Bah, just sequals.
Arcanum needs a true reboot, preferably along the lines of Oblivion and Fallout 3. Hopefully with an MMO to follow.
Re:The Lightning is no replacement for the Raptor
on
F-22 Raptor Cancelled
·
· Score: 1
Where exactly is this airborne threat you're so afraid of? The F-35 is an excellent ground attack aircraft, and from my understanding still a compatent fighter. Who precisely are we likely to be fighting with an air force more advanced than Iraqs (pre 91 that is)? In any case, I'd be more concerned about a naval fighter being cancelled; the Air Force mission really does seem to be transitioning to homeland defense and bombing, neither of which needs anything like the F-22. I'd rather see a next gen bomber in the real world, however cool F-22s are.
Re:How many soldiers die if 187 F-22s aren't enoug
on
F-22 Raptor Cancelled
·
· Score: 1
As if the F-35 isn't a perfectly acceptable aircraft for handling any conflict the US will realistically be involved in. For that matter the F-15, F-16 and F-18 are all still perfectly servicable for just about any scenario.
No, none of them is on par with the F-22, but honestly the modern day uses for a pure air superiority aircraft are quite limited, and no one else anything even realistically on par with aircraft other than the F-22. That said, I do hope two things happen 1) the export ban is lifted so Australia (which has expressed interest) and Canada (for whom it would be a better northern patrol aircraft than the F-35) can get some. 2) the aircraft is developed into the next gen medium bomber as has been discussed, and happened with the F-15.
No, the X-15 did not beat Mercury to space. For that matter, Mercury was in orbit monthes before the first X-15 flight to the US definition of space (50 miles vs the international 100 km). In fact, the X-15 only had a grand totla of two flights beyond 100 km. In any case, Alan Sheppard flew suborbitally in May '61 and John Glenn made three orbits in Feb '62, Robert White got an X-15 to ~60 miles in July '62, and Joe Walker exceeded 100km in July '63 while the Mercury program ended in May '63. All in all Mercury wasn't so much a turning point as a sideshow to the spaceplance program untill the Moon program was launched, at which point capsules were the only realistic way to do anything in the timeline proposed.
As for an orbital X-15, the X-15B proposal was probably about as far as the airframe could have been pushed. It would have gotten a single orbit out of an X-15 launched on a Navaho, and required the pilot to bail out over the Gulf of Mexico ala Vostok. The X-20 itself was a great program IMO, but realistically we wouldn't have done nearly as much anywhere near as fast if we'd gone that route. The vehicle was supposed to fly (suborbitally ) in 1966 and wouldn't have made a multi orbit flight untill the end of 1968. Given the complexity and technology involved, plus the lack of experience, I seriously doubt it could possibly have stayed on schedule. In the end we woud have gained, in the same timeline capsules went to the moon, a vehicle roughly comparable to Gemini in capability, considerably heavier and more complex with the only real difference being a runway landing.
It's hard to say what would have happened next, but I have my own suspicions things wouldn't have been terribly different; the results would have stayed classifiied so its not like some great private space industry would have emerged from Dyna-Soar. There would probably have been something along the lines of Skylab (maybe more like a cross between MOL and Skylab, but nontheless), Nixon still would have cut the bone and the shuttle would still have been the cost saving measure. There might have been a more realistic appraisal of the Shuttle's capabilities, and we might have gotten a marginally better vehicle, but honestly it would still have been an experimental and ill conceived all in one launch system.
To sum up, yes, there was a spaceplane program, but no, it's not really some great lost "other option" for the space program. Capsules were ultimately the right way to get to the Moon in the 60s, and the Moon was probably the most productive thing we could have done with manned space at the time. If the program had had a great deal more money it is interesting to think about what we might have gotten from Apollo PLUS Dyna-Soar, but really whats a more exciting alternative history? Apollo extended into the 70s with a real exploration program plus Skylab like work, maybe reaching Mars in the late 80s early 90s or a space shuttle that flies a few years earlier and is maybe a slightly better system in a world where we never reached the moon (or more likely where we built a space station and the Russians landed on the moon instead of building Mir)?
Beat me to it, but yes, thats right. Condominium is a form of ownership while an apartment is a type of building (really a way of dividing a building but you get my point).
From everything I've heard ordering from Tiger is legitimately awful, but around here they are the onyl actual brick and mortar discount stores that are any good. In all honesty you can get really nice prices from them if you know what your doing. The thing I always tell people is go ahead and buy from them, just make sure you know what your buying, and don't depend on their description, sales pitch, etc (and can anyone find me a computer store that isn't true for?).
Is it really that hard to get Office licenses? We have remote access office through Citrix at Ryerson in Toronto (http://www.ryerson.ca/acs/usersguide/virtualapps.htm if you want to see how its accessed). The problem is that performance is absolutely terrible, even on a wired connection to the campus network (which, admitadly seems to have a wifi backbone) its essentially unusable (now don't ask me if the failure is network or server, but my impression has always been that both suck).
