Or, they could just take every computer that is upgraded/rotated out of a federal government facility and set it aside for this job. No, those computers must be decommissioned to avoid paying their OS and office suit vendor for another copy that goes on the replacement machine.
out of curiosity, is there a better way to do this?
There is, but it involves a virus-infected DVD and higher authority will find out in the end. I recommend to just keep thinking about your bunkmate's picture of his sister.
You speak like a physicist, not an engineer. In theory, you are correct. In reality, how will you launch the material, such that it travels at exactly 0 degrees from vertical, at the required velocity? Solving for v in m*h*g=0.5*m*v^2 I get 150 m/s launch velocity. At perfect vertical. On a payload that contains a manufacturing process, probably including a molten metal. More than a kilometer below ground level.
...enhance old film footage from the spacee program up to the standards of HD... I just want to take a brief issue with the wording here. There is likely little "enhancement" done for this film to reach "HD standards." And the word "spacee" didn't set off any red lights?
Microsoft has a track record of trying to do things with computers that shouldn't really be done Microsoft has a track record of preventing progress in the computer industry.
It doesn't matter. The Shuttle was designed to be reusable. In order to meet that definition, at least X% (I think it was 66% but I'm not sure) of the launch mass, minus fuel, must be reusable. Whether or not it is safe or efficient is not important. If it were, we'd be flying Apollo-type craft (like the Russians still do) for missions that do not need the huge cargo bay of the shuttle.
Note: according to wikipedia, the SRBs make up 60% of the launch mass _with_ fuel. Anybody know what that figure is minus fuel?
I think the engines are too expensive to ditch. That's why the shuttle carries the three MSE engines on it's tail the whole spaceflight and reentry, when they could have been ditched along with the ET. Their extra mass is a burden for every manuver (sp?) yet they've got to come home somehow.
...It would take a lot of outside pressure to push PC makers to do anything different... When was the last time you wrote to a software or hardware manufacturer and asked about Linux support? I do at least one a day.
However, I understand that Linux has been ported to PDAs and it's no better that Windows Mobile. Worse, actually. Here is the project: http://handhelds.org/
Actually, in Egypt they say that the pyramids are also pyramid shaped below ground. I could not find *anything* online attesting to that. I know that a French expedition drilled into the bottom of one pyramid and found hidden rooms, but they were stopped. Anybody that can shed some light on the matter?
Slashdot Mirror
h=y0+y*t+0.5*g*t^2=0+0+0.5*10*(10/2)^2=125m
E=m*g*h=m*1250
Thus, you've got 1250 J for every kilo in the Bremen facility.
Your 1125m shaft from the previous post requires almost ten times the energy.
(i'm joking, i hope)
OT: I no longer have the Ajax reply option, I'm back at loading a new page to reply. Does anybody else still have it?
There is, but it involves a virus-infected DVD and higher authority will find out in the end. I recommend to just keep thinking about your bunkmate's picture of his sister.
Scott Adams does not make those decisions. His PHB does.
You speak like a physicist, not an engineer. In theory, you are correct. In reality, how will you launch the material, such that it travels at exactly 0 degrees from vertical, at the required velocity? Solving for v in m*h*g=0.5*m*v^2 I get 150 m/s launch velocity. At perfect vertical. On a payload that contains a manufacturing process, probably including a molten metal. More than a kilometer below ground level.
I'd like to think that we had a discussion. My experience as a loving husband forbibs me to categorize discussions as "arguments" or "conversations".
Googling "why php sucks" gives this informative article as the first result:
http://www.bitstorm.org/edwin/en/php/
...enhance old film footage from the spacee program up to the standards of HD... I just want to take a brief issue with the wording here. There is likely little "enhancement" done for this film to reach "HD standards." And the word "spacee" didn't set off any red lights?There, fixed that for you.
Thank LoC for that! I should submit it to the dailyWTF.
It doesn't matter. The Shuttle was designed to be reusable. In order to meet that definition, at least X% (I think it was 66% but I'm not sure) of the launch mass, minus fuel, must be reusable. Whether or not it is safe or efficient is not important. If it were, we'd be flying Apollo-type craft (like the Russians still do) for missions that do not need the huge cargo bay of the shuttle.
Note: according to wikipedia, the SRBs make up 60% of the launch mass _with_ fuel. Anybody know what that figure is minus fuel?
That's great to know. I was under the impression that it was slow and feature incomplete, but that was two years ago.
Apparently, just having his name in a _reply_ to my message got the +5 Funny. I wonder if I can ruin it with a Bill Gates or a Beetlejuice.
Traditionally, the way to block devices this intrusive was to divorce them.
Does anybody want a peanut?
I think the engines are too expensive to ditch. That's why the shuttle carries the three MSE engines on it's tail the whole spaceflight and reentry, when they could have been ditched along with the ET. Their extra mass is a burden for every manuver (sp?) yet they've got to come home somehow.
...It would take a lot of outside pressure to push PC makers to do anything different... When was the last time you wrote to a software or hardware manufacturer and asked about Linux support? I do at least one a day.You'll love to read what I thought about my Windows Mobile 2003 SW device:
http://dotancohen.com/eng/dell_axim.php
However, I understand that Linux has been ported to PDAs and it's no better that Windows Mobile. Worse, actually. Here is the project: http://handhelds.org/
Actually, in Egypt they say that the pyramids are also pyramid shaped below ground. I could not find *anything* online attesting to that. I know that a French expedition drilled into the bottom of one pyramid and found hidden rooms, but they were stopped. Anybody that can shed some light on the matter?
They, like the Gods, will do as they will. Are they stiff like rods? Swim like cods?
Actually, there are ships that collect the SRBs and I'm sure they would like to know that the active explosives on board are inoperable.