636 posts • joined 18 Jun 2009
Re: Orbital Mechanics- what goes up must come down
Nahh... the gap between LEO (minimum 160Km) and the highest levels of atmosphere (mesopause ~80Km) is a minimum of 80Km, so you'd need a really eccentric orbit, so not only would you create a rapidly accelerating object, you'd have it going up and down through many different orbits, creating a much more dangerous object.
Deorbiting using an eccentric orbit is a really bad idea (even it if were possible).
Re: Are they blond?
I suspect that Mozilla take exception on this bit;
The Mozilla product must be without cost and its distribution (whether by download or other media) may not be subject to a fee, or tied to subscribing to or purchasing a service, or the collection of personal information.
I guess they don't like the obtaining of Firefox tied to the installation service?
No, no, no, no. no
>>Glad it's not just me who's offended by Abrams' continued rape of classic Star Trek. I am also, however, slightly offended by your misuse of the apostrophe.
I'm offended by your misuse of the word "rape", but also it seems like some people don't understand this was never a remake, the new story was the story of the first meeting of Khan, whereas "The Wrath of Khan" was the story of the second meeting of Khan, the new film was also twisted slightly because old Spock (who experienced the second meeting) was there to warn people about Khan, which could result in him not being left on the planet, preventing the second meeting.
Sherlock (for obvious reasons)
Not "complying" is the crime, not the results of complying.
It's the same as "failure to provide a breath test specimen", and I'm sure it's not coinicdence that the punishment happens to be the same as drink driving.
>>That's all this is really, a law that says "if you don't give us evidence against you, it means you are guilty".
Nope, the way the law is, is means "if you don't give us the means to easily gather evidence, it means you are guilty of not allowing us to easily gather evidence".
Personally, I suspect that they wanted to firstly convict him of something easily provable (not supplying the key) which gives them time to build a subsequent case around what they have already found, this buys them lots of time.
>>You should not forget that there have been several controlled martian landings of highly successful autonomous and remotely controlled rovers in your lifetime
Technically a "controlled landing" means landing something in a controlled manner, chute/balloons are not controlled, but retarded, and curiosity was a hybryd, a controlled payload drop with a "crashed" landing stage, although I do agree "Dismissing them out of hand would be a bit unfair", and curiosity was definitely a bit special, however, a controlled landing is far more relevant when it comes to it's applicability for human space travel, after all, you'd hope it's not a one way trip, and soft landing a return module is critical for that.
>>To be fair, technology from the Germans was a prize of war.
The hardware, to some extent yes - although the land race between the Russians and the Americans could mean it was "stolen from underneath the Russians"
The people, no, that was definitely stolen, instead of the (known) war criminals being punished for their part in the suffering (such as the camp at Dora) the Americans doctored false histories and work permits for the ex Nazis to be allowed to (il)legally work for the US. This was in stark contrast to the Russians who never let any captured Germans to work directly on their missile programs, and had either repatriated or charged all their detainees by 1951.
>>Losing your technology developments and expertise are some of the downsides of losing a war.
Not for those who ended up safe from trial in the US, even Arthur Rudolph was allowed to escape back to Germany after the statute of limitations for his crimes had expired (leaving him drawing a pension from the US). As usual, the "downsides" of war were not suffered by those instigating and manufacturing the war, but the every day people who died in the camps and under the bombs.
>>That's the way it has always worked. Had things gone differently, Germans would claim leadership in radar, encryption, space exploration, aviation and vodka.
Actually, I think you'll find that Russia was ahead in most of these areas, Germany was financially "all in" with no possibility of going back because their economy was already ruined, the only option was to attempt to win whilst already being overdrawn (kind of like the US is now).
Re: So many posts so much silliness
The best analogy is that IT is like a "shop front", you might be able to get away with no glass, or you might decide you want huge realestate, it's a cost which directly affects income, maybe a regularly maintained display to keep people interested, but if it's just a costly inconvienience you don't understand what it is.
Re: Personally ...
If only David Seaman was still playing......
Seaman has come on the pitch....
Seaman is in the box.....
Seaman is all over him....
Seaman is on the ball....
