The 'required skills' of a lot of job specs always make me laugh with their massive list of requirements. I don't honestly understand why they do it because you'll never find someone with all those skills. They'd do much better if they put one or two 'required' skills at most. I recently changed jobs (senior level) and didn't have ANY of the required skills. Yet still got the job because I could demonstrate that I could learn them in the first two weeks' effort and after a month be far more valuable than someone with an immediate skillset match.
Most companies will admit that they want someone intelligent who will be good in the long-run rather than someone with the exact skillset for day 1. Yet their job specs almost always say the opposite.
The moon is about 250,000 miles from the Earth. At this distance (atan(250000/6000000)) the angular separation is about 2.3. Compare this to the angular diameter of the moon when you look up at night (0.5) and they would still be easily resolvable to the naked eye.
It may be that his 45 mount is like a roof with cells on both 'north-facing' and 'south-facing' slopes, which will lead to one slope being pretty much useless. So his tree arrangement would improve over a flawed arrangement but not over a sensible (and de-facto standard) one.
You can't see the back side of the flat array. I bet there's another ten on the other side
OK, that may be true. But then those 10 'north facing' cells are pretty useless and could probably be removed without actually affecting energy production. How many people install (in the northern hemisphere) panels that are north-facing?
Yes, he's increased the cell density per unit surface area, but he's using all three dimensions, rather than two that the flat arrangement uses (thus more expensive). Cell density per unit volume will have decreased with his model.
He's used 18 cells on the tree, but 10 in the flat array. So an increase of 80% in cell numbers results in an increase of 20-50% in yield. I don't see a massive future for this.
It's not a tautology. It's just incredibly obvious that better-reviewed games would be downloaded more on BitTorrent.
[To be clear a tautology is something that is by definition true, like... "if a and b are rational numbers, then ab is rational".
That's not a tautology. That's a mathematical consequence. Tautology is a repetition of meaning. "a and b are rational" has a different meaning than "ab is rational", even though one can be shown to always imply the second. Otherwise you could say that the entirety of provable mathematics is tautologous.
No, you could launch a soyuz into polar orbit from the south pole. TFA doesn't state whether 'orbit' is low earth orbit or geostationary orbit. GEO from the south pole would be crazy anyway as GEO always ends up directly over the equator.
Oh for crying out loud. Can we not rehash this. Syncing over wireless. Not a hard concept to come up with. They didn't rip the name off as it's the most obvious name for such an app. Neither did the rip off the logo as it's a combination of a 'sync' logo and a 'wifi' logo. It's not rocket science. Yes, they rejected his app (due to him accessing parts of the OS outside the SDK) but that doesn't mean that they just ripped it off. Everyone's been after wifi syncing since the very first iPhone and I find it ridiculous that people out there believe that apple couldn't implement it themselves and had to 'rip off' this guy.
Orbital speeds (as opposed to velocities) are the same for the same shaped-orbits (which LEO ones pretty much are) so the only variable is direction of motion. Relative velocities can be anywhere from a few feet per second (if the orbits are almost exactly aligned) to a theoretical maximum of about 15,000m/s if the were in a head-on collision (unlikely). I'd guess that it was somewhere in the region of 3-10km/s relative velocity.
For reference, the collision of Iridium 33 and Kosmos-2251 in 2009 was at a relative velocity of 11.7km/s (42,120 kmph or 26,170 mph). Plenty enough to destroy that section of the ISS if it hit.
It's by far more likely that the debris is from something the human race has launched into space. It's in low Earth orbit. Pretty much everything that comes from outer space either flies past the earth (see yesterday's encounter with 2011 MD) or slams into it as a shooting star (meteor/meteorite). Something from outer space has to lose an awful lot of speed just as it passes the Earth to end up in Low Earth orbit, which just doesn't happen.
NORAD tracks as much space objects and debris as it can. There's a lot of stuff up there and it's constantly changing orbits in a slightly unpredictable way due to variable drag from the atmosphere. This object (NORAD designator 82618) has a drag coefficient 175 times greater than that of the ISS so it was hard to predict in advance that it would be that close. The ISS crew got notice a little over two hours before the encounter at about 2200 GMT (UTC) last night and it cleared the ISS at 0008GMT this morning.
