knowing the radioactive fallout and collateral damage would be limited.
Um, the more you dial it down, generally the dirtier the explosion. For a given bomb, higher yields equate to more complete fission of the fuel and higher neutron fluxes that are better at transmuting the heavy actinides into lighter, shorter-lived products. Likewise, the bigger the bomb, the smaller the fallout relative to its yield - they're more effective at dispersion and more of the power comes from fusion, less from fission. For example, the Tsar Bomba was a remarkably clean bomb despite its tremendous yield, while the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (low yield, low percentage burn, pure fission) were very dirty.
For the stuff on the ice caps, glacier tour guides run professional operations where they keep track of every rift as it forms and relay the information to each other. For the more dangerous stuff like on a skriðjökul, there's some of that as well, but also in general it takes about extreme care, constantly testing the ground in front of you, and being tethered to each other to help arrest unexpected falls, among other things. And even then it can still be dangerous.
Ironically, though, sometimes ice can be an aid. There's a number of mountains here like Herðubreið that are easier to climb when they're iced over, as they're covered in very loose rocks and the ice helps anchor it together.
Oh, and don't be anywhere near the flat tops when there's volcanic activity going on, because they often overlay volcanoes. And when there's even a small "burp" of heat, you get what's called a sigketill forming, and that would be very bad news for you;) And in case those little "ripples" on the edge of the bowl-shaped ones (as opposed to the "sheer drop" ones and the "boiling lake" ones) don't look so bad, here's what they look like close up. Think video game-style bottomless pits. Into a volcano.;)
Know where your calderas are and what they're doing!;)
If dying in a crevase is your idea of fun, then go right ahead;)
Okay, to be fair, the flat-topped ice sheets are generally pretty safe. It's where the ice flows over contours and descends into the lowlands that they get dangerous, what we call a skriðjökull. They end up lookinglikethis. And oftentimes these crevases form beneath before they become visible on the surface. The glaciers can also be (surprise surprise) very slippery at times.
Sometimes idiots actually try to drive passenger cars onto glaciers, if you can believe that.
That said, they are quite beautiful. But it's important to not forget, tourists actually do die here when they do stupid things.
It's drysuit diving. It would be stupid to do it any other way.;)
There was a guy that on a dare from his family jumped into one of those flooded rift canyons last year, naked. He had no clue what water that cold does to your body, he's lucky he didn't drown. He quickly lost all energy, and combined with there being no easy way out was stuck half in the the water trying to get out, unable to climb any further. He was lucky that the rescue services got to him in time.
FIle that under "stupid things tourists do", along with "go hiking alone on a glacier with no prior experience and without telling anyone" and "walking up to the edge of a mud pot, not giving half a thought to the fact that they're standing at the edge of a boiling cauldron of liquid water that's actively eroding the clay around it." There's never any shortage of people to rescue. There's one team that's been hiking across Iceland this winter that's already had to be rescued three times;)
You've misunderstood the point. Neither AK-47s nor stealth bombers existed in Washington's time. He had no opinion on either because he had no conception of either. A small rifle that shoots ten bullets every second accurately hitting targets hundreds of meters away that costs less than the gold in a single guinea coin? Even that would have seemed positively unimaginable back in the day. AK-47s may be old tech by our standards but they're virtually magical to someone from the 18th century.
Note that "midoceanic ridges" doesn't entirely mean "underwater ridges". I happen to live in a place where the ridge breaks the surface - by several kilometers in places. You can investigate the mid-Atlantic ridge (at least a small part of it) right here on the surface, no subs needed. You can also check out part of the ridge in freshwater.
One of the common misconceptions is that there's a single fissure that makes up the "ridge". The reality is that there's a whole chain of meandering but largely parallel grabens (sharp-sided tectonic valleys), fissure-volcanic ridges, and individual volcanoes. It doesn't always break at the same place, it breaks over dozens to hundreds of kilometers on either side of the "average" centerline of the ridge. Also, the volcanism can be quite diverse. Here we have everything from basalt to rhyolite, deep-sourced and shallow-sourced magma, gas-rich and gas-poor magmas, widely varying levels of sulfur and fluorine emissions, etc.
