RTFA: "The Smithsonian’s federal funds—about 70 percent of its resources—are restricted to safeguarding collections, research and the costs associated with operating and maintaining the museums. But exhibitions, public programs and the recent digitization of the collection have largely been privately funded."
Your result is correct, but your math is wrong.
tan(0.06) = 0.06 * pi / 180 = 0.001047
66.14 * tan(0.06) = 66.14 * 0.001047 = 0.06926 = ~69mm
However, 66.14 * tan(0.001047) = 0.00120861.
I'm thinking more along the lines of "profoundly wishful thinking". I do think they're making an effort, but I fully expect it to collapse at some point.
The claim that no new technology is needed is, at best, a very creative interpretation of the facts. More likely, it's an outright lie made because they think they can get more money by convincing people that it's a done deal. Of what money they've managed to raise, most has gone towards "conceptual design studies". Now, it's possible that these consist of just adapting existing technology, but it's still R&D.
In the end, lack of funds will kill the project. Even if we assume that the plan is practical and that the absurdly low $6 billion they're aiming for would get the job done, there's still a major disconnect. They've stated that reality TV would make up the majority of the funding. If they could jump straight to the actual mission, that might actually work. But they can't. Their own plans include a number of preparatory missions starting 6 years before the first manned one. Those will require a lot of money that no one will be willing to invest at that point.
There's a huge difference. A normal scope is sighted in for a specific distance. 100 meters, 200 meters, etc. Anything closer or farther away and hitting the target isn't as simple as putting the crosshairs over it and pulling the trigger; you have to aim above or below the target to account for bullet drop. That requires knowing how far away your target is, and assumes the scope is sighted in correctly. If there's wind, you have to account for that as well.
At least UPS and FedEx leave *notes*. My three experiences with Amazon's shipping service, Ensenda, have fallen into two categories: First, leave the package at leasing (apartment complex), mark it as delivered on-line. UPS and FedEx do this, they attempt delivery and leave notes on my door. No attempt, no note. Found out it was delivered when I went to pickup a package UPS had left a note for. Second, dump the package at the door, when I'm there, but without knocking. Found it the next time I opened my door. Lucky no one decided to walk off with it. And the "signatures" mentioned on-line are apparently treated as a memo field. At least once it was signed for by the driver, and another time by as "X floor", with X being my floor in my apartment building.
That episode was a total rip-off/tribute/remake of the short story Leningen versus the Ants by Carl Stephenson.
This story was in my elementary school reading book the same year that episode originally aired.
We've also all seen the classical antidepressant commercial. Some guy "hurts everywhere" and "everyone". Then he pops a couple cute little pills and "everywhere" and "everyone" magically stops hurting - whatever problems he may have had with his health or his career or his relationships or his dog are magically cured by those cute little pills.
Do most of us recognize that this is a marketing fantasy? Probably not. Sure, antidepressants are prescribed to people with depression and people do recover from depression. But the idea that a couple pills will solve every single problem you have in your life is solidly in the realm of fantasy.
You're right. But to take it a step further, even the people recovering from depression are more than likely not doing it thanks to a particular pill from a TV ad. There are a lot of anti-depressants on the market, and often someone needs to try several of them at various dosages to get a combination that works for that person. Even when found, that combo might not work forever. The commercials don't just show problems being solved by a pill, but problems being solved by their pill.
What drug companies want is for their drugs to be prescribed over those of a competitor. But that's often not in the best interest of the patient. A good doctor would be one that took whatever they heard from a rep as information about one option and then did what was best for their patients.
4 VMs doesn't sound unreasonable for the specs he gave.
I use VMware Server on a Windows XP host that's much older than his laptop, with an AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400 and 2GB of RAM. I can run two VMs (one Windows XP, one FreeBSD 7.0) with no problems, and 3 if I dial down the memory allocated to each one. I've honestly never tried (or needed) four.
Slashdot Mirror
RTFA: "The Smithsonian’s federal funds—about 70 percent of its resources—are restricted to safeguarding collections, research and the costs associated with operating and maintaining the museums. But exhibitions, public programs and the recent digitization of the collection have largely been privately funded."
P.S. I don't know if tan(0.06) is really equal to 0.06 * pi / 180, but they're the same to 8 decimal places, which is a weird coincidence.
