I hate to be that person, but does that include people who falsely accuse you of being a rapist, paedophile or fraudster? I don't like the lack of free speech in the UK, however the polar opposite - where anything can be said with repercussions - is not a valid solution either.
The thing about English law is that whilst it cost Simon Singh (amongst others) a shitload do defend himself, it can now be used as a reference when a similar complaint is brought against someone. I'm not defending the insane libel laws we have over here, nor am I defending our lack of free speech.
You're assuming that the RTG would drop in and replace the entire electrical system, which is doubtful. However I can't comment on how much - the mass freed up could be between 3.9kg and 16.1kg, although more likely to be at the top end. Batteries *may* still be needed to provide peak power for drilling etc (Curiosity has an RTF and Lithium Ion batteries). I admit the reason I had *assumed* RTGs weren't selected was down to mass - I was surprised when I heard RTGs weren't being used.
The other problem could have been geometry - Voyager (for example) is a satellite, so it's not a problem to place the RTGs at the end of a boom so they don't interfere with other instrumentation - as long as you get your centres of mass and thrust set up you're fine. Curiosity is about 900kg, so placing the RTG at one end won't shift the centre-of-mass a great deal. On Philae the difference will be greater, and something that could have been deemed risky for landing in such a small gravity field - I doubt there are many places where gravity is perpendicular to the surface.
I'm guessing the real reason was a mixture of engineering and politics - ESA haven't developed RTG technology so they went with something they knew and designed accordingly.
Ironically, it's the terrestrial ones that have been a larger problem - up to 1,000 were (are?) used in remote areas of the Soviet Union for lighthouses and navigation beacons and unsurprisingly many have fallen into disrepair (or have simply been forgotten).
Bellona appears to be an environmental consultancy / foundation / independent watch-dog, so I don't know how impartial they are, but the articles are quite interesting and aren't sensational (ok, they do mention terrorism and dirty bombs). They're also about 12 years old, so I don't know how much has changed since they were written.
Well, there's no downtime if you use the Russian's incredibly safe RBMK design - online fueling is a doddle, just watch our for that positive void coefficient.
I think think the CANDU reactors have online fueling too, but yes 99% is nigh on impossible.
It's not very prejudiced - there's a huge difference between being fluent in a language and understanding the nuances & subtleties of humour. Most Germans I know have excellent English yet really struggle with my sense of humour (to be honest, so do a lot of people).
A lot of people will mentally translate what they hear into their native tongue which can cause you to miss things. For example the Scottish drink Irn Bru had a slogan "it's got girders in it" - which (according to my uncle who worked on the industry, drinks, not steel) completely confused Germans at an event.
Granted, that's a homophone, rather than the simple humour in this case.
I've started taking complaints about bad grammar, spelling mistakes and the like as implicit agreement with the post - obviously the complainer can't find a logical error and has to resort to complaining about the delivery. I'm not a fan of spelling mistakes, but I make enough of them myself so it'd be hypocritical to call people out.
On the other hand, I tend not to even bother reading vast posts or those without punctuation - I make the assumption that the argument is likely to be as incoherent as the writing.
Yes, it depends on the situation, conditions and relative speeds. For me, the only time I've found myself in a position where accelerating was of help was when I was careless and pulled out in front of somebody else. I accelerated to get out their way while they braked. In my personal experience, I've found that slowing down when idiots cut me up or cut across me has turned out better. However, stopping in the middle of a junction is just plain suicidal.
If the google car was hit in the rear quarter then it possibly did do the worst possible thing, and if the engineers are worth their salt it will be used to improve what the car does when detecting an impending collision. Still, the collision wouldn't have happened if it weren't for the lump of flesh running the stop sign in the first place - making the assumption that a driver *isn't* going to panic when they see you hurtling towards you isn't a way to get ahead in life.
When I got my Westfield I read up on motorcycle safety tips because the car was nigh on impossible to see (even if it was bright yellow), had no ABS, crumble zones, airbags or inertial reel seatbelts, and most people had no concept of how quickly it could accelerate.
I sometimes wonder if part of the problem is that cars are now so safe, people don't worry about accidents as much. Putting people into a death trap for a day might be make them think.
1 - slowing down to go past people working on the road isn't just a courtesy thing, it's a safety thing- you don't know what they're going to do.
2. I've been edging out and then seen traffic and stopped, and I've been following people who've done the same. Just because you think you can make it doesn't mean the person in front does, so act accordingly.