A man before his time.... (he obviously came too early)
Re: Scientists! Repeat after me: We don't know
Scientific papers almost always describe correlations within frames of confidence, and without scientific training we expect the media to take this and draw a conclusion, unfortunately there is a reason that the papers have a certain level of detail and that a simple one-liner or paragraph isn't able to give you the full story.
The reason why we have had health scares over things like MMR is because the media didn't translate the papers findings correctly, the same is true for climate change, and even meta studies struggle to draw a simple conclusion.
You're wrong to call this hubris, you're wrong to call this "so-called science", if you look at the source data, there's no hubris, and there's a lot of science, what gets related in the Fail is a different matter, El Reg tends to bare quite well, good referencing, related stories, an expectation of audience awareness, and often a humorous description of compounding and confounding factors - it we never ever be as popular as The Sun or The Mail, and if it ever is, I hope that's because the quality of the general audience has improved, not because it goes down the same route of sensationalist journalism.
Re: winds estimated to be upwards of 90kmph
>>sounds like a sensationalist nonsense,
Sounds like a factual statement
>>if i'm not mistaken because of WAY thinner atmosphere and lower pressure, effect of wind at this speed is comparable to a light breeze on earth.
Wind, yes (perhaps) but when there's Martian dust, which is very fine (and microscopically "sharp") means it's only comparable by it's difference - it's not air, and don't forget the inverse square, rovers tend to be small, exposing a small surface (of mostly hard-wearing materials), habitats with joints (for doors), large surface areas, the fine dust will (individually) carry a lot of energy - like a small metal fragment of space junk in orbit carries a lot of energy if it's travelling faster (and that's without taking into account of any corrosive effects of the dust).
>>I think the problem would be that robots wouldnt be able, even with cameras and controllers back on earth, to make habitats without people being there to ensure saftey and sustainablity.
The electronics could test a stable pressure, a balanced N+O2 air environment
>>There is only so much info you can get from a TV screen.
And being there when you discover that the Nitrogen/Oxygen ratio was round the wrong way or that the habitat has no roof due to a meteorite smashing into it has what advantages? at the end of the day, sensors will tell you everything, whether you're there or not, when Apollo 13 sprung an O2 leak, they could see venting from a viewport, this only confirmed that the sensors were right, they got back alive because a massive amount of hands on work, which was only required because they were there, and was only possible because of the dry runs and testing on earth, the crew of Apollo 13 achieved a massive victory against fate because of their skill and because they exactly followed a plan designed on earth from sensor readings.
Re: I honestly don't see the point
The point is purely because (we think) we can.
For survival, space stations are quite limited because of the complete lack of any resource available.
The moon is a far more logical step, the very limited gravity has the disadvantage of not being long-term healthy for humans evolved for stronger gravity, but has the massive advantage of being able to leave the surface with a relatively light fuel requirement.
Mars has a few advantages, the stronger gravity means the effects of things like osteoporosis (while still significant) are reduced, it looks like there's more water, and even a few big chunks of metal laying around (although processing meteorites is far from trivial).
For me, Mars feels like trying to run before we can walk, the Moon just seems so much more sensible, we could have been shipping automatically assembled living quarters there since the 1960's or even just lightweight structural materials for later assembly when the robotic technology catches up.
It's quite a soft landing on the Moon compared with Mars - anyone who watched the animations of how the latest rover got to the surface of Mars will understand that the gravity coupled with almost no atmosphere means getting delicate things like rovers and people on the surface isn't easy.
I see two parallel programs;
#1 Get "stuff" to Mars, oxygen/water harvesters, automate resource collection, investigate metals processing, habitat creation, get it full automatic and stable, iron out the bugs before it's life and death, have plenty of multiple redundancy systems in place.
#2 Get "stuff" to the Moon, this will be far more "escapable" so redundancy is less critical, a return pod is possible, orbiting resources that can be staged to the Moon or Mars, trial run the stuff that will be used at Mars, the Moon is a perfect test bed (OK, not identical, but it really is so good I can't see the reason not go go there first .
My guess, while the western world is sending corpses to Mars, the eastern world will create moon bases and colonies that naturally populate the less trendy places like the Moon and Europa.