I've also worked in the industry, and I'm of the opposite view: a lot of interface designers have given doctors crappy interfaces that don't take into account real-world use cases.
My particular field was psychiatry, so a lot of the software was tablet-based and focused on asking subjects questions and recording observations of the subjects. The important thing was to realize that these aren't some sort of web-poll - the real world is complex. Maybe the subject will throw a fit and walk out partway through or refuse to answer questions, or only give answers that don't make sense or aren't clear. Perhaps a question's answer choices don't reflect all of the nuances of the situation, something the form designer didn't think of. Perhaps something important or unusual happens in the interview that the doctor needs to note. It's important that software be as flexible as pencil and paper - that they can "pick it up" and "set it down" whenever they want, that they can add answers or scribble notes wherever, etc, and all of this gets recorded, is available to others, and doesn't just "disappear" on them.
Much of modern data-collection interface design is about trying to constrain people - you must do X, Y, and Z, in this order, with some nicely laid out plan of how everything's supposed to be done, etc. But sometimes that's just not practical in the real world. We found that when we made the software have the same "features" as paper, while still collecting data, acceptance was quite good.
Be nice to your users. You can point out possible errors or omissions (so long as you're not being a pest about it), but don't constrain them, don't try to *make* the data be "perfect". Just trust that they'll record the data as best they can. And be ready to handle any imperfect or incomplete data because well, congrats, we live in the real world so sometimes data is just simply going to be imperfect.
You're citing a law first from 1956 to define what the founders thought? Curious approach there.
The "unorganized militia" was created as a concept in 1903. Also called the "reserve militia", it's the pool from which people can be drafted.
There is absolutely no ambiguity in what the founders of the US thought "militia" was, because they summoned them and used them regularly. They were state-run military organizations. That's what they were called, and the term meant nothing else. The concept was in turn taken straight from the militias of Great Britain, which were the country's primary reserve troops. Established in 1757 (replacing earlier militia laws), it used a ballot system to draft 32 thousand men from England and Wales into its services, wherein they received military training and uniforms; they were intended as a home defense force (and could not be deployed overseas, but were used to make up for when the army was deployed). There was a heirarchial regime controlling the process, with the lowest levels at the town and on up to the national governments. Scotland, Northern Ireland, and indeed the UK's overseas colonies like the US had their own similar militia structures (the latter seen as important in fighting off attacks from natives). During the revolutionary war, their loyalties divided, and those who joined the rebellion formed the foundation for their states' postwar militias.
8 people in an organized, planned out attack managed to kill 29 people, or an average of 3,6 per person. How many do you think they would have killed if they had access to assault rifles?
It's also worth adding that the Kunming attackers were subdued by a single policeman armed with an automatic weapon.
National guard units are under dual state/federal control. And pretty much have been since the Militia Acts of 1792, although back then it also took a Supreme Court ruling to allow the federal government to call them up, and states were more assertive in controlling their use back then (though not always successful).
At present, national guard units may be activated by either the federal government or the state. Under SAD (State Active Duty) the governor is the acting commander in chief of the state's national guard units. They can use all of the hardware controlled by the state guard, so long as they reimburse the federal government for any consumables, and can use it for any purpose compliant with the state constitution not explicitly banned at the federal level (such as armed insurrection). Examples of state uses of the national guard are natural disasters, riots and terrorist attacks. The Posse Comitatus act restricting the ability of the federal government to use armed forces within the country does not limit state-controlled national guard deployments.
Oh, and as for the nickel, Jefferson should replace Jackson on the $20. Jackson's presence there has long been controversial and that would be a good reason to remedy the situation.
First, you will never get a single vote from the State of Illinois (aka "the Land of Lincoln") to drop the penny because President Lincoln has been featured on the face since at least 1909. So that's 2 Senators and 18 Congressmen who will never vote to drop the 1 cent coin
Maybe they should just find some other currency to honor Lincoln?
Sort of funny how obsessed over Lincoln Illinois is, given that he never set foot there until he was 21. He was born in Kentucky to a family from Virginia, lived there until he was 7, then moved to Indiana where he lived until he was an adult.
