Go to Amazon and search for the Intel drive? $2400 now??! The Kingston is much cheaper oh and I have 950 megs a second from my ahci Samsung pro 80s running on fake raid 0 from intel rst. So speed is still possible as 14000 cpu cycles is nothing when an i7 can do 180,000 instructions a second. Kind of sad that an inefficient design is that poor? Shouldn't we have solved this with an external i/o chip? Or have a component in the cpu? The point of Scsi was for this reason back in the 1990s

Why?

If you answer build your own dvr which only represent 5% of users then you need just a fixed long sequencial access. Ah a mechanical disk is up your alley. You don't do random 4k burst dependent on latency. You gain nothing and a mechanical disk is like $60 a tb. So buy some cheap WD green's in a raid and call it a day. Use an ssd for pc use.

1 tb = 2,400 page word document for every man, woman, and child whoever lived! Most consumers never come close to filling 200 gbs. No need.

And there are external drives you can use for TV shows which is the only use for 98% of all uses

They don't have nearly as much to offer if they can't do launches quickly. I'm sure they would make that a feature of their offering.

They can carry about 110kg to LEO, compared to the Falcon 9's 13150kg. That's 0.84% of the payload capacity. A launch is estimated to cost $4 900 000, compared to the Falcon 9's $61 200 000. That's 8.01%. That means cost per mass to orbit is nearly an order of magnitude worse.

Yes, this is a really small rocket. If you are a government or some other entity that needs to put something small in orbit right away, the USD$5 Million price might not deter you, even though you could potentially launch a lot of small satellites on a Falcon 9 for less.

And it's a missile affordable by most small countries, if your payload can handle the re-entry on its own. Uh-oh. :-)

I'm sure it must be pretty damn good since it has "HyperX" and "Predator" in the name, which is always an indication of high quality and reliability. But I can't be absolutely sure it's the absolute best unless it has flames on the logo.

I'm actually working on Apple Watch integration for App that allows you to do exactly that

Ohh FFS -- that was at the initial launch and not done as a fuck you but simply because they were more interested in just getting the new product and OS out the door. Initially, Apps were JS based and highly sandboxed. But they realized that Devs wanted something better and Apple set themselves to creating an entire Development Platform and App Store to support that. So any claims that Apple is somehow hostile to developers is utter BS. If anything, Apple stands to make millions off 3rd party Apple Watch Apps in regards to App Store and In-App Purchases.

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.

A video from the barge itself is here. Everything goes wrong in the last second of landing, with over-correction putting it down on one leg, and then the leg crumples.