Re: 2nd Generation ASIC Miners
>>The newer ones which can theoretically perform 2.2 Ghash/sec are now shipping
Your probably mean theoretically perform 2.2 Thash/sec, and 2.2 Thash/s, is probably not the maximum being touted, I've heard of a UK bunch doing 2.4Thash/s units
I'm not wondering....
>>Using the rear controls becomes second nature very, very quickly - I'm talking about 20-odd minutes of use. After which time you wonder why the heck nobody has thought of doing this before.
How about the Sony TH55, OK, a PDA, not a smartphone, but their Jog Dial™ is exactly this sort of thing (Google images if you're interested)
Re: from the makers....
I was literally on the verge of ordering a basic setup (with additional breadboard), as I have a Pi, but I was also going to add a small open frame PSU, small fan, kettle plug, and 7 port hub (the parts are about £10), this would have left me with a rather messy backplate which I can live with - a completely blank backplate (with some standoffs) might be a good addition to your shop for people who want to customise?
Seriously consider extra USB, while 7 is obviously excessive (I had it spare) 2 could cut it a little fine - do you mean 2 extra (i.e. a total of three out the back), some unpowered USB drives need two ports, they can go really quickly.
Great product BTW, just so tidy, having a bare board is sometimes a little too much of a leap for people, vaguely reminiscent of when I got my ZX81, I got one of the first of the prebuilt ones, when I was 12, my soldering skills looked like welding, having a box you can just turn on and go is great - it's all about getting on the learning curve, perhaps you could consider trying to getting the OS/BASIC added into NOOBS?
Really cool, but.....
You can get a 9" tablet (to be fair, only 800x480) with an A8 (1.5Ghz) with 8Gb ram and 5 point capacitive for a smidge over £50 it seems like there's some tricks to be missed here, there could be one that appears with "video in" and it will run off USB, maybe drive the mouse as well?
Think I'll have a play.
Meanwhile in the UK.....
Bletchley Park one of the most important (all due respect to Steve, but actually important) sites in the 20th century, left to rot for years, treated indifferently at best, only one block (Block C) finally getting grade 2 status (last year), no funds from the government, all charity.
Re: As an intellectual and technological excercise...
It's a valid point, but at 8 billion people, losing 150 million over 100 years isn't that much impacting to population, it's more of a problem that the people we lost were those who would make the biggest (positive) contributions, those in the prime of their working lives (unlike the old and young).
Notwithstanding, all that wasted money, infrastructure etc. we did get the NHS out of it I suppose, I guess where we can all agree is that it would have been better to have development without death, if only there was some way of making that happen!
Re: As an intellectual and technological excercise...
While it's absolutely true that much funding has come from military, it's logical to assume if we didn't spend money on the military, we'd spend it on something else, or conversely, because the military was funding it you didn't need to fund it elsewhere.
However, look look at your specific points;
RADAR Christian Hulsmeyer first used radio waves to detect ships (collision avoidance) - Not military
Spread spectrum radio - the link between this and CDMA (etc.) is tenuous at best, it is similar technology but with decades between them it's hard to credit this development with what is used today.
GPS - pretty much a military funded invention, pretty sure it wouldn't have happened (at least as soon) without this funding (I'll give you that one) doesn't mean it wouldn't have been invented of course.
The Integrated Circuit - not sure why you think this is a military invention, Werner Jacobi first suggested (and patented) this idea (simple amplifier) and proposed it's use in hearing aids, the first people to use IC's was the USAF, but it's hard to call it a military invention per se.
The Internet - merely a network of networks, often attributed to the military because of it's "redundancy during attack, ARPANET" this is untrue and a popular myth, notwithstanding, even if this was the case I think it's pretty obvious that universities were going to connect their networks regardless of the military aspect (and proposals for networks such as Merit preceded it, X25 etc.)
Nuclear power - This is an odd one, primarily because the first looks into nuclear power were non military, then the use was militarised (for weapons), and only after WW2 was nuclear power used for (usable) engery creation, there is an argument that the use in war stunted development for power as the government regulated and controlled it's use (with explicit classification).
Re: As an intellectual and technological excercise...
>>Many more technological marvels of the 20th century were the result of non-military research. The counterfactual is: if the money had been left in the economy, what would people have come up with, quite probably more efficiently?