Militias were regularly called out for use in the early history of the United States. In no case was it just the president saying, "Hey, everyone with a gun who knows how to use it, come on down and help me out!" They were organized militias, like each state's own mini-army, run by the state's government.
Let's take the Whiskey Rebellion as an example. Washington needed an army to crush the rebellion. He put out a request to states for militia assistance (based on a new federal militia law) and received it from New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania. Most of the state militia ranks were small (few wanted to serve), so the states put out a draft to flush out the ranks of their militias. These drafts into the militias were enforced by armed soldiers - in the case of Hagerstown, Maryland, a whole 800 of them. Two people got killed resisting the draft into the militias. With the militias' numbers raised to the desired level, Washington then personally marched into "battle" at the head of the militias (each of which had their own state-organized command structure serving under him). After becoming confident that there would be little resistance, he turned command over to the Governor of Virginia (who was personally heading the Virginia militia at the time) to finish the operation.
This is what a "militia" was back in the days when the US was founded: a state-run army, to be called into active service in times of conflict. They still exist - the US National Guard is a direct descendent of the state militias, converted under the Dick Act. Also, obviously, over time the responsibility for provisioning weapons has shifted from the individual to the guard itself, since wars are no longer fought with hunting rifles.
That still doesn't make the US's second amendment unambiguous. But let's not pretend that a militia was something other than what it was. If you want to update the language to reflect what we call the militias now, the second amendment would read, "A well regulated National Guard, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Pro-gun people should read that as "The founders wanted us to have the right to individually own weapons so that we can be trained to be good soldiers in times of emergency". Anti-gun people should read that as "The founders were trying to prevent any prohibition against state National Guard units from controlling their own weapon stocks."
The reality is that that statement it's a reflection of their world, a world in which the nature of threats and how they were faced was very different than it is today. I think it's pretty absurd to speculate about whether George Washington would have wanted John Doe to be able to own an AK-47 in a world where a national military faces off against other nations with F-16s and stealth bombers.
The whole knives thing is just a red herring. Having a gun or not doesn't determine whether someone is more or less likely to want to kill someone else. But it does make them a lot more effective at it. Which is why they use them. Which is why guns were invented in the first place. They end a life much faster, much more reliably, with much less effort on the part of the attacker, than a knife.
To be more specific, the mortality rate for a treated gunshot wound to the heart is 24,5%, while for a stab wound to the heart it's 11.5%. Stab wounds to the chest that did not hit the heart in the study had a tiny 0.8% chance of death. There are lots of different studies from all over the world, this is just one example: knives are a very ineffective way to kill someone compared to guns. And it takes a lot more work and personal involvement. You're never going to see a situation where someone bursts into a crowded movie theater with a knife and stabs to death dozens of people
Even blunt objects used in assaults cause higher mortality rates than knives.
Then people who are scared of the government tracking their every move can barter or use foreign currencies amongst themselves and hide them in their mattresses so that there's no evil bank tracking records, either - while the rest of us get on with our lives in the 21st century.
Laser sinterers don't work that way - they lay down a layer of even, fine dust, then melt it with a laser. There has to be something keeping the dust down - it won't stick on its own.
Sounds like you're thinking of something more like laser spraying (which is imho a more interesting tech, as it yields better material properties and an almost unbounded array of materials and even finishing options.)
I don't even get the point of this. Was there anybody doubting that you could laser sinter prepared nickel-iron powder? People have been laser sintering iron alloys containing nickel and cobalt for ages. I care about whether they can turn surface rock (loose or firmly attached, in chunks or as non-uniform dust) into an acceptable printing feedstock in microgravity and get it into the printer's feed system. Heck, at least modify your 3d printer to be able to handle microgravity - good luck using a stock DMP 320 in space, the dust will just drift off. Do something meaningful here.