3. You'll find that most people slow when they see an impending collision - reducing the speed tends to be the best option. How can you can blame anyone for a collision when somebody else blows through a junction?
2 and 3 merry be mixed up.
The first rule of driving I was taught was always assume the other driver hadn't seen me and expect them to do something stupid. It's saved me from two accidents in the last week, both of which would have bought me a new wing and bumper - which would have been great a month ago before I got the badger damage fixed.
He definitely was attacked for his scientific work - heliocentrism was banned and Galileo had been investigated multiple times. However he did himself no favours by putting the pope's words into the mouth of a character called Simplicio who is depicted as a fool.
To be fair, the Soviets made some amazing equipment during the cold war. The Americans for example were amazed by the NK-33 rocket engine. One of Lockheed's engineers described how they couldn't have made a similar engine in the US because of design concepts. Russian design engineers gave the design to the manufacturing engineers who in turn would refine the design during manufacturing. The design was then built, tested and refined iteratively. American engineers were less likely to build a design that was likely to fail - the design had to be refined before it was built which meant that they were more likely to be conservative.
UK's Channel 4 had a series called Equinox that did an episode on it.
That's pretty damming - why was he not prosecuted for soliciting murder as well? It seems a message that the trafficking of drugs is worse than murder.
There was a YouTube creationist called nephilmfree who was a fervent believer in "the flood" amongst other things. He accidentally showed his favourites menu in a video, which people noticed contained links to escort agencies. The video was re-uploaded with the link removed, but as he learned -nothing gets deemed from the internet.
From what I recall, whilst scanning for CRTs was technically feasible, simply parking an empty van with "TV licensing detector" written on the side was the a far easier and cheaper method.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate to be that person, but does that include people who falsely accuse you of being a rapist, paedophile or fraudster? I don't like the lack of free speech in the UK, however the polar opposite - where anything can be said with repercussions - is not a valid solution either.
The thing about English law is that whilst it cost Simon Singh (amongst others) a shitload do defend himself, it can now be used as a reference when a similar complaint is brought against someone. I'm not defending the insane libel laws we have over here, nor am I defending our lack of free speech.
You're assuming that the RTG would drop in and replace the entire electrical system, which is doubtful. However I can't comment on how much - the mass freed up could be between 3.9kg and 16.1kg, although more likely to be at the top end. Batteries *may* still be needed to provide peak power for drilling etc (Curiosity has an RTF and Lithium Ion batteries). I admit the reason I had *assumed* RTGs weren't selected was down to mass - I was surprised when I heard RTGs weren't being used.
The other problem could have been geometry - Voyager (for example) is a satellite, so it's not a problem to place the RTGs at the end of a boom so they don't interfere with other instrumentation - as long as you get your centres of mass and thrust set up you're fine. Curiosity is about 900kg, so placing the RTG at one end won't shift the centre-of-mass a great deal. On Philae the difference will be greater, and something that could have been deemed risky for landing in such a small gravity field - I doubt there are many places where gravity is perpendicular to the surface.
I'm guessing the real reason was a mixture of engineering and politics - ESA haven't developed RTG technology so they went with something they knew and designed accordingly.
The lander's payload was only 21kg, the all-up mass was just under 100kg.
Ironically, it's the terrestrial ones that have been a larger problem - up to 1,000 were (are?) used in remote areas of the Soviet Union for lighthouses and navigation beacons and unsurprisingly many have fallen into disrepair (or have simply been forgotten).
Two strontium powered lighthouses vandalised on the Kola Peninsula
Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators
Bellona appears to be an environmental consultancy / foundation / independent watch-dog, so I don't know how impartial they are, but the articles are quite interesting and aren't sensational (ok, they do mention terrorism and dirty bombs). They're also about 12 years old, so I don't know how much has changed since they were written.
This is all perfectly cromulent grammar.
Well, there's no downtime if you use the Russian's incredibly safe RBMK design - online fueling is a doddle, just watch our for that positive void coefficient.
I think think the CANDU reactors have online fueling too, but yes 99% is nigh on impossible.
mysqli_real_escape_string has been deprecated. You should be using mysqli_real_escape_string_honest_guv_we_won't_change_this_again
Oh come on, everybody know the queen only uses her mobile to play Farm Ville (the peasants rebellion edition)
It's not very prejudiced - there's a huge difference between being fluent in a language and understanding the nuances & subtleties of humour. Most Germans I know have excellent English yet really struggle with my sense of humour (to be honest, so do a lot of people).