In any case, everyone uses the labs in my program, but mostly for collaborative work and access to things like GIS and AutoCAD. Frankly I don't know of any labs that could be considered underused and have to agree any move to get rid of them would hurt students.
Oddly enough the mention someone made of the labs as a nerdy social area seems to be what has been lost. Entertainment has moved out of the labs to student lounges on laptops and wifi.
Assuming I also get a better product, yes. Tryhttp://pckeyboards.stores.yahoo.net/keyboards.html for an alternative, and yes, I do pay for them. Actually, I'm writing this on an original IBM from 1990 I've used on all my system I bought the keyboard.
Presumably he's North American, we (among a few other places) use 120v lines, 240 is reserved for special high power circuits, generally only used for dryers, stoves and refrigerators (and only some of the first two).
He already has said that SpaceShip 3 will be orbital, although nothing else about such a vehicle. The tone of the annoucement was that it would happen if Galactic is succesful, but otherwise it really was just the intent. (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2005/08/23/201097/spaceshipthree-poised-to-follow-if-ss2-succeeds.html)
Dragon on the other hand is supposedly coming along nicely (not that they've shown anything publically). Supposedly that means Falcon 9 flies a demo flight early next year, and Dragon is up unmanned by the end of 2009. That's already delayed from Q4 08 and Q1 or 2 09 respectively, but we'll really have to see on this one.
My impression is that Dragon will probably fly next year, but won't be manned for some time after that, might look a bit like the Shenzhou timeline in fact (though I don't expect flight to be only 1 a year). I suspect the project WILL be succesful though, if for no other reason than NASA will bail them out to make sure there is an American vehicle available from 2010/11 until Orion finally turns up.
SpaceShipThree on the other hand could be a hell of a long way off without serious investment from Bransom et al or goverment.
We just had the item about building the lenses on site, now it's even more obvious than it already was. Use the moon for the next generation deep space telescopes; its the perfect platform from them, and simper to manage than free flying telescopes.
Same damn story in Canada, infrastrucure is expensive, and expensive means completly impossible, and don't talk about in case you get peoples hopes up.
or maybe we'll just start creating a mesh network of our own and SCREW the ISPs! I propose, in all seriousness, that such a movement be started immediatly. It doesn't have to be practicle, or produce results any time soon, but its a damn good idea, and one that might just be practical (well, at least possible) sometime in the not TOO distant future. Quite frankly, who in 1984 would have expected GNU to come up with anything workable inside 20 years? Yes yes, I know it's indescribably worse than that, but definately worth discussing.
Now, as to the leaked documents, I haven't read them closely, but could someone point me to where they would ban all P2P? I definately see the Pirate Bay Killer, but nothing about P2P in general.
Slashdot Mirror
Bah, just sequals. Arcanum needs a true reboot, preferably along the lines of Oblivion and Fallout 3. Hopefully with an MMO to follow.
Where exactly is this airborne threat you're so afraid of? The F-35 is an excellent ground attack aircraft, and from my understanding still a compatent fighter. Who precisely are we likely to be fighting with an air force more advanced than Iraqs (pre 91 that is)? In any case, I'd be more concerned about a naval fighter being cancelled; the Air Force mission really does seem to be transitioning to homeland defense and bombing, neither of which needs anything like the F-22. I'd rather see a next gen bomber in the real world, however cool F-22s are.
As if the F-35 isn't a perfectly acceptable aircraft for handling any conflict the US will realistically be involved in. For that matter the F-15, F-16 and F-18 are all still perfectly servicable for just about any scenario. No, none of them is on par with the F-22, but honestly the modern day uses for a pure air superiority aircraft are quite limited, and no one else anything even realistically on par with aircraft other than the F-22. That said, I do hope two things happen 1) the export ban is lifted so Australia (which has expressed interest) and Canada (for whom it would be a better northern patrol aircraft than the F-35) can get some. 2) the aircraft is developed into the next gen medium bomber as has been discussed, and happened with the F-15.