There's truth and there's truth, WW1/WW2 gave us huge medical advances, as you get really good at stitching people up when you have a lot of people to work on (and since 1900, around 150 million died because of war) - the question is, if we didn't have war (and therefore didn't have such an intense knowledge) would we be worse off, the same or better off, and there's arguments for all three, what's true is that we made the best of a bad job.
What about technological advancements? I guess it's a similar thing is true, would we have achieved more without broken infrastructure (like schools and universities) the loss of (typically) young men when they would otherwise be contributing/graduating intellectually makes me think that while necessity is obviously one of the parents to invention, perhaps we could have done more with a few more children.
Re: Of course they have to say that...
>>I wonder what the locals said when people said they were going to sail to the other side of the world
Something along the lines of "These ships work really well, if you've gone through half your resources without finding anything, come back"?
>>I think even if it's a scam, it's putting hopes and ideas into peoples minds, and it's actually getting people to realize that people can talk freely about the idea without ridicule.
Nope, it's a ridiculous leap of faith, when you can't keep the ISS in LEO without 18 hours of maintenance a day, you *know* the tech isn't up to it yet, perhaps better (more) space stations, something outside of LEO (Lagrange perhaps?), a moonbase that you can actually leave and come back from?
>>Every single word and conversation about this gets us one step closer, think about it and you'll understand one day.
Absolutely! but sometimes that conversation has to be "This is a shit idea, lets do some walking before we can run", at some point when we're quite good at walking then running will be on the menu.
>>It's not like we spend our money on anything important other than consuming resources or selfishly indulging ourselves to our deaths.
Well, we in the privileged west might, and we have money to spunk on stupid things, if we put all our money into a manned mission to Mars we'd currently have a bunch of dead astronauts and no rovers.
The Chinese plan to go to the Moon, is great, *nobody* has the tech to get a human on the moon yet/anymore and they are planning a base, imagine what they're going to learn, and imagine how applicable that is going to be to a Mars mission.
Re: Good News
What!!!! you mean RM are in business to make money?????
Heathen, next you'll say they are pulling out so they don't lose money (like they said).
*any* time you ask a company to supply something, they want a profit, and selling off government departments that existed to purely supply governments with goods for *no* profit will guarantee that the government end up paying more.
I do not feel any need to criticise RM, they are a company, one that only exists to make money (it's not a charity, and lots of them are suspect), if you want to poke someone with a shitty stick, poke the government that sold off the departments that existed for the benefit of the people.
Winning 70% of the straight up (non points spread) bet is actually quite easy, bet on the favourite, but the odds will be shit - and you'll lose overall.
What would be more interesting would be to win 70% of the time on a straight up, non favourite, the odds would be significantly better (ranging between 6:5 and 4:1).
I smell BS too, as it's either useless (70% favourite) or they want to give money away (70% non favourite). It is possible of course that there's some smarter logic in there, and to be fair, why not? there's lots of clever people out there, but what certain is that it's not free money, and systems that do work (laying bets to cover all odds against multiple bookies/doubling etc.) have severe limitations (like a need for unlimited funds) or even just implementing rules "no doubling past 5 allowed".
I'm not saying that this system is fake, but if I wanted to create a system, I'd have some logic which won most of the time (regardless of odds), and if the punter won using my system, I get 5% of the win, if they lose I get nothing, that way I'd just sit back and yum up all those 5%'s - then it doesn't matter if the punters lose overall, I'd still get the 5% when they won (with absolutely no risk to me) - and I can keep saying "they win most of the time".
The *only* difference between working men and working women is the acceptability (to some) of compromise for success, I know mums who don't make any effort at work, and become "full time mums" (whatever that is) I know mums who do "pin money" part time jobs while husbands pay the bills, I know women who are CEO's of successful companies and take off two weeks to have a baby (twice, I may add).
Dads can pretty much do whatever they like without fear that they'll be criticised for being a bad parent, making time for the kids seems over and above (by being a "good dad").
What's wrong with this picture? same thing that's wrong with the article, an assumption that men and women are different, Phoummala strives and then caves in, failing to be a "superwoman" is merely failing to be super successful, but accepting that it's OK to be "normal", if this story was about a man, it would just end up with him saying "I couldn't be arsed, but at least I got to spend some extra time with the kids".
