 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/8/2011 11:27, nemesis wrote:
> least browse pages via WAP...
Technically, they could browse WML pages via WAP, which are nothing like
HTML. (Or TCP even, for that matter.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011/07/08 12:05, Darren New a écrit :
> On 7/8/2011 1:41, Stephen wrote:
>> should have been around when 9k6 bit/s was standard.
>
> That pretty much *is* standard for pre-"G" phones. Basically, voice
> conversations got squashed down to 9600Kbps for transmission, so it's
> very slow on the original GSM and AMPS phones.
>
> Now, of course, you have much higher bandwidth.
>
9600Kbps?
I think that there is an extra "K" there... it's realy only 9600bps.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/8/2011 12:27, Alain wrote:
> I think that there is an extra "K" there... it's realy only 9600bps.
Indeed.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> You'd be absolutely amazed at how much stuff gets stuffed into a cell phone
> chip. Three or four different radio interfaces (i.e., GSM and 3G and 4G and
> CDMA and etc etc), multiple USB root hubs, H.264 and MP4 and MP3 and
> 128-channel surround sound and multiple multi-gigahertz cpus and ....
> I wouldn't be at all surprised if you could drive a decent laptop off what's
> in a cell phone chip these days.
One argument that some of the moon hoax theorists say is that all the
technology in the lunar module can fit in a cellphone. Supposedly this shows
how "primitive" the technology in the lunar module was.
That's one of the most idiotic arguments I have ever heard. We are talking
about the 60's here. If there was as much technology in the lunar module as
there is in a modern cellphone, that's actually quite an impressive feat for
the 60's engineers. What surprises me is not that technology has progressed;
what does surprise me is how advanced the technology was in the 60's, if the
claim is true. (In fact, I'm pretty sure that the claim isn't actually true.
They are making an exaggerated claim that, rather ironically, actually makes
the 60's technology look *better* than it probably was.)
(Of course this is yet another example of dishonesty from the part of
the conspiracy theorists. They abuse the fact that the average person has
no knowledge about how efficient dedicated hardware can be compared to
generic non-dedicated hardware. I'm pretty certain many of these people
do understand this, but they still make the claim, just to have yet another
argument in their shotgun.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/07/2011 4:15 PM, Warp wrote:
>
> That's one of the most idiotic arguments I have ever heard. We are talking
> about the 60's here. If there was as much technology in the lunar module as
> there is in a modern cellphone, that's actually quite an impressive feat for
> the 60's engineers. What surprises me is not that technology has progressed;
> what does surprise me is how advanced the technology was in the 60's, if the
> claim is true. (In fact, I'm pretty sure that the claim isn't actually true.
> They are making an exaggerated claim that, rather ironically, actually makes
> the 60's technology look *better* than it probably was.)
>
According to a quick reading, the LM computer had 36,864 * 15 bit words
of ROM (actually hard wired) and 2,048 * 15 bit words of writeable
memory (equivalent to RAM).
Say about 74Kb of ROM and 4Kb of RAM. MUCH less than any modern 'smart'
phone.
It had multiple purposes including running the auto-pilot and being used
for navigation calculations. It had concurrent tasks and time sliced
amongst the highest priority ones. Memory locations were re-used since
there was so little available.
On the descent stage there were multiple data overloads causing the
computer to be reset - while controlling the rocket, radar and all of
the information displayed to the astronauts (apart from their own
eyeballs). It was restarted several times in the few critical minutes
while they were in the midst of decelerating to land.
It had been designed and tested to do this if needed.
As amazing as the computer was for its time, I think the most incredible
bit of engineering in the LM was the all important descent rocket
engine. It could be throttled and had to fire and shutdown for the
de-orbit burn then fire again for minutes during the descent to slow
down and land. 14 tonnes of spacecraft (less the ~8 tonnes of fuel
consumed) brought to rest safely on the surface.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/8/2011 23:15, Warp wrote:
> One argument that some of the moon hoax theorists say is that all the
> technology in the lunar module can fit in a cellphone.
All the computronium would certainly fit. The computers back then sucked.
I was thinking about it, and I realized the giant mainframe I learned to
program on had 512K of memory to run the entire college, both administrative
and teaching. Back then I never really thought of it - you had the memory
you had and if something didn't fit you made it smaller.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I was thinking about it, and I realized the giant mainframe I learned to
> program on had 512K of memory to run the entire college, both administrative
> and teaching. Back then I never really thought of it - you had the memory
> you had and if something didn't fit you made it smaller.
I still remember the time when 4 MB in a PC was a pretty decent amount
of RAM (and more expensive than 4 GB or RAM today). The notion of having
1 GB of RAM seemed completely unthinkable back then (there were no RAM
chips even *nearly* that big, no PC motherboards that would have supported
that much RAM with RAM chips of the time, and even if there had been, such
a motherboard would have costed a fortune, and the RAM itself would have
probably costed as much as 100 entire top-of-the-line PCs.) Today 2 GB of
RAM is a typical minimum configuration, and a chip of that size has become
ridiculously cheap (haven't checked, but probably less than half of what
4 MB of RAM costed in the 90's).
OTOH games (which is usually the only reason you need that much RAM) look
slightly better than they did in the 90's, so it's warranted.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/07/2011 06:55 AM, Warp wrote:
> I still remember the time when 4 MB in a PC was a pretty decent amount
> of RAM (and more expensive than 4 GB or RAM today). The notion of having
> 1 GB of RAM seemed completely unthinkable back then
I'm sitting a few feet away from an Amiga 1200, sold for approximately
advertised as providing "2048 K of RAM". Which, considering the
Commodore 64 we bought it to replace, seemed like one hell of a step up! o_O
(On the other hand, *my* A1200 has been upgraded to 34 MB RAM. At
considerable cost, I might add. I also installed a 850MB HD, which
probability similarly expensive. I still rememer the awe when I realised
that with 34 MB of RAM, I could actually edit an entire 2-minute CD
track *in RAM*!)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/07/2011 6:55 AM, Warp wrote:
> I still remember the time when 4 MB in a PC was a pretty decent amount
> of RAM (and more expensive than 4 GB or RAM today).
And I remember when you had to add an additional 384k to the 640k
conventional memory to make it 1 meg. Now my laptop has 8 Gig
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/07/2011 04:25 PM, Darren New wrote:
> I was thinking about it, and I realized the giant mainframe I learned to
> program on had 512K of memory to run the entire college, both
> administrative and teaching. Back then I never really thought of it -
> you had the memory you had and if something didn't fit you made it smaller.
I wonder how many octets you can fit on one side of A4 paper? You could
probably *print out* 512KB and not use all that many trees...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
