You have just painted yourself as a mindless cretin for all time

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 8 Aug 2012, 9:56, 2 replies, latest was 12 years ago)

Christ, you really do come off as someone who only can enjoy something if it isn't "mainstream"

( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Wed 8 Aug 2012, 9:58, Reply)

not true at all, i enjoyed the Avengers a lot, it made me lol, although i was pissed

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 8 Aug 2012, 9:59, Reply)

See, why do you need to add that cravat that you were pissed? It implies, in this context, that you only liked it cus you had a few drinks.

( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Wed 8 Aug 2012, 10:03, Reply)

No, but that's mabye why it was funnier than it would have been
be honest, "mainstream" blockbusters like Battleship, Transformers etc are shit by their very definition. they aim for the lowest common denominator.
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 8 Aug 2012, 10:05, Reply)

Caveat, mate. Just saying.

( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Wed 8 Aug 2012, 10:11, Reply)

It's amazing, I haven't laughed at a film so much for ages.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 8 Aug 2012, 10:04, Reply)

have you seen the first "video" from Curiosity?
I am genuinly excited for the first high def photos and video, would be amazing if you could watch "live on the net!
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 8 Aug 2012, 10:07, Reply)

I have, they're great
it's going to be a while yet, they only have a limited amount of bandwidth and they're sending it upgrades for it's software first.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 8 Aug 2012, 10:10, Reply)

You'd think they would do that before they left

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 8 Aug 2012, 10:12, Reply)

They had "landing software" on the computer,
now they're changing it to "drive around software"
(PsychoChomp, Wed 8 Aug 2012, 10:13, Reply)

oh fair enough

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 8 Aug 2012, 10:13, Reply)

You'd think they'd chuck a bigger hard drive in there.
Or would the weight of a couple of extra platters be as impractical on a metal robot the size of a Mini as a plastic bodyshell?
( Kroney, Wed 8 Aug 2012, 10:15, Reply)

Space computers are generally shit by desktop standards.
Curiosity has a:
200mhz cpu
2Gb flash memory
256mb Dram
256kilobites of program memory.

The problem is not only the weight, it's that they have to work at -50C survive being shaken to shit on take off and be flooded with radiation for ages.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 8 Aug 2012, 10:19, Reply)

two articles on the IT side of curiosity.
www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/08/mars_probe_cpu/
www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/07/curiosity_software_upgrade/
(PsychoChomp, Wed 8 Aug 2012, 10:25, Reply)

The only reason they give is low power requirements.
Which on a rover with a battery that last 14 years, I'm really struggling to see the point.
( Kroney, Wed 8 Aug 2012, 10:27, Reply)

It only kicks out about 100 watts I think.
And a lot of the power is used to power heaters to stop it from freezing.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 8 Aug 2012, 10:29, Reply)

OK, now that makes sense.
Though personally, I'd half the battery life, increase the wattage and put a decent bloody computer in there.
( Kroney, Wed 8 Aug 2012, 10:31, Reply)

Got a link?
I can't see why any of that stuff would be more survivable than desktop standard components, frankly.

The one thing I can think of that'd cause problems is the amount of radiation a powerful CPU puts out and the shielding required to protect the rest of a computer. However, compared to the size of the rover, I again fail to see how that'd be such a huge problem.
( Kroney, Wed 8 Aug 2012, 10:26, Reply)

Kroney you're wasted in Slough

( Light In Chains maker of the ikea sofa, Wed 8 Aug 2012, 10:29, Reply)

this is probably why you work in Slough and not Cape Canaveral

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 8 Aug 2012, 10:29, Reply)

My highly attuned sense are detecting sarcasm, here.
Though I would like somebody to explain to me why a 1995 era Powerbook is the level of technology we're using to run a rover of that sophistication. There's no practical reason to do so aside from the amount of power that battery puts out.*

It'd make more sense to have shorter battery life and more powerful onboard components.

*that I can see. I am obviously sure that there are reasons, I just don't know what they are.
( Kroney, Wed 8 Aug 2012, 10:34, Reply)

I agree with you here, I'm not sure why they do it
apart from the tried and tested question, but still a computer from 2000 or so has had time to show up any bugs
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 8 Aug 2012, 10:41, Reply)

Reasons
It was designed 10 years ago, uses military grade chips to protect against high background radiation in space, and it doesn't run Windows so doesn't need to be that powerful. Simple and reliable is best.
(localboy purveyor of pisspoor puns, Wed 8 Aug 2012, 10:44, Reply)