"Doing things right" is an incredibly nebulous statement that nearly no judge should be in a position to determine. Hell, even plenty of so-called experts don't know the right way to do things. If the security industry at large actually knew what they were doing, websites wouldn't be instituting such asinine password rules, and my own employer wouldn't have recently cited "industry standard practice" as a reason for requiring I include special characters in my domain password.
Drill holes in the crank case and install injectors to spray oil, with a suitable oil pump, rather than relying on gravity and splashing of the crankshaft, and add additional drain points. For what it's worth, even most aircraft engines are not designed to be used upside down for significant time.
The Spitfire's origins was also a dedicated racer....
...origins more than half a decade's worth of development time away from its use as a military fighter. Just because it could be adapted, doesn't mean it could have been adapted in time for use during the war, or that it would have behaved much like it did as a racer.
The Mosquito could take a surprising amount of battle damage, because it didn't take battle damage. Where a bullet hitting a metal-skinned aircraft would cause spalling and significant internal damage, bullets just went straight through the Mosquito, unless it actually hit something important like a wing spar, control wire, fuel line, engine, pilot, etc... Basically, the Mosquito's construction simply made it a smaller effective target than it appeared to be, but it did not make it a rugged aircraft.
So what if it said cylinder? A reciprocating engine driving a compressor or ducted fan still qualifies as a "jet"... of course in this case, those engines were driving propellers...
since forward swept wings are inherently unstable,
That is nonsense.
The whole reason you habe forward swept wongs is: it makes the plane extremly stable.
No. The whole reason you have forward swept wings is because they have good stall characteristics. On rearward swept wings, your stall originates near your root and propagates rearward and out, right over your outboard control surfaces. On forward swept wings, your control surfaces remain upstream of the stall, and thus you retain roll control deep into the stall.
Forward swept wings are inherently unstable, but not for intuitive reasons. The center of twist on a rearward swept wing is ahead of the center of pressure. As the wing begins to flex, air pressure tries to push it back in place through negative feedback. It's the same idea as keeping the center of mass forward of your center of pressure. On a forward swept wing, the opposite is true, and air pressure tries to bend the wings further. This aeroelastic divergence leads to mechanical flutter and fatal structural issues that have only been resolved through the creative use of composite materials to produce anisotropic structures that place the center of twist forward of the center of pressure.
And yet the original was supposed to fly 2.5 times as fast with only 2.25x the horsepower? Drag doesn't scale that way.
According to my physics book it does. But well, it is 30 years old.
According to every other physics book, yours was written by an idiot. Drag is proportional to dynamic pressure, which is in turn proportional to the square of velocity. Power needed to counter drag then adds in another velocity, making it proportional to velocity cubed. All else equal, you should need nearly 16x the power to travel 2.5x the velocity.
For an aft swept wing, aileron reversal can become your headache.
That's going to happen for any negatively controlled wing, forward or rearward swept. NASA actually did experiment with a positively controlled F-18A, with the ailerons moved to the leading edge of the wing.
A 5-liter engine outputting 450HP is not hard to come by these days. While the inline-8 needed to fit within the fuselage is a fairly rare configuration, you can pick up a straight six automotive engine and get it up to 450HP without great effort. You can do well in excess of that if you increase the compression and run avgas. You can do even better if you run ethanol for even higher compression and higher fuel ratios.
A (pair of) 450HP 4.9L inline 8... yeah, we have nothing like that these days. It's not like you can just strap a couple tunes I-4s end to end. Oh, wait...
Not true. There's oxygen present in the water itself. Pure water tends to not rust iron, as there is no conductivity to drive the electrochemical reaction. River water is not "pure", but will have lots of salts and other dissolved solids that will raise the conductivity of the water and allow the reaction to occur.
While this may indeed be the case, this has nothing to do with copyright law.
Unless the actress has a copyright interest in the finished work, which apparently she does. It's right there in the summary. You did read the summary, right?
Except... she doesn't. She was being paid under contract for her performance, which unless explicitly specified otherwise in the contract, means she transfers all copyrights of that specific performance to the studio (or individual) producing the work. The entire music industry has been operating under this concept for half a century now in order to screw over signed artists. This ruling, if not overturned by a higher court, is going to open a huge can of worms.
Whether you agree with the result of the ruling or not, this should not have been handled using copyright claims. An actor for hire with no ongoing royalties stipulated in their contract has no copyright claims on the content.
If it falsely makes it looks like the actors supported this film in a way they did not, they have every right to sue and try to get this taken down.
While this may indeed be the case, this has nothing to do with copyright law. Actors working for hire have no copyright claims unless explicitly documented in their contract. Having this video taken down using copyright claims is a miscarriage of justice.
There was an episode where they had an episode of Family Guy briefly show Muhammad, and so in real life, everyone got pissed off at Family Guy for showing Muhammad, even though Family Guy had done nothing.
