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
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
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.
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
Nvidia is stuck at
If AMD didn't sell global foundries and also had
Hairy let's say AMD has a theoretical superior architecture?
They can't. Lower size increases speed and power requirements. Only advantage AMD has is cost
Only saving grace is ATI graphics. If nvidia gets a hold of
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.