA is getting a gigantic supercomputer to do "simulations for Shuttle return to flight." Please, they designed the whole thing with less computing power than a PC. And Ames has nothing to do with Shuttle operations. If you think this is anything besides a nice subsidy for Intel in CA, take off your rose-colored glasses.
So, who's up for reelection in CA this year? Lets check the Intel campaign donations to various candidates shall we? Sorry for the cynicism but NASA has little to do with Space Flight these days and everthing to do with being a big govt agency. If you want innovation in Space Flight, check Scaled Composites, that's the bleeding edge.
The point of the article (not my point btw), is that since every line of code is written under the control of the company, its easier to make claims about the possibility of trojans and for the govt customer to believe you. Its a very easy argument to make to a govt person that Linux has millions of lines of source that you'll never be able to audit with any certainty, same for all the tools that go with it, and look here's a trivial way to put a trojan in it. Now the next thing you say is I've written this piece of code, its smaller and all my programmers are cleared so the chance of a trojan being there is much smaller, buy my stuff instead. Within the govt. everything else is subject to security, that requirement trumps everything so when Linux gets put up against an argument like I just outlined, its hard to win.
I'm a long time Linux user and have been around open-source for a long time. While the source of this article is obviously questionable, I work for a Defense Contractor and I'm here to tell you, the points raised in the article have some truth to them.
If you're selling products to the govt and those products use an operating system, the issue of being able to GUARANTEE that your code base is not and cannot be coerced is very real. Everyone has (or should have) seen the techniques used to obfuscate trojan horses by using a compiler or some other tool that makes this problem even harder.
The problem being eluded to here is about a chain of control of a code base that can be demonstrated to satisfy a DoD or other govt customer. While no process can ever be completely secure, the real point is, if you have a choice between a system that has been developed in a closed environment where you can keep an eye on everyone involved and and open-source development, the prior development is easier to verify. You can call it FUD but this is a real issue within the govt circles and WILL limit the use of Linux in certain applications.
Sun is the one who should really be worried about Mono. C#/.Net are a beautifully crafted technology that are clearly superior to Java. Once Mono is available, the argument for not using C# instead of Java will go away since you won't be able to claim anymore that you are locked into Microsoft.
Note that Max Faget is involved in this endeavor. He is widely recognized as being responsible for the basic configuration of the Space Shuttle when he was with NASA. I met him once years ago when I was working on the Space Station. He was involved in the then termed Assured Crew Return Vehicle (ACRV), the lifeboat, I don't know what they are calling it now. You could really sense the frustration in him in the system and how he really wanted to have another oppurtunity to build something. Looks like he found another chance!
Note that Max Faget is involved in this. Max is widely credited for the basic configuration of the Space Shuttle design. Hows that for NASA engineers wanting to be allowed to rock like this?!
Slashdot Mirror
The reason is because those that are pushing these technologies (generally liberals) are pushing something that is not economically viable in the open marketplace without subsidies that mean taking from others in the form of taxes to pay for these cars to make them look competetive.
Subsidy means someone else is paying part of the cost. The true cost of running these cars is what you pay as the owner plus what someone else pays as a subsidy through their taxes. When you add those two together, electric is still not competetive and probably won't be until someone discovers how to say increase the energy density of batteries by about 50% or more.
This story is disingenuous. If they had said the cars are competetive costwise without the subsidies, the title would have been justified. The way it is, its propoganda for the liberal agenda.
the whole point was there aren't that many women to speak up.
We let taxi drivers buy half million dollar houses. We're all gonna get our power from solar and wind farms. Everybody's gonna be driving electric cars in a couple of years. Why shouldn't laymen be able to write computer code?
So we spend hundreds of millions of dollars specifically to send a spacecraft across the void to look for signs of life and water. Did anybody actually think to put a few seeds onboard to just toss out and see if they might grow? I mean, we can do molecular spectroscopy from 10 million miles away an nobody thought to thow some seeds in there?
"and so therefore it's an inherently defensive weapon and not an offensive weapon, because you can't attack large amounts of areas." Uh, yeah, right.
was the first computer I owned. It had a cassette tape drive for mass storage. The Model I was followed by a Model III with dual 8" floppy drives and the finally a hard drive in the first IBM PC. I also had one of the first 128 Kbyte Macs.
The first computer I ever used was a DEC PDP-8 on which I spent many hours writing BASIC programs using stolen accounts (I was in junior high and used to look over the shoulders of the college kids when they logged in after I had snuck into the local college computer center).
Ah, those old Sci-fi RPGs...
Metamorphosis Alpha?
Traveler?
Gamma World?
This is the holy grail. IF this happens, it could represent the biggest challenge yet to the existing mobile phone network. The mobile phone network does this really well and currently the only thing out there that does.
The problem is, this is really hard given the basic architecture of the Internet protocol suite. Lots of things just rely on your IP address not changing in the middle of a TCP session or a VoIP call or whatever. If you move between base stations with current WiFi, you have to change your IP address.
The cell phone network solves this by essentially rerouting things on the fly at layer 2. This is really hard to do in the Internet. My guess that some kind of Layer 2 technology will be adopted to allow groups of WiMax base stations (all under the control of a single provider in all likelihood) to move an IP address from one base station to another quickly. Beyond that it takes sharing agreements and all that and that will be really tuff!!