The automatic transmission (slushbox) is much better suited for providing partial torque, as you're not burning up a clutch when you let the transmission slip, you're merely moving a compressor and turbine closer or further apart. Traction control, stability augmentation, and all-wheel-drive systems do exactly what you are describing to various degrees, providing just the right amount of torque to the wheels to allow traction, but limit slip, and will do it with many more degrees of freedom than you will with a single clutch pedal. Many modern cars with automatic and semi-automatic transmissions allow you to select a gear with computer oversight, or even let you directly shift and only manage the torque coupling for you.
One of the other divisions at work runs Windows RTOS for machine control (the one I'm in uses QNX). I was under the impression those systems basically were a separate RTOS hypervisor, that then ran Windows as a guest OS on top of it.
Why? The only advantage to a manual gearbox is it lets you rock out of a ditch or a rut in the snow. It may "feel" better to have direct control over that clutch, but it won't actually perform better. Computers do a much better job than your foot.
My problem with automatics isn't how they work mechanically (hydraulically), but how they work automatically. Take the situation where you're in heavy traffic and want to merge into a faster lane. There's an opening in a few seconds, so you just keep your manual in low gear, and accelerate when the time comes. Or, your automatic upshifts to a more efficient gear, and when you stomp the gas to accelerate into the opening, the transmission downshifts, waffles a bit, downshifts again, panics because it's redlining, upshifts, and when your transmission finally engages and gives you torque to accelerate, the window has either already passed, or you've caused the person behind you to hit their brakes to avoid rear-ending you. It's a bad experience for all involved.
Now that said, paddle shifters and manual shifting modes completely alleviate this issue, and even in automatic mode, modern automatics behave far better than they did a decade ago.
While semantically you are correct, the "automatic transmission" when used with motor vehicles specifically means a hydrodynamic "slushbox". Systems that employ a clutch that that is controlled electromechanically or robotically for you, where shifting may or may not be computer controlled, are lumped together as "semi-automatic transmissions". While there are certain situations in which direct control over the clutch has its advantages, the automatically controlled clutch allows for much faster and more accurate gear shifts. The clutch pedal is really only used in racing these days to raise the level of skill required by a driver.
Oxygen is there, and so is hydrogen, so water is simple enough. Carbon is a bit harder to come by. That's one of the raw materials that would be needed to ship up.
Oh is that all there is to it? We just have to ship a hypothetical refinery which can somehow process all the different materials without any supply chain of any kind. Where pray tell can we find this magic piece of technology?
Yes. That's all there is to it. Remember, we're talking about a building project of a scale larger than anything ever produced on Earth, and we're talking about doing it in space. Everything involved is some magical piece of technology, yet to be developed. We're talking something on the order of 100+ year speculation here.
Slashdot Mirror
"Doing things right" is an incredibly nebulous statement that nearly no judge should be in a position to determine. Hell, even plenty of so-called experts don't know the right way to do things. If the security industry at large actually knew what they were doing, websites wouldn't be instituting such asinine password rules, and my own employer wouldn't have recently cited "industry standard practice" as a reason for requiring I include special characters in my domain password.
You say "they" as if they are some kind of coherent organization with enrollment.
In an exponential function, the variable is the exponent. In a power function, the variable is raised to a static exponent.
That's called a power function.
Drill holes in the crank case and install injectors to spray oil, with a suitable oil pump, rather than relying on gravity and splashing of the crankshaft, and add additional drain points. For what it's worth, even most aircraft engines are not designed to be used upside down for significant time.
Technically, that ducted fan still qualifies as a jet, with or without the gas turbine powering it.
The Spitfire's origins was also a dedicated racer....
...origins more than half a decade's worth of development time away from its use as a military fighter. Just because it could be adapted, doesn't mean it could have been adapted in time for use during the war, or that it would have behaved much like it did as a racer.
The Mosquito could take a surprising amount of battle damage, because it didn't take battle damage. Where a bullet hitting a metal-skinned aircraft would cause spalling and significant internal damage, bullets just went straight through the Mosquito, unless it actually hit something important like a wing spar, control wire, fuel line, engine, pilot, etc... Basically, the Mosquito's construction simply made it a smaller effective target than it appeared to be, but it did not make it a rugged aircraft.
So what if it said cylinder? A reciprocating engine driving a compressor or ducted fan still qualifies as a "jet"... of course in this case, those engines were driving propellers...
since forward swept wings are inherently unstable,
That is nonsense.
The whole reason you habe forward swept wongs is: it makes the plane extremly stable.
No. The whole reason you have forward swept wings is because they have good stall characteristics. On rearward swept wings, your stall originates near your root and propagates rearward and out, right over your outboard control surfaces. On forward swept wings, your control surfaces remain upstream of the stall, and thus you retain roll control deep into the stall.