I'm actually a fan of the concept of space mining - I think that with ~2 decades of actual funded, dedicated effort the mining of precious-metal-rich earth-crossing asteroids could potentially prove profitable (using a quench gun to eject unguided projectiles (sintered into an ideal reentry shape) onto an Earth-intercept trajectory). Such bodies are more precious metal rich than even the best mines on Earth (as well as often with gem-quality peridot), 1-2 orders of magnitude more than typical mines, zero overburden (many Earth mines cost hundreds of millions to billions just to strip the overburden), a massive premium on sales due to the materials' origin, and our old foe the rocket equation doesn't come into play since they're such weak gravity wells. And there's really not all that much technology to develop... we've got landing in microgravity down, we need to get better at anchoring and roving, we're good at scooping regolith but it needs to be large scale and continuous, and we need a nuclear or solar sinterer and an aimable quench gun Based on other NASA missions, total development cost is probably on the order of $2-3B, including one or two smaller technology testing missions. And less cost on future mines.
But this printing thing is just pointless. It has absolutely no bearing on any of the technical challenges related to space mining or resource utilization.
The local boy laughed, told the presidential candidate "yeah," and said: "I want to know your opinions on NASA."
Trump wanted to make sure he correctly heard the question, turning to those around him to clarify if the boy was asking about the national space program or the North American Free Trade Agreement. A woman near the boy shouted: "Space!"
"You know, in the old days, it was great," Trump told the boy, along with an audience of more than 600. "Right now, we have bigger problems — you understand that? We've got to fix our potholes. You know, we don't exactly have a lot of money."
One can agree with his sentiment or not (which he's made before), but he's certainly not going to be doing anything "inspirational" with NASA.
If parenttable has "id integer, name varchar" then foo will automatically have "id integer, name varchar"
... which is the whole point if inheritance. Am I to understand that he wants inheritance, except without any inheritance?
just like inheritance in programming languages. Unlike most programming languages, you cannot redefine these fields at all (for instance, change id to a UUID datatype or remove it).
In what programming languages can you do that? That doesn't even make sense, you couldn't convert an object back to the parent if you did that - wherein the child wouldn't be a child at all. You're describing template programming, not inheritance.
Doing that would break postgresql's version of polymorphism, where SELECT * FROM parenttable; will also return the id and name columns (only columns that exist in parenttable) of all of the rows of foo.
Of course it would, and it damn well should. If an A is a type of B, then a query of all Bs should include all As.
And on top of all this I still fail to see any problem. So they don't want to use the parent columns? Nobody is holding a gun to their head - unless they purposely specified the parent columns as NOT NULL they'll default to null.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, the more you dial it down, generally the dirtier the explosion. For a given bomb, higher yields equate to more complete fission of the fuel and higher neutron fluxes that are better at transmuting the heavy actinides into lighter, shorter-lived products. Likewise, the bigger the bomb, the smaller the fallout relative to its yield - they're more effective at dispersion and more of the power comes from fusion, less from fission. For example, the Tsar Bomba was a remarkably clean bomb despite its tremendous yield, while the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (low yield, low percentage burn, pure fission) were very dirty.
For the stuff on the ice caps, glacier tour guides run professional operations where they keep track of every rift as it forms and relay the information to each other. For the more dangerous stuff like on a skriðjökul, there's some of that as well, but also in general it takes about extreme care, constantly testing the ground in front of you, and being tethered to each other to help arrest unexpected falls, among other things. And even then it can still be dangerous.
Ironically, though, sometimes ice can be an aid. There's a number of mountains here like Herðubreið that are easier to climb when they're iced over, as they're covered in very loose rocks and the ice helps anchor it together.
Oh, and don't be anywhere near the flat tops when there's volcanic activity going on, because they often overlay volcanoes. And when there's even a small "burp" of heat, you get what's called a sigketill forming, and that would be very bad news for you ;) And in case those little "ripples" on the edge of the bowl-shaped ones (as opposed to the "sheer drop" ones and the "boiling lake" ones) don't look so bad, here's what they look like close up. Think video game-style bottomless pits. Into a volcano. ;)
Know where your calderas are and what they're doing! ;)
If dying in a crevase is your idea of fun, then go right ahead ;)
Okay, to be fair, the flat-topped ice sheets are generally pretty safe. It's where the ice flows over contours and descends into the lowlands that they get dangerous, what we call a skriðjökull. They end up looking like this. And oftentimes these crevases form beneath before they become visible on the surface. The glaciers can also be (surprise surprise) very slippery at times.