Idiot
If he's so worried about M$ copying him, why doesn't he just release a version of Tiger for x86 and be done with it? He can bitch and moan all he wants but until he actually competing with Gates, WTF does he expect him to do?
I'm getting really tired of hearing all these "the shuttle is 60s/70s technology" arguments. The only parts of the Shuttle that are left from that time are the airframe and some of the tiles. The SSME, solids, APUs, avionics, etc. etc. have all been continuously upgraded over time. The Shuttles flying today are not the same as they were in 1980 any more than a 747-400 resembles the original 747 that flew decades ago.
Look at aircraft design, the most popular commercial jetliner in this country is the 737. That airframe design originated decades ago. Are the current 737's the same as the original? No. There have been engine changes, avionics changes, tweaks to aerodynamics, and on and on.
BS, the only thing left on the Shuttle thats really "60s/70s" technology is the airframe and thermal system. The SSME, solids, avionics, APUs, etc. etc. have all been continuously upgraded over time.
You're correct that the computer code to do an automated landing is in the software loads. However, if I recall correctly, there has never been a test of the automated landing system. Thats a hell of a risk with a multi-billion dollar spacecraft.
Also, the astronauts take over manual control of the landing at some low altitude. This is primarily a testosterone things dating back to the Right Stuff test pilot days. The good news is most of the Shuttle pilots are ex F-14 guys with like 300 carrier landings and thousands of hours in a Shuttle simulator so I think they're probably pretty qualified to do it.
Whew!
Thank God for cynicism, I can sleep better tonite knowing the hundreds of millions they spent to bring back a couple grains of salt are safe!
When I think pate, I think of an aggregate of material that hangs together, something that demonstrates viscosity. That stuff looks pretty dry and crumbly to me, like one good sneeze would mean a really bad day!
OK, maybe one of you lab rats can answer this but...
Call me irresponsible, but this guy went to all the effort to cover himself, then he leans over WITHOUT A MASK to work on a plate full of DUST!
I need a mask!
Really bad french cinema and people taking sh&ts on screen. This is the only movie I've ever walked out on.
Cynical yes, blatant promotion of my company no. What does a supercomputer have to do with a SIP User Agent?
I used to work for NASA, thats why this makes me angry to see. I could care less if they buy a big supercomputer, but to label it as helping the return to flight is just bs. This really is nothing more than a fat subsidy for Ames and California.
What a crock of sh$#! This is pure pork through and through. So Ames in CA is getting a gigantic supercomputer to do "simulations for Shuttle return to flight." Please, they designed the whole thing with less computing power than a PC. And Ames has nothing to do with Shuttle operations. If you think this is anything besides a nice subsidy for Intel in CA, take off your rose-colored glasses.
So, who's up for reelection in CA this year? Lets check the Intel campaign donations to various candidates shall we? Sorry for the cynicism but NASA has little to do with Space Flight these days and everthing to do with being a big govt agency. If you want innovation in Space Flight, check Scaled Composites, that's the bleeding edge.
The point of the article (not my point btw), is that since every line of code is written under the control of the company, its easier to make claims about the possibility of trojans and for the govt customer to believe you. Its a very easy argument to make to a govt person that Linux has millions of lines of source that you'll never be able to audit with any certainty, same for all the tools that go with it, and look here's a trivial way to put a trojan in it. Now the next thing you say is I've written this piece of code, its smaller and all my programmers are cleared so the chance of a trojan being there is much smaller, buy my stuff instead. Within the govt. everything else is subject to security, that requirement trumps everything so when Linux gets put up against an argument like I just outlined, its hard to win.
I'm a long time Linux user and have been around open-source for a long time. While the source of this article is obviously questionable, I work for a Defense Contractor and I'm here to tell you, the points raised in the article have some truth to them.
If you're selling products to the govt and those products use an operating system, the issue of being able to GUARANTEE that your code base is not and cannot be coerced is very real. Everyone has (or should have) seen the techniques used to obfuscate trojan horses by using a compiler or some other tool that makes this problem even harder.
The problem being eluded to here is about a chain of control of a code base that can be demonstrated to satisfy a DoD or other govt customer. While no process can ever be completely secure, the real point is, if you have a choice between a system that has been developed in a closed environment where you can keep an eye on everyone involved and and open-source development, the prior development is easier to verify. You can call it FUD but this is a real issue within the govt circles and WILL limit the use of Linux in certain applications.
Sun is the one who should really be worried about Mono. C#/.Net are a beautifully crafted technology that are clearly superior to Java. Once Mono is available, the argument for not using C# instead of Java will go away since you won't be able to claim anymore that you are locked into Microsoft.
Note that Max Faget is involved in this endeavor. He is widely recognized as being responsible for the basic configuration of the Space Shuttle when he was with NASA. I met him once years ago when I was working on the Space Station. He was involved in the then termed Assured Crew Return Vehicle (ACRV), the lifeboat, I don't know what they are calling it now. You could really sense the frustration in him in the system and how he really wanted to have another oppurtunity to build something. Looks like he found another chance!
Note that Max Faget is involved in this. Max is widely credited for the basic configuration of the Space Shuttle design. Hows that for NASA engineers wanting to be allowed to rock like this?!