The article is hilarious, complaining about stereotypes - and then becomes one.
Re: Terrist prejudice
A towel has immense psychological value. For some reason, if a strag (strag: nonhitchhiker) discovers that a hitchhiker has his towel with him, he will automatically assume that he is also in possession of a toothbrush, washcloth, soap, tin of biscuits, flask, compass, map, ball of string, gnat spray, wet-weather gear, space suit etc., etc. Furthermore, the strag will then happily lend the hitchhiker any of these or a dozen other items that the hitchhiker might accidentally have "lost". What the strag will think is that any man who can hitch the length and breadth of the galaxy, rough it, slum it, struggle against terrible odds, win through, and still knows where his towel is, is clearly a man to be reckoned with.
- Douglas Adams
So, yes, remember your towel when you travel the galaxy!
As a side note, perhaps the polypropylene being detected is from all the refills in the biros?
>>Predators tend to use 2 colour systems, prey tend to monochrome, we are unusual for mammals with 3 colour vision.
Some people have four colour vision (tetrochromats), an additional cone (in the yellowy orange sort of frequency), typically only women have it phenotypically expressed, often ending up in art/design type jobs, often never realising that they have a visual advantage.
>>Animals do not pray, they are prey.
Conversely, priests do both.....
I think if Apple went to finger vein technology instead people would be talking about it as if was genuinely innovative, it stops all that copying fingerprints and fingers cease to validate without a blood supply - they use it for cash machines.
Re: Embedded RFIDs in your hand
NIV and ESV both start with "Also" the line goes on from "he gave the image the power to speak" (a prophesy about Siri perhaps?)
Re: I might have to....
>>They did at least manage to get the Asia bit right....That's already a big step for a Merican. For the average Merican here are only two continents
>>America and Not America...
We even have our own flag, it's like the American one, it's just on fire.
Re: Display Of Shopkeeper Dumb-Ness
>>The Russkies could only get into space because they captured the other half of von Braun's team.
Nope - that's merely US propaganda, the old "Our Nazi scientists are better than your Nazi scientists" line, Operation Paperclip successfully got almost every V2 back to the states, and all the key personnel (with the notable war criminals that were given fake histories to illegally get them to the US).
>>Von Brauns A4 experiments built the basis for all spaceflight to the present day (except maybe for the solid-state missiles, which were built after the A4-style missiles demonstrated what is possible).
Absolutely untrue, the liquid fuelled cryogenics that Sergey Korolyov used were ground tested back in the 30's (they actually flew rockets in 1933), and the use of control engines instead of jet vanes were completely Russian design, his Russian team developed gyroscopic stabilisation, Von Braun however didn't launch a liquid fuelled cryogenic until the end of 1934, in fact he didn't even write his thesis "Construction, Theoretical, and Experimental Solution to the Problem of the Liquid Propellant Rocket" until April 1934 - a year after the Russians launched rockets.
The Russians managed to replicate the V2 based on captured information - but note, none of the German Scientists worked on any Russian rocket program past 1951 , and they were all repatriated (unlike the US). Sergey Korolyov was making engines back in the 30's and designing multistaged rockets way before anyone else had the idea, it's almost certain that he was helped by the German Program, but his R-7 was his, a complete redesign, based on earlier ideas (with extra information from the V2).
The real reason the Germans leapt ahead of the Russians (to be fair only lagging a few months behind) was because of the massive resources piled into the program (modern day equivalent of $50bn) but it was the last ditch attempt at winning the war, money meant nothing at this point.
Re: Luwak coffee - a question
>>Vegan - absolutely not. Out of the question, it is still sourced from an animal.
The bean was never part of the animal, although you could claim that the labours of the animal are being exploited (commercially they are fed on the whole bean), but if that counts as animal product then so does any vegetable which has been farmed as you're using the labours of humans.
What if a bee fertilises your crop? are you exploiting the bee? does it cease to be vegan?
Any fertiliser that are used on fields actually go on to become part of the product (often blood/fish/bone sourced) or animal waste - thus making virtually no product vegan (under your definition).
What about water? that's probably been through many an animal in it's time.
So, when you say "absolutely not" - are you sure?
Re: Basic questions for DARPA projects
I always find it funny how military R&D is promoted as a positive thing because it has helped non military people......
