It'd be pretty hard to spoof it. You'd need a large botnet of fake twitter users to beat the signal/noise ratio, and if they were geotagged you'd have to simulate an outward ripple from an epicenter. It's also pretty simple (trivial, if they've signed up to your app) to weight warning tweets by the user's "realness" rating, the number of inactive/fake followers, their location, that sort of thing.
Not only that, how is the heat transferred to the bolt going to behave without convection to carry it away? How are you going to heat it in the first place? Can you do that in a space suit? Can you do that safely in a space suit? "Space is tricky. Really, really tricky. Honestly, you have no idea how mind-bogglingly tricky it is, I mean, you think it's tricky having to manufacture cadmium free tools to work on titanium coated hypersonic jet aircraft? That's a doddle compared to space..." (with apologies to DNA)
Presumably you also test your systems in a vacuum and 300C swings in temperature? Conditions in space are very hard to replicate on the ground and all sorts of weird things happen to metal-on-metal contact in vacuum. The problem here could be (a guess/example) something related to 7% extra torque being needed because of a temperature swing which then bends the male threads slightly, exposing an non-oxidised layer which then vacuum welds to the female thread. Could be a lot of things, and you can't test space technology 100% without, you know, putting it into space.
OK, in that case pop down to your local restaurant, get a free glass of water from them and send it to the ISS. Tell us how much it cost to give an astronaut a free glass of water.
The point is that free stuff isn't free once you've launched it to orbit. Doesn't matter how cheap a kilo of $cheap-substance costs, you still need money to get it into orbit. A kilo of dirt from your back yard? $10k. A litre of free water? $10k. A kilo of diamonds? Whatever the diamonds cost, plus $10k.
There's plenty worth lifting off the moon, if we can do it. There's water for starters, plus plenty of raw materials for making high quality metals, ceramics, semiconductors and so on. If you can send them into a low Earth orbit then you'll probably find you can beat the per-kilo costs of launching similar material from Earth, what with the big gravity well and atmosphere and all. If you can undercut an entire planet then I'd call that a worthwhile business opportunity. Can't see how a space elevator helps much, but there's plenty worth lifting off the moon.
I would imagine so, I can't think of a "killer app" that isn't easier to do with an electromagnetic mass driver, and for exactly the same reasons (near vacuum, low gravity), except for possibly the power requirements.
Yup, I usually have some "seafood sticks" for snacking on. No, they're not made from the finest cuts of sturgeon or put together by a celebrity chef, but who cares, they're a quid a packet.
Anyone else notice that the "urgh, you can't eat that, that's disgusting, do you know how they get the meat for that?" crowd are almost always the same as the "we should go back to nature, do you know native Americans used every part of the animal?" brigade?
There's a video here of somebody allowing one of these scammers access to a VM. They essentially just disable a bunch of regular Windows services. Given we have no idea of what the OP's scammer actually did the safest course of action is a format and reinstall.
Dammit, there was me going for the Anthill Inside gag. Well played!
Incidentally, there's an algorithm for finding quick solutions to the Travelling Salesman problem called Ant Colony Optimisation, because ants follow a chemical trail which fades with time the shortest routes will have the highest concentration of the chemical, and therefore ants. It's not a mathematically rigorous way to find the shortest solution, but it's a good starting point.
Remember the people calling for him to be tried for treason in the US are the same ones who recently asked a NASA official what it's like to land a shuttle on the moon. Politician != intelligent.
Except at the moment you're being nice to the Tories because they're the majority of the UK coalition government at the moment, and you want something. See also "Saddam Hussein" and "The Taliban" in the 1980s. There was even a film about the latter being brave heroes alongside John Rambo.
A significant proportion of the UK agree that this is all one big stitch up to put Assange in US hands, and frankly (as a Brit), I'm siding with Ecuador and their allies on this one.
Simple solution - download all of your data (Facebook's graph API uses JSON) then delete your account. Then simply set up your own system allowing people to see your photos, leave comments etc. We used to call them "personal websites" back in the day, but if it's going to catch on these days we better start calling them "synergistic personal cloud sharing social micronets".
I've suddenly just realised...the logical next-step is to offer a Diaspora* style self-hosted "app", crowdsource the cycles. Yes, the security may take a hit, but I'm sure it's nothing they can't cope with. Even if they can't, hey, it's just corrupted user data they're getting, and that doesn't seem to bother them with fake accounts.
The point is, think about the savings on server farms. If they save a chunk of money, the share price will shoot up, and that's what it's all about these days. You could end up with Facebook being an entirely user run program, all simply feeding back to central servers which just have to dump it to memory, no great CPU usage involved. A lot more money though.