Re:Tau is used everywhere. I prefer k_k
on
Happy Tau Day
·
· Score: 1
Why on earth did you do this? I've never heard of this notation.
Slashdot is trying to atone for its past history of posting news stories months after they happen by being a whole year early for this particular one. Also, expect three threads on the subject next year.
From what I understood of his app when I took a look at it on Cydia, it writes to system files that the Apple T&Cs do not allow you to do. This is why it got rejected by apple for 'security concerns' (because it's writing to areas it shoudn't). Whether this is done by undocumented APIs or standard iOS APIs I do not know.
As for the name/logo. It's syncing over wifi. There are two very obvious names: "Wifi Sync" and "Sync Wifi" for this. And the logo is the most obvious choice for a logo: The composition of the wifi logo and the sync logo. If you'd have asked me to come up with a name/logo for this I would have come up with exactly the same thing. I do not think that Apple ripped him off - he's just trying to make noise.
And yes, Apple should have put wireless synching in with iOS 1...
It's interesting to see how people estimate the size of the shuttle. Most people assume that the ET is about the size of a petrol tanker truck because it's (roughly) the same dimensions and this is the only recognizable thing they can think of (this seems to all be done subconsciously). . From this, you extrapolate up and you end up with the size of the orbiter being about the size of a large business jet as you say.
Slashdot Mirror
The 'required skills' of a lot of job specs always make me laugh with their massive list of requirements. I don't honestly understand why they do it because you'll never find someone with all those skills. They'd do much better if they put one or two 'required' skills at most. I recently changed jobs (senior level) and didn't have ANY of the required skills. Yet still got the job because I could demonstrate that I could learn them in the first two weeks' effort and after a month be far more valuable than someone with an immediate skillset match.
Most companies will admit that they want someone intelligent who will be good in the long-run rather than someone with the exact skillset for day 1. Yet their job specs almost always say the opposite.
The moon is about 250,000 miles from the Earth. At this distance (atan(250000/6000000)) the angular separation is about 2.3. Compare this to the angular diameter of the moon when you look up at night (0.5) and they would still be easily resolvable to the naked eye.
It's basically been confirmed that it's not going to hit the Earth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99942_Apophis#History_of_impact_estimates, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apophis_pass_zoom.svg, but then this is China we're talking about so they probably don't believe the rest of the world's measurements.
It may be that his 45 mount is like a roof with cells on both 'north-facing' and 'south-facing' slopes, which will lead to one slope being pretty much useless. So his tree arrangement would improve over a flawed arrangement but not over a sensible (and de-facto standard) one.
Unfortunately, I don't think he was the first to think of it either. Can anyone say prior art? http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3206/2807030740_25f3f2fa53.jpg
You can't see the back side of the flat array. I bet there's another ten on the other side
OK, that may be true. But then those 10 'north facing' cells are pretty useless and could probably be removed without actually affecting energy production. How many people install (in the northern hemisphere) panels that are north-facing?
Yes, he's increased the cell density per unit surface area, but he's using all three dimensions, rather than two that the flat arrangement uses (thus more expensive). Cell density per unit volume will have decreased with his model.
Check out this image: http://inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2011/08/The-Secret-of-the-Fibonacci-Sequence-in-Trees-3.jpg
He's used 18 cells on the tree, but 10 in the flat array. So an increase of 80% in cell numbers results in an increase of 20-50% in yield. I don't see a massive future for this.
It's not a tautology. It's just incredibly obvious that better-reviewed games would be downloaded more on BitTorrent.
[To be clear a tautology is something that is by definition true, like ... "if a and b are rational numbers, then ab is rational".
That's not a tautology. That's a mathematical consequence. Tautology is a repetition of meaning. "a and b are rational" has a different meaning than "ab is rational", even though one can be shown to always imply the second. Otherwise you could say that the entirety of provable mathematics is tautologous.
No, you could launch a soyuz into polar orbit from the south pole. TFA doesn't state whether 'orbit' is low earth orbit or geostationary orbit. GEO from the south pole would be crazy anyway as GEO always ends up directly over the equator.
