Jr'er ab fgenatref gb ybir Lbh xabj gur ehyrf naq fb qb V N shyy pbzzvgzrag'f jung V'z guvaxvat bs Lbh jbhyqa'g trg guvf sebz nal bgure thl V whfg jnaan gryy lbh ubj V'z srryvat Tbggn znxr lbh haqrefgnaq Arire tbaan tvir lbh hc Arire tbaan yrg lbh qbja Arire tbaan eha nebhaq naq qrfreg lbh Arire tbaan znxr lbh pel Arire tbaan fnl tbbqolr Arire tbaan gryy n yvr naq uheg lbh.
Right. I did a more relevant calculation of that here:
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
Something I've wondered about is why we don't see more relativistic protons hitting earth or the ISS. Is the relative velocity of everything in the universe extremely low? I don't think so. So where are these missing showers on earth right now?
Let's see if I can work this out correctly;
First assume the spaceships weight negligibly different than the mass of the fuel. The thrust needed to push the weight at a steady 1g will be proportional to the mass of the ship at each interval of time. SO the rate of mass burn is proportional to the mass which means the mass is a decaying exponential.
M = Mo * exp( -g * time / thrust_to_weight )
If you think about this for a moment it becomes clear that any amount of mass would do since as the mass gets lighter it takes less fuel so the ship could go indefinitely at 1g. The problem is the assumption that the ship weighs nothing. so let's fix that.
dM/dt = -g*(M+Ms)/thrust_to_weight.
where Ms = mass of ship and M = mass of fuel.
I'm spacing on how to solve that equation so I'll approximate it by saying that until M = Ms we can mostly ignore the ship mass. therfore for a 6.6 year flight time the fuel required is about:
Mfuel = Ms * exp( g* (6.6 years)/thrust_to_weight )
Mfule = Ms * exp( +303,800,000/thrust_to_weight).
So you need a rather high thrust to weight ratio due to the coefficient in the exponetial.
Let the pillory for my "obvious" math errors begin!
it's a matter of fuel with sufficient thrust to weight ratio (unless you want to start thinking about using the interstellar gases as the propellant--- that get's dicey because they will be approaching your craft at near the speed of light)
traveling with a 1G acceleration:
1/2g t^2 = 1/2*11*3E8
so t = 3.3 years to half way. 6.6 years to go all the way and thus 13.2 years for the round trip.
Thus you could easily go there and come back in your lifetime.
Note that this is also Faster than light can make the round trip. However that is not any violation of relativity. THe people on earth would have aged a lot more than 13.3 years during your trip. But you would only have aged 13.3 years.
Think about it. If I have a grievance from 2006 then I was active on wikipedia then. Ergo it was substantially more gender balanced. And as a point of fact your psychic skills sucked. I could care less about userboxes I wasn't in to them then. But I did observe the change.
It is pretty easy to date the why. In 2006 there was a thing called the Userbox wars. There isn't a good page on wikipedia about this. Prior to 2006 Wikipedia user pages were sort of like myspace pages for wikipedia editors. They had lots of personal information and people chatted. Jimmy Wales wanted userspace to be about the encyclopedia. At the same time he didn't want mass deletions. There were mass deletions and the this wasn't easily reversed. The tone changed. This was one of the big steps towards the deletionists winning control of Wikipedia entirely. But if you want to know when the gender's changed this was a crucial moment.
Of course the deletionists winning even more battles probably didn't help
Links:
A few statements on Userboxes but not enough to understand what happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
What "deletionists" are and what Wikipedia was like before them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And that's the real problem - how do you properly draw the line between apps that are legitimate but happen to be similar because one inspired the other, and apps that are pure scamware and trying to undermine the original developer?
That's what trademarks are for.
I'm an Apple user. I can accuse Microsoft of a lot but yes they are substantially more open than Apple:
a) Their hardware base system is extremely open. Apple provides very limited hardware choice
b) Their driver selection is 2nd to none. Incredible. Apple is far worse than Linux and might even be worse than other BSDs.
c) Azure (their cloud offering) is probably the most open cloud out there. Certainly among the big players. Apple's cloud is completely tied to their platform and they don't allow other clouds.
d) Their enterprise apps tend to play well with others and allow you to mix and match.
etc...
Microsoft sells computers without the crapware: www.microsoftstore.com/signature
On the one hand they hate what the crapware does to the entire experience. OTOH $75-90 in subsidies per machine per OEM translates into about $150 to the end customer in savings. At an ASP of $550 an increase to $700 would be a 27% increase in price which would definitely harm sales. The value trap is a disaster for Microsoft. One of the points of the new interface is to drive up the price of PCs by making better interface hardware worthwhile and thus cut that number down to a level where they might be able to get rid of crapware.
I completely fail to comprehend why most Slashdotters seem to push everyone towards DRM'ed iPads and Chromebooks that put Palladium to shame instead of more open Windows PCs.
They don't. This generation of
They've gotten bitter. Of course it was easier to be positive when
Obviously if Intel were to substantial cut prices that changes things. But at least the Power8 prices I saw were competitive. Their entire pitch is that Power8 is moderately better especially for virtualization. They have to know that moderately better doesn't cut it if they are way out of range on price.
Red Hat sells operating systems not development tools. The big initiative for RedHat is designing a cloud based operating system which is open and at the same time supports containers -- OpenStack and Docker. They are a major leader in the DevOps approach. But even in development JBoss is a huge suite of development tools.
In terms of the complaints regarding OSes. RedHat is fine with Developers using Ubuntu for their workstations. They are getting to need something to deploy in production on and that's not going to be Ubuntu most of the time. As far as MySQL, MongoDB, or PostgreSQL they've never been a database company but they support all 3 databases. And in terms of Mongo / Cassandra / Hadoop there is no question they are far far ahead of Ubuntu in terms of deployment technology.
The summary is ridiculous. The article linked is more balanced and mainly advice for RedHat doing partnerships / distribution deals.
Welcome to the "Web 2.0" world, which is where the volume is these days, and consequently most of the money.
IBM makes 85% of their money from fortune 100. From there it falls off fast. The money and especially the margin is at the top.
If one cannot order it cheaply and easily on the web ala Amazon shopping experience, who is going to bother to go through a reseller? That was the model 40 years ago! Kids today do not bother
What kid gets to pick the hardware infrastructure for his company of any size?
Why would I pay the vendor or the reseller higher prices when I can automate hundreds of thousands of servers on x86, in a lights out management datacenters across the globe, to the point of throwaway systems?
The prices aren't higher and the system outperforms thus lowering total cost. This is the whole "why quality saves money" issue that comes up in every industry.
Please provide links with pricing.
IBM doesn't do that. They should be more transparent but they aren't. They want you ordering through a partner or for larger customers through the sales channel. There is some pricing on the website but the real prices are 20-30% lower.
DELL has become expensive as well. For the price of one DELL server one can easily put together two or three blackbox servers, from motherboard to chassis, made 100% by intel.
Not really relevant. The question was Power vs. x86 not generic vs. name brand.
"No matter where you go, there you are..." -- Buckaroo Banzai