No, the X-15 did not beat Mercury to space. For that matter, Mercury was in orbit monthes before the first X-15 flight to the US definition of space (50 miles vs the international 100 km). In fact, the X-15 only had a grand totla of two flights beyond 100 km. In any case, Alan Sheppard flew suborbitally in May '61 and John Glenn made three orbits in Feb '62, Robert White got an X-15 to ~60 miles in July '62, and Joe Walker exceeded 100km in July '63 while the Mercury program ended in May '63. All in all Mercury wasn't so much a turning point as a sideshow to the spaceplance program untill the Moon program was launched, at which point capsules were the only realistic way to do anything in the timeline proposed. As for an orbital X-15, the X-15B proposal was probably about as far as the airframe could have been pushed. It would have gotten a single orbit out of an X-15 launched on a Navaho, and required the pilot to bail out over the Gulf of Mexico ala Vostok. The X-20 itself was a great program IMO, but realistically we wouldn't have done nearly as much anywhere near as fast if we'd gone that route. The vehicle was supposed to fly (suborbitally ) in 1966 and wouldn't have made a multi orbit flight untill the end of 1968. Given the complexity and technology involved, plus the lack of experience, I seriously doubt it could possibly have stayed on schedule. In the end we woud have gained, in the same timeline capsules went to the moon, a vehicle roughly comparable to Gemini in capability, considerably heavier and more complex with the only real difference being a runway landing. It's hard to say what would have happened next, but I have my own suspicions things wouldn't have been terribly different; the results would have stayed classifiied so its not like some great private space industry would have emerged from Dyna-Soar. There would probably have been something along the lines of Skylab (maybe more like a cross between MOL and Skylab, but nontheless), Nixon still would have cut the bone and the shuttle would still have been the cost saving measure. There might have been a more realistic appraisal of the Shuttle's capabilities, and we might have gotten a marginally better vehicle, but honestly it would still have been an experimental and ill conceived all in one launch system. To sum up, yes, there was a spaceplane program, but no, it's not really some great lost "other option" for the space program. Capsules were ultimately the right way to get to the Moon in the 60s, and the Moon was probably the most productive thing we could have done with manned space at the time. If the program had had a great deal more money it is interesting to think about what we might have gotten from Apollo PLUS Dyna-Soar, but really whats a more exciting alternative history? Apollo extended into the 70s with a real exploration program plus Skylab like work, maybe reaching Mars in the late 80s early 90s or a space shuttle that flies a few years earlier and is maybe a slightly better system in a world where we never reached the moon (or more likely where we built a space station and the Russians landed on the moon instead of building Mir)?
Without having RTFA everyone needs to read this: http://cahsr.blogspot.com/2009/05/what-difference-10-years-make-arizona.html In short, this project is way too expensive (inexplicably so) for its size and is no where near as important as a number of other rail projects.
Beat me to it, but yes, thats right. Condominium is a form of ownership while an apartment is a type of building (really a way of dividing a building but you get my point).
From everything I've heard ordering from Tiger is legitimately awful, but around here they are the onyl actual brick and mortar discount stores that are any good. In all honesty you can get really nice prices from them if you know what your doing. The thing I always tell people is go ahead and buy from them, just make sure you know what your buying, and don't depend on their description, sales pitch, etc (and can anyone find me a computer store that isn't true for?).
Is it really that hard to get Office licenses? We have remote access office through Citrix at Ryerson in Toronto (http://www.ryerson.ca/acs/usersguide/virtualapps.htm if you want to see how its accessed). The problem is that performance is absolutely terrible, even on a wired connection to the campus network (which, admitadly seems to have a wifi backbone) its essentially unusable (now don't ask me if the failure is network or server, but my impression has always been that both suck). In any case, everyone uses the labs in my program, but mostly for collaborative work and access to things like GIS and AutoCAD. Frankly I don't know of any labs that could be considered underused and have to agree any move to get rid of them would hurt students. Oddly enough the mention someone made of the labs as a nerdy social area seems to be what has been lost. Entertainment has moved out of the labs to student lounges on laptops and wifi.
Or maybe this all indicates that the coal mining company is supporting piracy? Sue the power company.
Assuming I also get a better product, yes. Tryhttp://pckeyboards.stores.yahoo.net/keyboards.html for an alternative, and yes, I do pay for them. Actually, I'm writing this on an original IBM from 1990 I've used on all my system I bought the keyboard.
I've never seen a stove, but my dryer doesn't need 240 and works just fine. I was actually referring to fridges and dryers that don't always use them.
Presumably he's North American, we (among a few other places) use 120v lines, 240 is reserved for special high power circuits, generally only used for dryers, stoves and refrigerators (and only some of the first two).
He already has said that SpaceShip 3 will be orbital, although nothing else about such a vehicle. The tone of the annoucement was that it would happen if Galactic is succesful, but otherwise it really was just the intent. (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2005/08/23/201097/spaceshipthree-poised-to-follow-if-ss2-succeeds.html) Dragon on the other hand is supposedly coming along nicely (not that they've shown anything publically). Supposedly that means Falcon 9 flies a demo flight early next year, and Dragon is up unmanned by the end of 2009. That's already delayed from Q4 08 and Q1 or 2 09 respectively, but we'll really have to see on this one. My impression is that Dragon will probably fly next year, but won't be manned for some time after that, might look a bit like the Shenzhou timeline in fact (though I don't expect flight to be only 1 a year). I suspect the project WILL be succesful though, if for no other reason than NASA will bail them out to make sure there is an American vehicle available from 2010/11 until Orion finally turns up. SpaceShipThree on the other hand could be a hell of a long way off without serious investment from Bransom et al or goverment.
We just had the item about building the lenses on site, now it's even more obvious than it already was. Use the moon for the next generation deep space telescopes; its the perfect platform from them, and simper to manage than free flying telescopes.
Same damn story in Canada, infrastrucure is expensive, and expensive means completly impossible, and don't talk about in case you get peoples hopes up.