Because we have VASMIR coming. Combine that with a nice nuclear reactor and we are looking at some good speeds.
The 2.3kW of this sterling engine doesnt speak to that promise. The 40kW they hope to have a ground system producing doesnt instill much confidenc either. ISS produces around 130kW, via a colossal truss-work of solar panels. These are all far short of the 400kW power needed for the target baseline VASIMR engine, and well short of the multi MW power levels VASIMR really is designed for.
Nuclear power generates heat. Heat differential is then used to drive turbines. In space, you may be able to make heat, but what is there for the other end of this power generation equation; where does the cool body of mass come from, the essential other integral to power generation?
VASIMR itself, at high ISP's, is generating 10 megakelvin plasma. That itself has cooling challenges.
Right now, I dont see how these ideas are practical.
You seem to have built up this notion that you deserve to get free access to any content that you wish, simply because you wish to.
I'm sympathetic, but thats stretching it friend. Dont push your luck.
Sure, I agree content producers have the right to try and get payed. But VCR's have given us the legal power to view content under our own terms for ages. You cant turn that off and say, content producers, you have the right to produce content that can be viewed only under your own terms. You cant say "you can only view this standing on your head" and expect people to, like cattle to your call, all dutifully turn and stand on their heads for you. If content producers want payment, they need to find a way to get payed that doesnt involve dictating how users view the media, in part because users wont consume burdensome content, and in part because you cant build a system strong enough to enforce usage rights. Users dont expect free content, but they have ready access to colossal amounts of it, and they'd prefer consuming poor media on their terms above good media on someone elses terms. Its up the content producers to figure out how to monetize good content, but you're incorrectly assuming that the content producer gets to dictate the entire experience and gets to package content, just as TV packed ads bypassed by VCR.
The browsers you named have even smaller market share than Firefox...
Yes but they're technologically better i.e. not cobbled together XPCOM & XUL running in a single thread. They also have more cohesive direction and leadership. I'd cite Chrome's Extensions as a perfect example of everything Jetpack ought to have been, for one example of where that direction shows.
Users dont care about the technological background of what they use is irrelevant, but my hope is that as embedded takes off, we'll see the better designed solutions are more adaptable to stranger & more limited environments. This will grow the user base of the margin browsers without users knowing or having choice: pre and iphone are forerunning examples.
Also, better design, such as Chrome Extensions, will hopefully lead to a better ecosystem surrounding the product. Thats really the key. Firefox has a colossal lead in building an ecosystem, as for ten years its been the only one building an ecosystem at all, but developers are finnicky people, and its ultimately them and their preference of technologies that dictates where cool shit gets built. If Chrome or Safari or Opera comes up with a more compelling more empowering developer experience, it can shift the balance of where new edgy innovative shit gets made. Whether or not that cool edgy innovative shit is compelling enough to herd the rest of the cats following is TBD. Its up to the competing browsers to potentiate the space to make that move compelling.
Ok, assuming that most major web surfers are at least somewhat computer literate and have at least heard of Firefox why wouldn't they switch? Other then web developers needing to have a copy of IE to test code why would anyone use IE when Chrome, Firefox, Safari, etc are all technologically superior and have more plugins?
Users need compelling reason to switch. Technological superiority doesnt sell itself, there needs to be a reason to move, a reason to download something else and to relearn a new interface and to shuffle bookmarks and customizations into a new system.
Systems like Extensions and Jetpack exist as precursors to incentives: they themselves offer nothing of value to end users, and only serve as progenitors for incentives to be created.
These incentives are still highly detached: a user isnt saying, I'm switching to Firefox so I can use Vimperator, they're saying, I'm switching to firefox so I can go find and install the Vimperator plugin. And typically its not one particular plugin, its the accrued group of plugins each user build that makes them dedicated to Firefox, there are very few killer features. To answer your question, the immediate value proposition of switching to Firefox is minimal: it and IE are both web browsers, and they generally render most sites with parity.
Jetpack and its father-in-kind Chrome Extensions in particular are trying to close the loop some, and at least increase accessibility of enhancements.
The guy forgot just one important thing: Most people don't use Firefox.
Jetpack is just a weekend knock off of the much better done Chrome Extensions, true story. Compare their couple month old API v. Jetpack's API and its blatantly obvious where Jetpack came from.
I'm hoping Safari and Opera adopt the Chrome Extensions model.
Life unfortunately has all the directedness and continuity of Flux.
I just want to make one more complaint against usb power: its often horribly regulated. I have a USB soundcard that essentially requires a USB hub between it and whatever its plugged into in order to not sound like garbage.
You can tune a piano, but you can't tuna fish. You can tune a filesystem, but you can't tuna fish. -- from the tunefs(8) man page