Incremental changes are almost always faster, better, and cheaper than radical design departures (at least until the radical tech is fully worked out, which takes time).
As an engineer, I agree with that statement. I wish to add that the team knows, and has addressed the current failure modes of the technology they are planning to use by relocating the payload to the top of the craft.
I will also point an error in the grandparent's post.
The Jupiter are looking to use 2 shuttle boosters and the center fuel tank with shuttle engines mounted on it to put a crew into space, while NASA is using only one booster and one engine for the 2nd stage.
They are planning to use the RS-68 engine, which is considered superior to the space shuttle main engines. These engines are currently in use on the Delta IV. The engine NASA is planning is yet to be developed, but based on the J-2 from the Saturn V.
Because, when I, or just about anyone else wants to watch something online, they don't Google it, they just search for it on YouTube.
That will have to change. Google wasn't always the most popular search engine you know. Sooner or later Google will be replaced by something else. People flock to sites that work the best. They don't have any vested interest in them.
As far as I am concerned, YouTube hasn't worked for quite a while. Every time I find a good clip, it gets taken down. Why should I keep going there? I've had a much better success rate with Google. The clip I want is usually available on some small site, below the radar of Viacom.
Because Viacom is going to win. YouTube will tie up all of their resources trying to police their owns site. YouTube doesn't have any money to pay Viacom in the first place. A win in the court room could kill YouTube. To Viacom, YouTube is weak and vulnerable, and could make a nice asset in their portfolio after the lawsuit is settled.
Why work with YouTube when you can simply create your own website and cut out YouTube as the middle man?
YouTube has succeeded in forcing content owners to make their media available on the internet. But I doubt Viacom will become friendly with YouTube anywhere in the near future.
But what I was getting at about the US only, was that it would make it hard, if not impossible to find more fans for the shows. And the more fans, the more $$$ they make.
It only makes money if it advertises products that are available in other countries. YouTube manages this by having country specific websites. I think Hulu will eventually do the same.
YouTube has yet to make any money, and why should the major networks bother with it when they can just as easily start their own site. They control all of the content, and get to cut out the middle man. In the mean time they can sue YouTube into oblivion forcing it to hemorrhage even more cash.
I never used Hulu until this weekend. I am very impressed with it's execution. Sorry to hear that it isn't available outside the US. I suspect the reason people haven't heard of it is because it took a long time for networks to realize they could make money by making their shows available on the internet. Here in the US it was big news when it debuted, it even made the Slashdot front page.
You're going to need something roughly the size of a car...
I wouldn't go that far. When I was in college, we would trigger the gate in the parking lot with one of these. I never did any experiments to find out how much metal you need, but that grill isn't as big as a car.
I remember reading somewhere that the Tesla's reverse gear simply spins the engine in the opposite direction, meaning it's possible to reach top speed and acceleration while going backwards.
Engines convert heat into work. Since the Tesla is electric is uses a motor.
Sorry to be a jargon nazi, and no, I will not accept Wikipedia as a reference to prove otherwise.
The power may be less but the engine may be more efficient. It works in EGR. (I don't really care for the article) The amount of fuel consumed goes down more proportionally than the amount of power produced (aka bsfc goes down). (citing Heywood chapter 15)
A diesel engine can run on just about anything, so what's the problem?
A common misunderstanding among the general public. I design diesel engines, and these inconsistent sources of bio-fuel are a major issue.
The largest problem being emissions. In engine design, we are currently at delicate balance in engine tuning to meet emissions standards. One thing we must assume constant, is quality of fuel. Using various kinds of fuels will cause variances in NOx or particulate over running the type of fuel the engine was designed for.
There are also issues with oil change intervals and fuel injection equipment. There are efforts to overcome these challenges. My point is, just because a diesel engine will burn anything, doesn't mean it will do it well.
Is the bio-fuel from rice the same as the bio-fuel from cotton seed oil? Usually, it isn't. Different sources yield different products. A company that can produce a consistent product from a variety of different sources will make billions.
Slashdot Mirror
Incremental changes are almost always faster, better, and cheaper than radical design departures (at least until the radical tech is fully worked out, which takes time).
As an engineer, I agree with that statement. I wish to add that the team knows, and has addressed the current failure modes of the technology they are planning to use by relocating the payload to the top of the craft.
I will also point an error in the grandparent's post.
The Jupiter are looking to use 2 shuttle boosters and the center fuel tank with shuttle engines mounted on it to put a crew into space, while NASA is using only one booster and one engine for the 2nd stage.
They are planning to use the RS-68 engine, which is considered superior to the space shuttle main engines. These engines are currently in use on the Delta IV. The engine NASA is planning is yet to be developed, but based on the J-2 from the Saturn V.
All TFA says is:
I also want to know if the skid they plan to use to maintain Hubble is reusable, or does it burn up on reentry?