A lot of people will mentally translate what they hear into their native tongue which can cause you to miss things. For example the Scottish drink Irn Bru had a slogan "it's got girders in it" - which (according to my uncle who worked on the industry, drinks, not steel) completely confused Germans at an event.
Granted, that's a homophone, rather than the simple humour in this case.
That's a bit unfair - Hans only took over Nakatomi Plaza, I didn't remember him calling Americans stupid.
Huh? The GP said the exact opposite.
I've started taking complaints about bad grammar, spelling mistakes and the like as implicit agreement with the post - obviously the complainer can't find a logical error and has to resort to complaining about the delivery. I'm not a fan of spelling mistakes, but I make enough of them myself so it'd be hypocritical to call people out.
On the other hand, I tend not to even bother reading vast posts or those without punctuation - I make the assumption that the argument is likely to be as incoherent as the writing.
Even worse, if you watch their promo video - Dave mentions this at the end of his vblog - it goes actually says:
Did you know that every dead battery you've every thrown away had only used up to 20% of battery life.
That's an out and out lie.
Yes, it depends on the situation, conditions and relative speeds. For me, the only time I've found myself in a position where accelerating was of help was when I was careless and pulled out in front of somebody else. I accelerated to get out their way while they braked. In my personal experience, I've found that slowing down when idiots cut me up or cut across me has turned out better. However, stopping in the middle of a junction is just plain suicidal.
If the google car was hit in the rear quarter then it possibly did do the worst possible thing, and if the engineers are worth their salt it will be used to improve what the car does when detecting an impending collision. Still, the collision wouldn't have happened if it weren't for the lump of flesh running the stop sign in the first place - making the assumption that a driver *isn't* going to panic when they see you hurtling towards you isn't a way to get ahead in life.
When I got my Westfield I read up on motorcycle safety tips because the car was nigh on impossible to see (even if it was bright yellow), had no ABS, crumble zones, airbags or inertial reel seatbelts, and most people had no concept of how quickly it could accelerate.
I sometimes wonder if part of the problem is that cars are now so safe, people don't worry about accidents as much. Putting people into a death trap for a day might be make them think.
1 - slowing down to go past people working on the road isn't just a courtesy thing, it's a safety thing- you don't know what they're going to do.
2. I've been edging out and then seen traffic and stopped, and I've been following people who've done the same. Just because you think you can make it doesn't mean the person in front does, so act accordingly.
3. You'll find that most people slow when they see an impending collision - reducing the speed tends to be the best option. How can you can blame anyone for a collision when somebody else blows through a junction?
2 and 3 merry be mixed up.
The first rule of driving I was taught was always assume the other driver hadn't seen me and expect them to do something stupid. It's saved me from two accidents in the last week, both of which would have bought me a new wing and bumper - which would have been great a month ago before I got the badger damage fixed.
No, no, no. Jumping the shark (with frickin laser beams attached) with a hoverboard.
He definitely was attacked for his scientific work - heliocentrism was banned and Galileo had been investigated multiple times. However he did himself no favours by putting the pope's words into the mouth of a character called Simplicio who is depicted as a fool.
To be fair, the Soviets made some amazing equipment during the cold war. The Americans for example were amazed by the NK-33 rocket engine. One of Lockheed's engineers described how they couldn't have made a similar engine in the US because of design concepts. Russian design engineers gave the design to the manufacturing engineers who in turn would refine the design during manufacturing. The design was then built, tested and refined iteratively. American engineers were less likely to build a design that was likely to fail - the design had to be refined before it was built which meant that they were more likely to be conservative.
UK's Channel 4 had a series called Equinox that did an episode on it.
That's pretty damming - why was he not prosecuted for soliciting murder as well? It seems a message that the trafficking of drugs is worse than murder.
Did Cedric get a rainbow too?
Neither - The Wrath of Khan.
There was a YouTube creationist called nephilmfree who was a fervent believer in "the flood" amongst other things. He accidentally showed his favourites menu in a video, which people noticed contained links to escort agencies. The video was re-uploaded with the link removed, but as he learned -nothing gets deemed from the internet.
From what I recall, whilst scanning for CRTs was technically feasible, simply parking an empty van with "TV licensing detector" written on the side was the a far easier and cheaper method.