Sometimes idiots actually try to drive passenger cars onto glaciers, if you can believe that.
That said, they are quite beautiful. But it's important to not forget, tourists actually do die here when they do stupid things.
It's drysuit diving. It would be stupid to do it any other way. ;)
There was a guy that on a dare from his family jumped into one of those flooded rift canyons last year, naked. He had no clue what water that cold does to your body, he's lucky he didn't drown. He quickly lost all energy, and combined with there being no easy way out was stuck half in the the water trying to get out, unable to climb any further. He was lucky that the rescue services got to him in time.
FIle that under "stupid things tourists do", along with "go hiking alone on a glacier with no prior experience and without telling anyone" and "walking up to the edge of a mud pot, not giving half a thought to the fact that they're standing at the edge of a boiling cauldron of liquid water that's actively eroding the clay around it." There's never any shortage of people to rescue. There's one team that's been hiking across Iceland this winter that's already had to be rescued three times ;)
You've misunderstood the point. Neither AK-47s nor stealth bombers existed in Washington's time. He had no opinion on either because he had no conception of either. A small rifle that shoots ten bullets every second accurately hitting targets hundreds of meters away that costs less than the gold in a single guinea coin? Even that would have seemed positively unimaginable back in the day. AK-47s may be old tech by our standards but they're virtually magical to someone from the 18th century.
Note that "midoceanic ridges" doesn't entirely mean "underwater ridges". I happen to live in a place where the ridge breaks the surface - by several kilometers in places. You can investigate the mid-Atlantic ridge (at least a small part of it) right here on the surface, no subs needed. You can also check out part of the ridge in freshwater.
One of the common misconceptions is that there's a single fissure that makes up the "ridge". The reality is that there's a whole chain of meandering but largely parallel grabens (sharp-sided tectonic valleys), fissure-volcanic ridges, and individual volcanoes. It doesn't always break at the same place, it breaks over dozens to hundreds of kilometers on either side of the "average" centerline of the ridge. Also, the volcanism can be quite diverse. Here we have everything from basalt to rhyolite, deep-sourced and shallow-sourced magma, gas-rich and gas-poor magmas, widely varying levels of sulfur and fluorine emissions, etc.
I've also worked in the industry, and I'm of the opposite view: a lot of interface designers have given doctors crappy interfaces that don't take into account real-world use cases.
My particular field was psychiatry, so a lot of the software was tablet-based and focused on asking subjects questions and recording observations of the subjects. The important thing was to realize that these aren't some sort of web-poll - the real world is complex. Maybe the subject will throw a fit and walk out partway through or refuse to answer questions, or only give answers that don't make sense or aren't clear. Perhaps a question's answer choices don't reflect all of the nuances of the situation, something the form designer didn't think of. Perhaps something important or unusual happens in the interview that the doctor needs to note. It's important that software be as flexible as pencil and paper - that they can "pick it up" and "set it down" whenever they want, that they can add answers or scribble notes wherever, etc, and all of this gets recorded, is available to others, and doesn't just "disappear" on them.
Much of modern data-collection interface design is about trying to constrain people - you must do X, Y, and Z, in this order, with some nicely laid out plan of how everything's supposed to be done, etc. But sometimes that's just not practical in the real world. We found that when we made the software have the same "features" as paper, while still collecting data, acceptance was quite good.
Be nice to your users. You can point out possible errors or omissions (so long as you're not being a pest about it), but don't constrain them, don't try to *make* the data be "perfect". Just trust that they'll record the data as best they can. And be ready to handle any imperfect or incomplete data because well, congrats, we live in the real world so sometimes data is just simply going to be imperfect.
You're citing a law first from 1956 to define what the founders thought? Curious approach there.
The "unorganized militia" was created as a concept in 1903. Also called the "reserve militia", it's the pool from which people can be drafted.