A lawsuit that they famously won...
There are billions of dollars out there being wasted on patent litigation.
I feel the lawyers out there would disagree with you on this one. They just love it!
They would have either a: gotten everything on the cheap ...
Customarily we get an 'or' option when you provide us with an 'either'.
No, but your boss's boss's boss' boss has just got a new yacht
Like when Apple ripped off an wireless sync app made by a one guy.
Oh for crying out loud. Can we not rehash this. Syncing over wireless. Not a hard concept to come up with. They didn't rip the name off as it's the most obvious name for such an app. Neither did the rip off the logo as it's a combination of a 'sync' logo and a 'wifi' logo. It's not rocket science. Yes, they rejected his app (due to him accessing parts of the OS outside the SDK) but that doesn't mean that they just ripped it off. Everyone's been after wifi syncing since the very first iPhone and I find it ridiculous that people out there believe that apple couldn't implement it themselves and had to 'rip off' this guy.
Orbital speeds (as opposed to velocities) are the same for the same shaped-orbits (which LEO ones pretty much are) so the only variable is direction of motion. Relative velocities can be anywhere from a few feet per second (if the orbits are almost exactly aligned) to a theoretical maximum of about 15,000m/s if the were in a head-on collision (unlikely). I'd guess that it was somewhere in the region of 3-10km/s relative velocity.
For reference, the collision of Iridium 33 and Kosmos-2251 in 2009 was at a relative velocity of 11.7km/s (42,120 kmph or 26,170 mph). Plenty enough to destroy that section of the ISS if it hit.
Unfortunately not. I can't find any data on the subject or TLEs (NORAD's Two Line Elements that describe the orbit) for the debris.
It's by far more likely that the debris is from something the human race has launched into space. It's in low Earth orbit. Pretty much everything that comes from outer space either flies past the earth (see yesterday's encounter with 2011 MD) or slams into it as a shooting star (meteor/meteorite). Something from outer space has to lose an awful lot of speed just as it passes the Earth to end up in Low Earth orbit, which just doesn't happen.
NORAD tracks as much space objects and debris as it can. There's a lot of stuff up there and it's constantly changing orbits in a slightly unpredictable way due to variable drag from the atmosphere. This object (NORAD designator 82618) has a drag coefficient 175 times greater than that of the ISS so it was hard to predict in advance that it would be that close. The ISS crew got notice a little over two hours before the encounter at about 2200 GMT (UTC) last night and it cleared the ISS at 0008GMT this morning.
Why on earth did you do this? I've never heard of this notation.
.... to prevent this sort of crap. That would be like letting someone buy a DVD of a movie and only get to watch it once.
The MPAA tried this crap before.
Slashdot is trying to atone for its past history of posting news stories months after they happen by being a whole year early for this particular one. Also, expect three threads on the subject next year.
$162K is nothing to sneeze at, but I bet he'd rather have a developer job at Apple for his efforts.
I doubt it. They asked for his CV when they rejected his app. If he wanted a dev job at Apple, that was his way in. He obviously didn't
From what I understood of his app when I took a look at it on Cydia, it writes to system files that the Apple T&Cs do not allow you to do. This is why it got rejected by apple for 'security concerns' (because it's writing to areas it shoudn't). Whether this is done by undocumented APIs or standard iOS APIs I do not know.
As for the name/logo. It's syncing over wifi. There are two very obvious names: "Wifi Sync" and "Sync Wifi" for this. And the logo is the most obvious choice for a logo: The composition of the wifi logo and the sync logo. If you'd have asked me to come up with a name/logo for this I would have come up with exactly the same thing. I do not think that Apple ripped him off - he's just trying to make noise.
And yes, Apple should have put wireless synching in with iOS 1...
It's interesting to see how people estimate the size of the shuttle. Most people assume that the ET is about the size of a petrol tanker truck because it's (roughly) the same dimensions and this is the only recognizable thing they can think of (this seems to all be done subconsciously). . From this, you extrapolate up and you end up with the size of the orbiter being about the size of a large business jet as you say.
In actual fact, the external tank is a LOT bigger: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/images/content/166996main_ET-119_2571_516.jpg