If it's in AUTOCAD, then NASA needs to really get out of the 80's and into the 21st century. It's all NX5 and CATIA now a days.
If he was smart, he would be sipping margarita's on a beach somewhere, instead of rotting in a jail cell.
1. Take over computer network
2. Frame disgruntled employee so it looks like he did it.
3. ???
4. Profit!
All they have to do is reset the system.
Hold on to your butts!
Because, when I, or just about anyone else wants to watch something online, they don't Google it, they just search for it on YouTube.
That will have to change. Google wasn't always the most popular search engine you know. Sooner or later Google will be replaced by something else. People flock to sites that work the best. They don't have any vested interest in them.
As far as I am concerned, YouTube hasn't worked for quite a while. Every time I find a good clip, it gets taken down. Why should I keep going there? I've had a much better success rate with Google. The clip I want is usually available on some small site, below the radar of Viacom.
Because Viacom is going to win. YouTube will tie up all of their resources trying to police their owns site. YouTube doesn't have any money to pay Viacom in the first place. A win in the court room could kill YouTube. To Viacom, YouTube is weak and vulnerable, and could make a nice asset in their portfolio after the lawsuit is settled.
I'd be more impressed if you demonstrated a working 86 Ford Escort.
no amount of tinfoil can protect me from this exploit. Only one thing left to do...
*unplugs ethernet adapter*
[NO CARRIER]
Why work with YouTube when you can simply create your own website and cut out YouTube as the middle man?
YouTube has succeeded in forcing content owners to make their media available on the internet. But I doubt Viacom will become friendly with YouTube anywhere in the near future.
But what I was getting at about the US only, was that it would make it hard, if not impossible to find more fans for the shows. And the more fans, the more $$$ they make.
It only makes money if it advertises products that are available in other countries. YouTube manages this by having country specific websites. I think Hulu will eventually do the same.
YouTube has yet to make any money, and why should the major networks bother with it when they can just as easily start their own site. They control all of the content, and get to cut out the middle man. In the mean time they can sue YouTube into oblivion forcing it to hemorrhage even more cash.
I never used Hulu until this weekend. I am very impressed with it's execution. Sorry to hear that it isn't available outside the US. I suspect the reason people haven't heard of it is because it took a long time for networks to realize they could make money by making their shows available on the internet. Here in the US it was big news when it debuted, it even made the Slashdot front page.
Hulu already did it.
You're going to need something roughly the size of a car...
I wouldn't go that far. When I was in college, we would trigger the gate in the parking lot with one of these. I never did any experiments to find out how much metal you need, but that grill isn't as big as a car.
Fortunately, most people understand power and refueling constraints and know how to plan ahead.
Apparently, they don't.
disclaimer:
This comment was intended to have just a touch of sarcasm.
I remember reading somewhere that the Tesla's reverse gear simply spins the engine in the opposite direction, meaning it's possible to reach top speed and acceleration while going backwards.
Engines convert heat into work. Since the Tesla is electric is uses a motor.
Sorry to be a jargon nazi, and no, I will not accept Wikipedia as a reference to prove otherwise.
Who are the 30% of people who don't approve of the Do Not Call list?
Invalids who realized they now have no one to talk to.
Commercial speech has less protections which is why cigarette companies can not advertise on TV and such.
Valid and insightful
Consumer Reports had an article on this a year ago.
I love the Do Not Call Registry. I'm just concerned about it's ramifications to the first amendment.
Stability == Stagnation. All economic activity is cyclical, and the goal should be to bring the peaks closer together, not flatten them out.
no
stability=="bring peaks closer together"
stagnation=="flatten them out"
The goal is controlled growth without irrational exuberance.
less heat -> less thermal expansion = less power)
The power may be less but the engine may be more efficient. It works in EGR. (I don't really care for the article) The amount of fuel consumed goes down more proportionally than the amount of power produced (aka bsfc goes down). (citing Heywood chapter 15)
I have never heard of that term before and I work in engine design. I guess you learn something every day.
A diesel engine can run on just about anything, so what's the problem?
A common misunderstanding among the general public. I design diesel engines, and these inconsistent sources of bio-fuel are a major issue.
The largest problem being emissions. In engine design, we are currently at delicate balance in engine tuning to meet emissions standards. One thing we must assume constant, is quality of fuel. Using various kinds of fuels will cause variances in NOx or particulate over running the type of fuel the engine was designed for.
There are also issues with oil change intervals and fuel injection equipment. There are efforts to overcome these challenges. My point is, just because a diesel engine will burn anything, doesn't mean it will do it well.
Is the bio-fuel from rice the same as the bio-fuel from cotton seed oil? Usually, it isn't. Different sources yield different products. A company that can produce a consistent product from a variety of different sources will make billions.