AMD gpus are very competitive. If I were the ceos I would sell of cpu business. Keep ATI.

The reason AMD sucks is because they no longer have the economies of scale for chips lower than .28 nm while Qualcomm and intel are down to .22nm and are heading towards .17nm in skylake.

Nvidia is stuck at .28nm too.

If AMD didn't sell global foundries and also had .17nm then it could compete and throw nvidia out of business too.

Sigh ... stupid Android auto correct thought x86 = xp 6. Slashdot please allow editing of posts?

Hairy let's say AMD has a theoretical superior architecture?

AMD has .28 nm chips. Intel is down to .17 nm and skylark with .14 nm is just around the corner! Worse power requirements are now the new rage too. Tell me how can AMD compete?

They can't. Lower size increases speed and power requirements. Only advantage AMD has is cost ... oh wait another chip fabrication is needed and they want a cut :-(

Only saving grace is ATI graphics. If nvidia gets a hold of .17 nm chips then it's game over too.

I was a loyal AMD user too. I tried and stayed til last year. It is frustrating but an i7 4 core with 8 virtuals with hyperthreading really sped uo my games compared to the 6 core. It is 2015 and time to move on. AMD needs to leave xp 6 and go all ATI to stay solvent.

Microminiature accelerometers are really cheap and very very light, and you don't have to wait for them to spin up or deal with their mechanical issues. I doubt you will see a gyro used as a sensor any longer.

Similarly, computers make good active stabilization possible and steering your engine to stabilize is a lot lighter than having to add a big rotating mass.

When you last flew a jet somewhere, why wasn't it a seaplane? Surely such things would be an easier problem to solve than building airports.

Short of giving you the starter course in rocket engineering, I can only say no, it's not easier.

The booster can indeed make it back uprange to Kennedy Space Center, and they've leased a landing pad for it there. Besides the turn-around burn, they tilt the booster against the airstream and let aerodynamics push it back uprange during that 78 mile descent.

If there's one thing they should work on, it's not thrusters but having the capability to throttle to hover. That would potentially change the entire low approach. It is complicated by the fact that engine performance goes nonlinear in the low range.

Here is the barge on the way to port, possibly with debris onboard. Here's a video of the landing shot from the barge itself. And I am waiting to see the barge from the Carnival Fascination webcam.

A video from the barge is now online here. If you step through the final frames, you can see that the camera mount ends up knocked over and pointing at the ocean, but the lens and its cover are unbroken and all we see flying appear to be small debris. So not a really high-pressure event.

It's very tempting to think this should work like an airplane. Lots of people wrote that it was "too hot", etc. But it isn't an airplane. The plan was really to approach at 1/4 Kilometer Per Second, then brake at the very last second.

Obviously Crew Dragon, which carries people, will approach differently. But it's a lot lighter.

In the F9R test videos they catch some of the backscatter from the engine and seem to catch fire. Maybe they were trying to avoid that. They are very light carbon composite. Or perhaps they mess up the airstream for precision navigation, or they don't like the 250 m/s wind.

It looked to me that the barge was structurally undamaged but that some heavy equipment on the deck was forcibly ejected. It's clear to see in the HD version. Those 1000 HP thrusters are expensive, and it looked to me like one of them going overboard. But I suspect they were prepared to lose more than one vessel in testing this.

And I bet there was a range safety self-destruct charge onboard. F9R blew itself up with one. But it was probably so safe that it didn't go off.