Think about this for a few seconds;
Broad estimate, 150 million people killed in wars last century, and far more wounded, these wounded are the reason to get better at medicine, but how about, don't have war? all those people, all that lost potential, what could they have done? what if all of the people who lost limbs in the war didn't lose limbs? isn't prevention better than cure? is burning a house down a positive thing as it helps us learn how to put out fires?
Yes, absolutely, through need, we learned so much more - but that's because so many died and suffered, imagine if we didn't pile the billions into killing people ($700bn a year for defence in the US), imagine what we could do instead, the education we could pay for, the infrastructure we could build - the rovers, the rockets - imagine if we stopped thinking "what can this kill" and started thinking "what could this tell us", yes war gives us developments, some of which have good spinoffs - so why not just look at the spinoffs.
Re: Look at the numbers
>>Given 60% + plus of the budget is Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security,
But it's not, it's 45% http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44172-Baseline2.pdf you're probably bundling all the other mandatory payments such as interest on the national debt (hardly the fault of the poor?)
>>it's hard to escape two conclusions: one, you cannot fund it by just taxing the "rich"
Just by taxing the rich? the key point is that you can't magic money from nowhere, if "the rich" have more money than actually exists, something is desperately wrong, something like $220bn is just interest payments, and interest is "magic money", if you charge 10% interest then that 10% has to come from somewhere, it it will go to the person who has the money, the money must have been created somewhere along the line.
>>they don't have enough money, and two, the huge majority of federal budget goes on the less well off.
Where do you think money that pays for Social Security comes from? typically from the workers and companies they have worked for (a total of around 12.4% salary equivalent) - they have paid this in, and they will get some of it back (and your yearly statement confirms the amount), note, there is a cap after which the contribution stops being taken - i.e. when you earl a lot you keep more of it, does this make sense? and if this cap was removed the social security system would pay for itself - http://www.aging.senate.gov/crs/ss9.pdf (so yes, in this case taxing the rich fairly WOULD solve the problem).
Re: The year is 2050
>>Probably the same places it is coming from now, generally oil reserve quotations are based on those reserves with a 90% probability of being recovered.
>>In reality it is a small fraction of all the oil that is down there, with constant advances in technology and the economic factors that govern what is economically viable the probabilities are that we will continue to use oil coal and gas for far longer than the predicted life of current oil reserves.
Primary extraction will pull up to 40% of the oil using the least amount of energy to do it
Secondary extraction can pull up to another 50%, however the energy required to do it is significantly higher
Tertiary methods can get up to 60% of the original oil
Do do you notice anything? 40% + 50% + 60% = 150% which of course makes no sense, you can't extract more oil than exists, yes absolutely there are new fields, and yes absolutely there are better methods (and new higher energy methods) of getting more oil, the peak oil estimates are getting better, and as we aproach the ability to extract the magic 100% the estimates will (barring a hither to unknown source) we will know how long the oil will last saying tings like "In reality it is a small fraction of all the oil that is down there" is merely based in wishful thinking.
>>There are also ways of propelling a rocket without using anything remotely connect to fossil fuels such as Lox/alcohol
Have a guess where most of the liquid oxygen for rockets comes from...... Yup fossil fuels, oh yes you can just suck oxygen out of the atmosphere (like membrane compressors), but they are far more costly.
Which kind of drives me to the final point "the economic factors", ERoEI (energy returned on energy invested), you simply can't just keep putting the cost of fuel up if it costs more to extract, because a big slice of the cost to extract is on energy expended, so if the price of that goes up so does the price you have to sell it for, and so on, until the feedback loop spirals out of control, one reason why solar energy is viable now is because it takes less energy to produce the panels than you'll get back (over time they save money), non rechargable AA batteries cost more in energy to produce than they produce, but as the original energy comes from elsewhere it's OK (well, stupid from an energy conservation perspective, but OK)
So, are you right about 2050 fuel being from the same place? probably, even if we have hit peak oil already, if we consume oil at our current rate we have 150 years left, lets say we can extract 100% of our known oil - that's 300 years, lets be optimistic and say we can find as much oil again, another 300 years? maybe, let's hope that we have an alternative when it does run out.