Ignore my other post, forgot break tags. Your result is correct, but your math is wrong.
tan(0.06) = 0.06 * pi / 180 = 0.001047
66.14 * tan(0.06) = 66.14 * 0.001047 = 0.06926 = ~69mm
However, 66.14 * tan(0.001047) = 0.00120861.
Your result is correct, but your math is wrong. tan(0.06) = 0.06 * pi / 180 = 0.001047 66.14 * tan(0.06) = 66.14 * 0.001047 = 0.06926 = ~69mm However, 66.14 * tan(0.001047) = 0.00120861.
I'll always prefer pico/nano over vi and emacs.
I'm thinking more along the lines of "profoundly wishful thinking". I do think they're making an effort, but I fully expect it to collapse at some point.
The claim that no new technology is needed is, at best, a very creative interpretation of the facts. More likely, it's an outright lie made because they think they can get more money by convincing people that it's a done deal. Of what money they've managed to raise, most has gone towards "conceptual design studies". Now, it's possible that these consist of just adapting existing technology, but it's still R&D.
In the end, lack of funds will kill the project. Even if we assume that the plan is practical and that the absurdly low $6 billion they're aiming for would get the job done, there's still a major disconnect. They've stated that reality TV would make up the majority of the funding. If they could jump straight to the actual mission, that might actually work. But they can't. Their own plans include a number of preparatory missions starting 6 years before the first manned one. Those will require a lot of money that no one will be willing to invest at that point.
There's a huge difference. A normal scope is sighted in for a specific distance. 100 meters, 200 meters, etc. Anything closer or farther away and hitting the target isn't as simple as putting the crosshairs over it and pulling the trigger; you have to aim above or below the target to account for bullet drop. That requires knowing how far away your target is, and assumes the scope is sighted in correctly. If there's wind, you have to account for that as well.
At least UPS and FedEx leave *notes*. My three experiences with Amazon's shipping service, Ensenda, have fallen into two categories: First, leave the package at leasing (apartment complex), mark it as delivered on-line. UPS and FedEx do this, they attempt delivery and leave notes on my door. No attempt, no note. Found out it was delivered when I went to pickup a package UPS had left a note for. Second, dump the package at the door, when I'm there, but without knocking. Found it the next time I opened my door. Lucky no one decided to walk off with it. And the "signatures" mentioned on-line are apparently treated as a memo field. At least once it was signed for by the driver, and another time by as "X floor", with X being my floor in my apartment building.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine In many states, you can indeed use lethal force without further provocation.
That episode was a total rip-off/tribute/remake of the short story Leningen versus the Ants by Carl Stephenson. This story was in my elementary school reading book the same year that episode originally aired.
http://www.classicshorts.com/stories/lvta.html
That's a good story. It also made it into the collection one of my high school English classes used.
We've also all seen the classical antidepressant commercial. Some guy "hurts everywhere" and "everyone". Then he pops a couple cute little pills and "everywhere" and "everyone" magically stops hurting - whatever problems he may have had with his health or his career or his relationships or his dog are magically cured by those cute little pills.
Do most of us recognize that this is a marketing fantasy? Probably not. Sure, antidepressants are prescribed to people with depression and people do recover from depression. But the idea that a couple pills will solve every single problem you have in your life is solidly in the realm of fantasy.
You're right. But to take it a step further, even the people recovering from depression are more than likely not doing it thanks to a particular pill from a TV ad. There are a lot of anti-depressants on the market, and often someone needs to try several of them at various dosages to get a combination that works for that person. Even when found, that combo might not work forever. The commercials don't just show problems being solved by a pill, but problems being solved by their pill.
What drug companies want is for their drugs to be prescribed over those of a competitor. But that's often not in the best interest of the patient. A good doctor would be one that took whatever they heard from a rep as information about one option and then did what was best for their patients.
4 VMs doesn't sound unreasonable for the specs he gave. I use VMware Server on a Windows XP host that's much older than his laptop, with an AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400 and 2GB of RAM. I can run two VMs (one Windows XP, one FreeBSD 7.0) with no problems, and 3 if I dial down the memory allocated to each one. I've honestly never tried (or needed) four.