Fantastic, that almost certainly means another change to the API/SDK processes. I can't wait for the number of grandparents joining to hit the critical mass where it all falls over and people leave for another network, ideally one with decent privacy and a decent API for public data.
What's safety got to do with it? The guy wasn't a danger.
See the line you quoted above, "pilots have absolute authority". Whether the guy is a danger or not isn't your decision to make, it's the pilots. If the guy had been escorted through customs by the head of the TSA throwing rose petals in his path, with a guard of honour and the President, the Dalia Lama and the Pope doing a special "You Should Totally Let This Guy On The Plane" song and dance routine written by god himself then the pilot can still say no, and that's the end of the matter.
That's the difference between pilots and god. God doesn't think he's a pilot.
The rule is still there for a pretty good reason though.
And I'm pretty certain a pilot can't assault or kill someone and claim it was for safety reasons
Yes, yes they can. In fact you're taught about that somewhere in the first 20 hours of any flight training. If a passenger threatens the safety of the aircraft then you can use any reasonable physical force to stop them. If, for example, you're in a light aircraft sitting in the co-pilot seat (fairly normal for a passenger in a Cessna) and you start messing about with the controls then you're likely to get a right bollocking from the pilot. If that doesn't work you'll probably find him punching you extremely hard, or simply pushing you out of the aircraft. If you're actively endangering multiple lives then lethal force can be legally reasonable. Again, this is aviation law, not just "how I think things should be".
Sorry, but it's not my assertion, it's the FAAs. The pilot can ask any passenger to leave the aircraft for no reason at all. If that passenger is the MD of the airline he can still do it. You don't have to give a reason, you can just say "I do not give my permission for that person to be on this aircraft", and that person is legally obligated to leave and may be removed by force if necessary. That's not my own opinion, it's what aviation law says the pilot is allowed to do.
Sure, the MD can fire the pilot, in which case he's no longer the pilot and should leave the cockpit, but that's the MD's only way to stay on the aircraft. The pilot's in charge of the aircraft, and aside from the co-pilot relieving him of duty for medical or safety reasons that law is absolute.
Slashdot Mirror
Not so quick there, you probably had it right the first time. Apple autocorrect perchance?
It'd be pretty hard to spoof it. You'd need a large botnet of fake twitter users to beat the signal/noise ratio, and if they were geotagged you'd have to simulate an outward ripple from an epicenter. It's also pretty simple (trivial, if they've signed up to your app) to weight warning tweets by the user's "realness" rating, the number of inactive/fake followers, their location, that sort of thing.
Not only that, how is the heat transferred to the bolt going to behave without convection to carry it away? How are you going to heat it in the first place? Can you do that in a space suit? Can you do that safely in a space suit? "Space is tricky. Really, really tricky. Honestly, you have no idea how mind-bogglingly tricky it is, I mean, you think it's tricky having to manufacture cadmium free tools to work on titanium coated hypersonic jet aircraft? That's a doddle compared to space..." (with apologies to DNA)
Presumably you also test your systems in a vacuum and 300C swings in temperature? Conditions in space are very hard to replicate on the ground and all sorts of weird things happen to metal-on-metal contact in vacuum. The problem here could be (a guess/example) something related to 7% extra torque being needed because of a temperature swing which then bends the male threads slightly, exposing an non-oxidised layer which then vacuum welds to the female thread. Could be a lot of things, and you can't test space technology 100% without, you know, putting it into space.
There's no e in Scottish Whisky.
Very close - it was upgraded to £1.
Precisely. To get from the Earth to the Moon you need a Saturn V. To get from the Moon to the Earth you need an Apollo LM Ascent stage.
OK, in that case pop down to your local restaurant, get a free glass of water from them and send it to the ISS. Tell us how much it cost to give an astronaut a free glass of water.
The point is that free stuff isn't free once you've launched it to orbit. Doesn't matter how cheap a kilo of $cheap-substance costs, you still need money to get it into orbit. A kilo of dirt from your back yard? $10k. A litre of free water? $10k. A kilo of diamonds? Whatever the diamonds cost, plus $10k.
Correct, it's tidally bound to the Earth, you'd need to "anchor" it at, or beyond, L1.
There's plenty worth lifting off the moon, if we can do it. There's water for starters, plus plenty of raw materials for making high quality metals, ceramics, semiconductors and so on. If you can send them into a low Earth orbit then you'll probably find you can beat the per-kilo costs of launching similar material from Earth, what with the big gravity well and atmosphere and all. If you can undercut an entire planet then I'd call that a worthwhile business opportunity. Can't see how a space elevator helps much, but there's plenty worth lifting off the moon.