If the takeoutonauts* had to pay for their own space food
* Chinese takeaway astronauts
Re: Let's face it...
>>We gotta get off this 'ere rock sooner than later. Having all the eggs in one basket is a recipe for extinction.
Where would we live?
Where could we possibly survive?
How could we possibly get there?
How can we get enough people off the planet to produce a genetically diverse viable colony?
All these answers and more revolve around lots of unmanned exploration, if there's something that we can't survive by hiding in deep caverns in the earth (which are several orders of magnitude easier than living in space) then you'll have to be a long way away, and if earth is not habitable then maybe extenction is the only option.
The nearest star outside our solar system would take 50,000 years to get to (with our fastest ever craft), even at 100 times faster, could a craft last 500 years? 20 generations?
I'm really up for investing in Mars rovers, a moon base within 20 years etc. but the long game of living off planet is a *really* long game, the priority is making sure that this biosphere is sustainable, population, power, water, food, if we can't get that right *on earth* then perhaps it's only ever going to fail *off earth*, the good thing is that if we can get population, power, water, food right here, we can use that technology "up there".
Re: Clock speed?
This is an Oracle chip, one would assume that it's for Oracle workloads?
I "suspect" a few things;
It's been specifically designed with databases in mind, and specifically "in memory" (SGA style) databases, looking at the DDR pipelines and how bixby links processors it looks tuned for this very thing, it's not (specifically) a number cruncher - but allows "critical thread" which is like a hardware verison of cpu pinning (which is very useful for database and log writer processes).
It's socket compatible with the M5, allowing simple upgrades, this matches an old Sun idea whereby they brought out a tweaked version of the new chip generation.
For the same reasons it will have entry-level compatible clocks, with the tweaks being effeciency, usually between 50-100% (i.e. potentially doubling throughput).
Some redesigns will be required for faster clocks, possibly simple firmware upgrades, possibly more significant such as board revisions, like the ability to upgrade 880's to 890's
The internal tweaking is only half the story, a new chip which has all the tweaks and then some will be announced, possibly similar to the Fujitsu Sparc X+ (for a large virtulisation machine?)
Re: Not in my name
>>but (so far at least) they are also a legal protest movement in a democratic society.
There appears to be individuals in and associated with the EDL, who have been found guilty of many offences, a simple google can get more hits than I'm sure the EDL are comfortable with, but of course, this is not EDL policy, it appears that the EDL attracts nefarious people.
>>to act as self-righteous political censors.
I suspect that they know it's not a perminent censoring, I'm sure that they didn't possibly think it would be, in fact given their well documented surprise that the service was down for so long, it was unexpected that the impact they had, I suspect they were merely voicing their disproval in a very disruptive way, like turning up to a rally and shouting lots - this also has the potential to "decide which political messages you can hear and which you can't".
Re: But how, exactly?
>>That's complete Balls! I'm afraid. We expect them to be adults longer. Once you grow out of being a child you learn to deal with responsibilty, living longer means living for longer as an adult. It's not a sliding scale.
I thought I was pretty clear with the examples I gave, extending compulsory education, way past the 14 years of the emigrating grandfather is modern, actually preventing teens getting full time jobs, is forcing them to be children longer, all the things that young adults can't do that I listed such as marriage, all this shows for an absolute fact we have extended childhood, when lifespan changed from 45 years to 75 years those childhood things such as education were extended, marriage was delayed, expectations of working at 12 just stopped, yes obviously we get more adulthood, but childhood has been extended, you may not like it, you might decry it as "nanny state", but you calling it balls doesn't change the absolute facts around us, hell! You wouldn't even be allowed to travel as a lone 14 year old these days, I'm not saying its a good thing or a bad thing, but it's a real phenomena, and you sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la, not listening" won't change the facts.
Put it another way, either address the points I made regarding education, marriage, expectation of work etc. and present a counter argument, but don't just say balls and contradict.
Re: All your relic is belong to us
>>Hardly a Foxconn slave family.
>>His parents must be fairly wealthy to afford the trip to Egypt.
Little bit of a bigotted statement, second largest economy in the world, an average income of $5k is obviously far behind the US average of $25k, but China has a massive split between urban and rural pay (pretty much 50/50 with a 3.5:1 pay ratio) so half of China earn an average of $8k and the other half earn an average of $2k, there's more Chinese people "better off" than Americans (with cost of living etc.) so a middle class family in China could afford $450 for a trip (maybe a young adult "right of passage" trip).
