Plenty of 486 around that had more than 16M of RAM, especially these days.
Impossible to figure out what you think you meant while you're mixing tenses.
I believe radiation hardened 486s for aerospace applications are still being sold.
It uses VRTX, reportedly. Linux wasn't suitable as a real-time OS when the Hubble was designed, or really even when the Hubble got the 486 installed in 2009.
Why was VRTX chosen? Because of the embedded environment or because of real time needs?
If the decision was about embedded and real-time was not required, then Linux would be a viable solution today. Today, embedded Linux is a fine choice for non-real time needs.
If you already have a space station in Earth orbit, why do you need one in Lunar orbit too?
- Specialization and optimization, ie cost reduction, on each leg (up, across, down).
- Expansion, servicing flights to/from asteroids.
Why would you not seek to do your interplanetary burn direct from Earth orbit, like we have done with literally every single thing we've ever sent to Mars?
I would expect flights to mars to eventually be originating from both earth and the moon. Different missions, different needs. Plus the moon is also its own destination independent of mars.
Not being snarky, just wondering if there is some delta-V advantage to being higher up the well, but in a different (lesser) well.
I'm thinking payloads. Something mined/manufactured on the moon useful to mars. At least until we get good at mining asteroids.
Artemis II is breaking Apollo 13's record by about 4100 miles. The primary reason they're going further is because they're passing much farther from the moon, about 4000 miles, compared to 158 miles for Apollo 13. The moon is also a little further from Earth, accounting for the other 250 miles.
Like you say, there are pros and cons, but unless the long term goal is colonization, the cost/benefit analysis tends to argue against manned missions.
I don't think colonization is the only justification. Sometimes the science will benefit too.
I think you're confused. I'm not saying EVs shouldn't be taxed in general. I'm saying they shouldn't be taxed due to the oil crisis. Governments should encourage, not discourage, the use of alternate energy-sources when one of them has supply-chains that are threatened.
And I made no claim that treating EVs (tax-wise) like ICE vehicles is "punitive"(*). But taxing EVs more than ICE vehicles because of the oil crisis certainly seems to be so. But see below...
You make a good point about road taxes, but not much else. The virtue of taxing gas consumption is that at least it correlates somewhat with road use and environmental impact. Perhaps we need something else for EVs, but I can't think of what it could be right now.
(*) please note how it's spelled.
I just got the encl nastygram from our corporate IT
"We have recently noticed your use of unapproved AI tools, which creates a risk of data leakage. You must not use any AI tools that have not been officially approved when working with business-related information. This includes data such as profits, order quantities, and similar metrics, as well as MS Office files, emails, or any other content containing business information.
We want you to use MS 365 Copilot.
(I'd asked grok for some lunar orbital data and calculations for fun...so not business-related in any case...)
What are the odds that pointing out in writing to my corporate IT that MS's own terms say "for entertainment purposes only" to say nothing of "We donâ(TM)t own Your Content, but we may use Your Content to operate Copilot and improve it. By using Copilot, you grant us permission to use Your Content, which means we can copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, edit, translate, and reformat it, and we can give those same rights to others who work on our behalf." is just going to get me more nastygrams and probably on someone's shitlist?
I would guess 100%, and didn't even need Copilot or grok or gemini to figure it out!
This is why almost every platform for Internet services DOES NOT USE Microsoft software.
This is just plain not true. Microsoft has about 1/4 of the global cloud computing market and, if nothing else, the number of things that just use Entra for auth is insane. I'm not suggesting this is a good thing, I'm just saying your claim that Microsoft is some kind of edge case in "internet service" is ridiculous.
Good points. Execpt for one that confuses me:
8. Punitive taxation on electric vehicles, solar and wind due to the oil crisis.
We may be living in upside-down-world right now, but I can't imagine that even the current government would punish the use of non-oil sources of energy during an oil crisis. Maybe for some other reason, but not "due to" the oil crisis.
I can imagine a lot of expletives in response to blatant hallucinations...
Probably a lot more than they're catching!
piss(ed|ing)? off|piece of (shit|crap|junk)|what the (fuck|hell)|
fucking? (broken|useless|terrible|awful|horrible)|fuck you|
screw (this|you)|so frustrating|this sucks|damn it)\b/
But this idea seems solid and worth pursuing. It’s a real market, for real goods, that probably could benefit from some tech.