There is absolutely no ambiguity in what the founders of the US thought "militia" was, because they summoned them and used them regularly. They were state-run military organizations. That's what they were called, and the term meant nothing else. The concept was in turn taken straight from the militias of Great Britain, which were the country's primary reserve troops. Established in 1757 (replacing earlier militia laws), it used a ballot system to draft 32 thousand men from England and Wales into its services, wherein they received military training and uniforms; they were intended as a home defense force (and could not be deployed overseas, but were used to make up for when the army was deployed). There was a heirarchial regime controlling the process, with the lowest levels at the town and on up to the national governments. Scotland, Northern Ireland, and indeed the UK's overseas colonies like the US had their own similar militia structures (the latter seen as important in fighting off attacks from natives). During the revolutionary war, their loyalties divided, and those who joined the rebellion formed the foundation for their states' postwar militias.
8 people in an organized, planned out attack managed to kill 29 people, or an average of 3,6 per person. How many do you think they would have killed if they had access to assault rifles?
It's also worth adding that the Kunming attackers were subdued by a single policeman armed with an automatic weapon.
National guard units are under dual state/federal control. And pretty much have been since the Militia Acts of 1792, although back then it also took a Supreme Court ruling to allow the federal government to call them up, and states were more assertive in controlling their use back then (though not always successful).
At present, national guard units may be activated by either the federal government or the state. Under SAD (State Active Duty) the governor is the acting commander in chief of the state's national guard units. They can use all of the hardware controlled by the state guard, so long as they reimburse the federal government for any consumables, and can use it for any purpose compliant with the state constitution not explicitly banned at the federal level (such as armed insurrection). Examples of state uses of the national guard are natural disasters, riots and terrorist attacks. The Posse Comitatus act restricting the ability of the federal government to use armed forces within the country does not limit state-controlled national guard deployments.
Oh, and as for the nickel, Jefferson should replace Jackson on the $20. Jackson's presence there has long been controversial and that would be a good reason to remedy the situation.
Maybe they should just find some other currency to honor Lincoln?
Sort of funny how obsessed over Lincoln Illinois is, given that he never set foot there until he was 21. He was born in Kentucky to a family from Virginia, lived there until he was 7, then moved to Indiana where he lived until he was an adult.
Wait a minute, is your argument here that you want to have the ability to fight the US military?
Militias were regularly called out for use in the early history of the United States. In no case was it just the president saying, "Hey, everyone with a gun who knows how to use it, come on down and help me out!" They were organized militias, like each state's own mini-army, run by the state's government.
Let's take the Whiskey Rebellion as an example. Washington needed an army to crush the rebellion. He put out a request to states for militia assistance (based on a new federal militia law) and received it from New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania. Most of the state militia ranks were small (few wanted to serve), so the states put out a draft to flush out the ranks of their militias. These drafts into the militias were enforced by armed soldiers - in the case of Hagerstown, Maryland, a whole 800 of them. Two people got killed resisting the draft into the militias. With the militias' numbers raised to the desired level, Washington then personally marched into "battle" at the head of the militias (each of which had their own state-organized command structure serving under him). After becoming confident that there would be little resistance, he turned command over to the Governor of Virginia (who was personally heading the Virginia militia at the time) to finish the operation.
This is what a "militia" was back in the days when the US was founded: a state-run army, to be called into active service in times of conflict. They still exist - the US National Guard is a direct descendent of the state militias, converted under the Dick Act. Also, obviously, over time the responsibility for provisioning weapons has shifted from the individual to the guard itself, since wars are no longer fought with hunting rifles.
That still doesn't make the US's second amendment unambiguous. But let's not pretend that a militia was something other than what it was. If you want to update the language to reflect what we call the militias now, the second amendment would read, "A well regulated National Guard, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Pro-gun people should read that as "The founders wanted us to have the right to individually own weapons so that we can be trained to be good soldiers in times of emergency". Anti-gun people should read that as "The founders were trying to prevent any prohibition against state National Guard units from controlling their own weapon stocks."