I would imagine so, I can't think of a "killer app" that isn't easier to do with an electromagnetic mass driver, and for exactly the same reasons (near vacuum, low gravity), except for possibly the power requirements.
Yup, I usually have some "seafood sticks" for snacking on. No, they're not made from the finest cuts of sturgeon or put together by a celebrity chef, but who cares, they're a quid a packet.
Anyone else notice that the "urgh, you can't eat that, that's disgusting, do you know how they get the meat for that?" crowd are almost always the same as the "we should go back to nature, do you know native Americans used every part of the animal?" brigade?
They did.
There's a video here of somebody allowing one of these scammers access to a VM. They essentially just disable a bunch of regular Windows services. Given we have no idea of what the OP's scammer actually did the safest course of action is a format and reinstall.
Prickle-Prickle, the 20th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3178 to be precise. (For those who haven't, try 'ddate' on any *nix system...)
Dammit, there was me going for the Anthill Inside gag. Well played!
Incidentally, there's an algorithm for finding quick solutions to the Travelling Salesman problem called Ant Colony Optimisation, because ants follow a chemical trail which fades with time the shortest routes will have the highest concentration of the chemical, and therefore ants. It's not a mathematically rigorous way to find the shortest solution, but it's a good starting point.
Remember the people calling for him to be tried for treason in the US are the same ones who recently asked a NASA official what it's like to land a shuttle on the moon. Politician != intelligent.
Except at the moment you're being nice to the Tories because they're the majority of the UK coalition government at the moment, and you want something. See also "Saddam Hussein" and "The Taliban" in the 1980s. There was even a film about the latter being brave heroes alongside John Rambo.
A significant proportion of the UK agree that this is all one big stitch up to put Assange in US hands, and frankly (as a Brit), I'm siding with Ecuador and their allies on this one.
Simple solution - download all of your data (Facebook's graph API uses JSON) then delete your account. Then simply set up your own system allowing people to see your photos, leave comments etc. We used to call them "personal websites" back in the day, but if it's going to catch on these days we better start calling them "synergistic personal cloud sharing social micronets".
So what happens to the users souls which are already held by Apple?
I've suddenly just realised...the logical next-step is to offer a Diaspora* style self-hosted "app", crowdsource the cycles. Yes, the security may take a hit, but I'm sure it's nothing they can't cope with. Even if they can't, hey, it's just corrupted user data they're getting, and that doesn't seem to bother them with fake accounts.
The point is, think about the savings on server farms. If they save a chunk of money, the share price will shoot up, and that's what it's all about these days. You could end up with Facebook being an entirely user run program, all simply feeding back to central servers which just have to dump it to memory, no great CPU usage involved. A lot more money though.
Fantastic, that almost certainly means another change to the API/SDK processes. I can't wait for the number of grandparents joining to hit the critical mass where it all falls over and people leave for another network, ideally one with decent privacy and a decent API for public data.
See the line you quoted above, "pilots have absolute authority". Whether the guy is a danger or not isn't your decision to make, it's the pilots. If the guy had been escorted through customs by the head of the TSA throwing rose petals in his path, with a guard of honour and the President, the Dalia Lama and the Pope doing a special "You Should Totally Let This Guy On The Plane" song and dance routine written by god himself then the pilot can still say no, and that's the end of the matter.
That's the difference between pilots and god. God doesn't think he's a pilot.
The rule is still there for a pretty good reason though.
Yes, yes they can. In fact you're taught about that somewhere in the first 20 hours of any flight training. If a passenger threatens the safety of the aircraft then you can use any reasonable physical force to stop them. If, for example, you're in a light aircraft sitting in the co-pilot seat (fairly normal for a passenger in a Cessna) and you start messing about with the controls then you're likely to get a right bollocking from the pilot. If that doesn't work you'll probably find him punching you extremely hard, or simply pushing you out of the aircraft. If you're actively endangering multiple lives then lethal force can be legally reasonable. Again, this is aviation law, not just "how I think things should be".
Sorry, but it's not my assertion, it's the FAAs. The pilot can ask any passenger to leave the aircraft for no reason at all. If that passenger is the MD of the airline he can still do it. You don't have to give a reason, you can just say "I do not give my permission for that person to be on this aircraft", and that person is legally obligated to leave and may be removed by force if necessary. That's not my own opinion, it's what aviation law says the pilot is allowed to do.
Sure, the MD can fire the pilot, in which case he's no longer the pilot and should leave the cockpit, but that's the MD's only way to stay on the aircraft. The pilot's in charge of the aircraft, and aside from the co-pilot relieving him of duty for medical or safety reasons that law is absolute.