>>Sufficiently well off to pay a substantial fine too.
Well, a $20k would be devastating to someone who earns $8k (if you want to eat, pay bills etc for the next three years).
Re: But how, exactly?
>>I can't consider a 15 year old to be a minor... My grandfather left home at 14, moved to another continent and worked on a farm....
That's not really the point is it? times change, education in the UK is now compulsory until 18, expected lifespan in 1900 was 45, now it's 75, we expect children to be children longer.
>>so if your stupid enough or ignorant enough to deface a relic when your 15, then you deserve the punishment.....
Absolutely, being a minor shouldn't mean you get away with it, but what are you going to do? recategorise "minor" because 100 years ago we sent children up chimneys? one moment we say you can't vote, or have sex, drive, drink, smoke, marry, have to stay in school (perhaps then, more people will learn the difference between your and you're) and on the other we want to try them as adults (or worse have a mish mash where we punish the parents).
As always, punishment should be a deterrent, not revenge - giving a young adult a slap on the wrist and second chance (even if you think they should have known better) is all about learning, knowing they won't be let off a second time should be taught.
Re: Err: rpi00-rpi32 = 33
My guess is that it's an "admin" machine, possibly running a different OS, perhaps even vanilla raspian, not required for the running cluster (possibly managable from any OS with a browser).
it's probably all documented in the PDF.
Re: cheaper than a PC?
Although it's not super-clear from the article, it's specifically the low-level IO that he was trying to talk to with the cluster, which of course you would have to specifically emulate with the hypervisor (as the point of the hypervisor is to present an agnostic interface).
Of course the other reason to do it (just as valid in my opinion) is "because".
Re: Tickbox security
>>it's generally considered wise to change your CSR when doing a renewal
Not just the CSR, you'll want to change the private/public key pair, if all you're doing is getting another cert with the same CSR (and obviously the same private key) then the reason for the expiry is rather moot - you may as well have got a two year as you've just given people twice as long to crack it (or in the case of a MD5 CA cert, find a collision).
Re: Seems a bit late
Personally, wouldn't touch GoDaddy for the opposite of the reasons you specify, a bad experience, and because Bob Parsons likes to shoot animals for fun.
Re: @Rampant Spaniel
It's not just the "it's there" - which of course is enough of a reason (managing 4000+ servers with a mix of 4 flavours, multiple versions of *nix, plus all the mini roots/console/single user varieties), but it's also the times when you're working with a different keyboard, unmapped keys (or termcap files), no cursor keys? no 'End' no 'Home'? no problems! hjkl, no dos2unix? %s/.$//g need to add/remove some binary? control codes?
>>There's less and less thing that the West can do better than China, but building cars - electric ones at that - is potentially a massive market where the US can lead the world. Why is that a bad thing?
I don't know if it's cynicism or realism, but China is already doing well in the US car market, just look at parts supplier "Brillance", better than the US offerings and a fraction of the cost, there's no real challenge in the "whole car" market, but given China is typically 25 years behind Japan (and that gap is shortening) we'll see a whole new bunch of products, possibly even "whole car" pretty soon.
And on a slightly different tack, China has two advantages, firstly they are happy to use/improve other innovation and secondly, rather contraversially the cheap labour, availability of critical resources (rare earth) and occasionally dubious lack of regulation means getting to market cheaply and quickly - far faster than the West.
Re: Windows 3.1/3.11 - you could zip into a file
>>I forgot about the 1991 release of Virtualbox
Ummm... the post I replied to said "totally impossible nowadays ..."
(rtfm or stfu)
Re: Windows 3.1/3.11 - you could zip into a file
Virtualbox or ESX with snapshots, easy peasy.
- Fee fie Firefox: Mozilla's lawyers probe Dell over browser install charge
- Did Apple's iOS make you physically SICK? Try swallowing version 7.1
- Neil Young touts MP3 player that's no Piece of Crap
- Review Distro diaspora: Four flavours of Ubuntu unpacked
- Pics Indescructible Death Stars blow up planets using glowing KILL RAY