Agreed. I live in the mountain west, and our forest and mountain landscapes are just covered with fencing, even though most of it is public land, because it's BLM "multi-use" land -- a lot of cattle graze on it. Fences are expensive to build and expensive to maintain. If you think a fence is something you build once and then ignore, you've never dealt with cattle.
Cowboys (and sheep herders) have a term "ride fence" as in "Bob, you're gonna ride fence today", and it's a regular and tedious task that means "get on your horse (or ATV) and ride past miles and miles of fenceline, looking for places where the fence is broken or going to break, and fixing them". It's necessary and expensive drudgery and having all of those fencelines is bad for other uses, and bad for wildlife. I've put down a few deer that jumped a barbed wire fence and didn't quite clear it, slicing their guts open and leaving them in agony as they slowly die.
In addition, there's an obvious tension between the cost of building and maintaining fences and the cost of rounding up cattle when it's time to move them. Obviously if you slice the land up into lots of small fenced areas, the cattle will be easy to find -- but they're also going to graze it out fast, so you're going to have to move them more often. If you use very large enclosures (common on BLM land), then your cows may have hundreds of square miles to roam and feed... but when it's time to move them you have to find them. Luckily they're herd animals so when you find a few you've found them all, but still. And occasionally, singles get separated from the herd and you just lose them, which isn't great since a cow is worth about $2k.
So... if we can replace those miles of expensive and constantly-breaking fences with virtual fences, that's good news for everyone. Wildlife and outdoorsmen can roam unimpeded, cattle can be far more tightly controlled, strays quickly identified, located and reunited with the herd -- via remote control!. This is an innovative idea that is worth quite a lot.
I'm not so sure it is even in Putler's interests to be doing this. I assume he wants to ratchet up exposure to regime propaganda and deny the ability to use technology to organize opposition to his regime.
Yet the immediate impact of widely unpopular bans coinciding with embarrassing war related losses, exhaustion and economic decline will only trigger the politicization of a population that will increasingly cut against him.
Oh, and I forgot one thing. Iran is quite proud of the amount of enriched uranium it already has, which has reached the point where it would take less than weeks, perhaps to enrich it to weapons grade. If you were paying attention, you could be confused as to why Iran has any enriched uranium that approaches weapons grade, when it's previously agreed not to do so, that it was sanctioned for doing so, and now it claims it has a right to do so in opposition to widespread agreement that it should not by other nations. By its own words. It's telling you that sanctions weren't effective and that they were ignored or subverted. You wanted evidence, listen to Iran's leadership itself if you would.
This is an irrelevant sidecar not responsive to your prior assertions. Nobody including public statements by the Iranians themselves is refuting the fact they enriched beyond the ~4% limit of the JCPOA *after* USA violated the terms of the agreement by pulling out and reimposing nuclear related sanctions.
In response to my statement: "The admissions you are referring to occurred some four years after the US bailed."
You stated:
"But, by most accounts, Iran never stopped enriching uranium. For some of us that would seem to indicate the sanctions were not working well."
"The enforcement mechanisms were subverted and ignored by Iran right along. They kept throwing the investigators and monitors out of the country. You could at least be serious and deal with the facts please"
Now you are changing the subject. Do you have specific credible evidence Iran violated the JCPOA prior to the US violating it or don't you?
Source: Council on Foreign Relations
This article does not mention anything about Iran having violated the terms of JCPOA prior to Trump's violation of the agreement.
What it does say contradicts your narrative.
"The IAEA certified in early 2016 that Iran had met its preliminary pledges; and the United States, EU, and United Nations responded by repealing or suspending their sanctions. "
Iran Sanctions: Fact or Fiction | UANI
This says literally nothing about Iranian JCPOA violations.
Iranâ(TM)s Response to Sanctions? Ignore Them | The Washington Institute
Ditto here, nothing responsive to your claims.
There is more.
More irrelevant gish gallop. What an embarrassment.
It doesn't really matter if there's a moral right or not.
I agree.
That's not why we attacked. Trump wants to be able to say he controls their oil. That's why we bombed them and why we'll invade.
Decoding Trump is an exercise in futility. He is a pathological liar and his statements are often not even self-consistent.
I have ways of making money that you know nothing of. -- John D. Rockefeller