The reality is that that statement it's a reflection of their world, a world in which the nature of threats and how they were faced was very different than it is today. I think it's pretty absurd to speculate about whether George Washington would have wanted John Doe to be able to own an AK-47 in a world where a national military faces off against other nations with F-16s and stealth bombers.
The whole knives thing is just a red herring. Having a gun or not doesn't determine whether someone is more or less likely to want to kill someone else. But it does make them a lot more effective at it. Which is why they use them. Which is why guns were invented in the first place. They end a life much faster, much more reliably, with much less effort on the part of the attacker, than a knife.
To be more specific, the mortality rate for a treated gunshot wound to the heart is 24,5%, while for a stab wound to the heart it's 11.5%. Stab wounds to the chest that did not hit the heart in the study had a tiny 0.8% chance of death. There are lots of different studies from all over the world, this is just one example: knives are a very ineffective way to kill someone compared to guns. And it takes a lot more work and personal involvement. You're never going to see a situation where someone bursts into a crowded movie theater with a knife and stabs to death dozens of people
Even blunt objects used in assaults cause higher mortality rates than knives.
Then people who are scared of the government tracking their every move can barter or use foreign currencies amongst themselves and hide them in their mattresses so that there's no evil bank tracking records, either - while the rest of us get on with our lives in the 21st century.
Laser sinterers don't work that way - they lay down a layer of even, fine dust, then melt it with a laser. There has to be something keeping the dust down - it won't stick on its own.
Sounds like you're thinking of something more like laser spraying (which is imho a more interesting tech, as it yields better material properties and an almost unbounded array of materials and even finishing options.)
You could certainly set up a mechanism to do that - but they haven't done that either. They haven't done anything out of the ordinary here.
I don't even get the point of this. Was there anybody doubting that you could laser sinter prepared nickel-iron powder? People have been laser sintering iron alloys containing nickel and cobalt for ages. I care about whether they can turn surface rock (loose or firmly attached, in chunks or as non-uniform dust) into an acceptable printing feedstock in microgravity and get it into the printer's feed system. Heck, at least modify your 3d printer to be able to handle microgravity - good luck using a stock DMP 320 in space, the dust will just drift off. Do something meaningful here.
I'm actually a fan of the concept of space mining - I think that with ~2 decades of actual funded, dedicated effort the mining of precious-metal-rich earth-crossing asteroids could potentially prove profitable (using a quench gun to eject unguided projectiles (sintered into an ideal reentry shape) onto an Earth-intercept trajectory). Such bodies are more precious metal rich than even the best mines on Earth (as well as often with gem-quality peridot), 1-2 orders of magnitude more than typical mines, zero overburden (many Earth mines cost hundreds of millions to billions just to strip the overburden), a massive premium on sales due to the materials' origin, and our old foe the rocket equation doesn't come into play since they're such weak gravity wells. And there's really not all that much technology to develop... we've got landing in microgravity down, we need to get better at anchoring and roving, we're good at scooping regolith but it needs to be large scale and continuous, and we need a nuclear or solar sinterer and an aimable quench gun Based on other NASA missions, total development cost is probably on the order of $2-3B, including one or two smaller technology testing missions. And less cost on future mines.
But this printing thing is just pointless. It has absolutely no bearing on any of the technical challenges related to space mining or resource utilization.
It was a stupid tweet. Trump is on the record making it clear where his priorities are.
One can agree with his sentiment or not (which he's made before), but he's certainly not going to be doing anything "inspirational" with NASA.
In what programming languages can you do that? That doesn't even make sense, you couldn't convert an object back to the parent if you did that - wherein the child wouldn't be a child at all. You're describing template programming, not inheritance.
Of course it would, and it damn well should. If an A is a type of B, then a query of all Bs should include all As.
And on top of all this I still fail to see any problem. So they don't want to use the parent columns? Nobody is holding a gun to their head - unless they purposely specified the parent columns as NOT NULL they'll default to null.
úff... that should read "postgres has them" :P Been using python too much lately...
But python has them. Three different types (xml, hstore, and json). And I don't see how that would be something special to inheritance.
I'm not sure what you mean. Could you clarify with an example of how it is vs. what you want?