Originally Posted by /\/_|_\/\
Well if I wanted something to run perfectly, I would run it on a Apple 10 out of 10 times.
Do you program?
If I want performance and flexibilty.... I wouldn't run it on an Apple most of the time.
Originally Posted by Nope oO
i don't think I've ever heard someone claim Windows security was more transparent than UNIX before.
Windows security is more transparent than OSX.... not UNIX.
Originally Posted by crashdummy35
Serious question Duckie: What's the difference between that 400 MB Seagate and one with a larger capacity (Seagate or WD HDD)--maybe not available during the Columbia development stage, but, surely available later during it's life? Know what I mean? Was that 400 MB Seagate covered in a Titanium case or something that got cheaped out in later years..?
Is this just another example of $640 toilet seats, $7,600 coffee makers and $436 hammers
You guys are way smarter than me, that's a fact but: The Curiosity has a 2 megapixels camera on it.... What? That's the best they could do?
billion dollars I'd bet my left arm OCN could build something better than Curiosity....
Firmware, stablity, and real-world usage for a number of years. If you ever do low-level program, you will sometime find that certain features of an API or application have been removed, "enhanced", or added. Sometimes these changes are even undocumented. In fact, the ATA protocol has changed over the years. These changes may or may not have impact on the software but to do regression testing would literally take weeks. Imagine if they switched and launched with a Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 with the bad firmware?
Industrial, aerospace, military, enterprise, and medical equipment/software costs more than consumer products. The increased costed are due to validation, testing, certification, support, documenation, extended lifecycles, lower tolerances, higher MTBF, etc. Furthermore, the market for these higher requirements is small so companies have lower volumes so therefore price is increased to account for the lower demand. Most consumers don't get this all costs a lot of money.
Sure, OCN might be able to build something better performing.... but it wouldn't survive 5 mins on Mars or be sure it would even work. The cost of these projects is not in the physical hardware but the testing and design. Paying a few hundred of the top 1% minds in the world for 8 years costs money. I use to know a guy who worked at NASA in the 90s.... scary smart people there....
Originally Posted by sub50hz
Actually, megapixels sort
of matter, which is why you're going to see a lot of panoramics from Curiosity. More MP means you can resolve more fine detail and print bigger enlargements -- only the former really matters in this scenario.
You can just take more higher resolution, narrower field pictures and stitch them together.
Curiosity's Camera Project Manager Explains Why MSL Used "Archaic" 2 MP Cameras