Forward swept wings are inherently unstable, but not for intuitive reasons. The center of twist on a rearward swept wing is ahead of the center of pressure. As the wing begins to flex, air pressure tries to push it back in place through negative feedback. It's the same idea as keeping the center of mass forward of your center of pressure. On a forward swept wing, the opposite is true, and air pressure tries to bend the wings further. This aeroelastic divergence leads to mechanical flutter and fatal structural issues that have only been resolved through the creative use of composite materials to produce anisotropic structures that place the center of twist forward of the center of pressure.
And yet the original was supposed to fly 2.5 times as fast with only 2.25x the horsepower? Drag doesn't scale that way.
According to my physics book it does. But well, it is 30 years old.
According to every other physics book, yours was written by an idiot. Drag is proportional to dynamic pressure, which is in turn proportional to the square of velocity. Power needed to counter drag then adds in another velocity, making it proportional to velocity cubed. All else equal, you should need nearly 16x the power to travel 2.5x the velocity.
For an aft swept wing, aileron reversal can become your headache.
That's going to happen for any negatively controlled wing, forward or rearward swept. NASA actually did experiment with a positively controlled F-18A, with the ailerons moved to the leading edge of the wing.
So many people confuse exponential and power functions...
A 5-liter engine outputting 450HP is not hard to come by these days. While the inline-8 needed to fit within the fuselage is a fairly rare configuration, you can pick up a straight six automotive engine and get it up to 450HP without great effort. You can do well in excess of that if you increase the compression and run avgas. You can do even better if you run ethanol for even higher compression and higher fuel ratios.
A (pair of) 450HP 4.9L inline 8... yeah, we have nothing like that these days. It's not like you can just strap a couple tunes I-4s end to end. Oh, wait...
Not true. There's oxygen present in the water itself. Pure water tends to not rust iron, as there is no conductivity to drive the electrochemical reaction. River water is not "pure", but will have lots of salts and other dissolved solids that will raise the conductivity of the water and allow the reaction to occur.
Unless the actress has a copyright interest in the finished work, which apparently she does. It's right there in the summary. You did read the summary, right?
Except... she doesn't. She was being paid under contract for her performance, which unless explicitly specified otherwise in the contract, means she transfers all copyrights of that specific performance to the studio (or individual) producing the work. The entire music industry has been operating under this concept for half a century now in order to screw over signed artists. This ruling, if not overturned by a higher court, is going to open a huge can of worms.
Whether you agree with the result of the ruling or not, this should not have been handled using copyright claims. An actor for hire with no ongoing royalties stipulated in their contract has no copyright claims on the content.
If it falsely makes it looks like the actors supported this film in a way they did not, they have every right to sue and try to get this taken down.
While this may indeed be the case, this has nothing to do with copyright law. Actors working for hire have no copyright claims unless explicitly documented in their contract. Having this video taken down using copyright claims is a miscarriage of justice.
There was an episode where they had an episode of Family Guy briefly show Muhammad, and so in real life, everyone got pissed off at Family Guy for showing Muhammad, even though Family Guy had done nothing.
The automatic transmission (slushbox) is much better suited for providing partial torque, as you're not burning up a clutch when you let the transmission slip, you're merely moving a compressor and turbine closer or further apart. Traction control, stability augmentation, and all-wheel-drive systems do exactly what you are describing to various degrees, providing just the right amount of torque to the wheels to allow traction, but limit slip, and will do it with many more degrees of freedom than you will with a single clutch pedal. Many modern cars with automatic and semi-automatic transmissions allow you to select a gear with computer oversight, or even let you directly shift and only manage the torque coupling for you.
One of the other divisions at work runs Windows RTOS for machine control (the one I'm in uses QNX). I was under the impression those systems basically were a separate RTOS hypervisor, that then ran Windows as a guest OS on top of it.
That's why you don't run things like signal processing on the same core that runs your general purpose UI and computing.
Why? The only advantage to a manual gearbox is it lets you rock out of a ditch or a rut in the snow. It may "feel" better to have direct control over that clutch, but it won't actually perform better. Computers do a much better job than your foot.
My problem with automatics isn't how they work mechanically (hydraulically), but how they work automatically. Take the situation where you're in heavy traffic and want to merge into a faster lane. There's an opening in a few seconds, so you just keep your manual in low gear, and accelerate when the time comes. Or, your automatic upshifts to a more efficient gear, and when you stomp the gas to accelerate into the opening, the transmission downshifts, waffles a bit, downshifts again, panics because it's redlining, upshifts, and when your transmission finally engages and gives you torque to accelerate, the window has either already passed, or you've caused the person behind you to hit their brakes to avoid rear-ending you. It's a bad experience for all involved.
Now that said, paddle shifters and manual shifting modes completely alleviate this issue, and even in automatic mode, modern automatics behave far better than they did a decade ago.
While semantically you are correct, the "automatic transmission" when used with motor vehicles specifically means a hydrodynamic "slushbox". Systems that employ a clutch that that is controlled electromechanically or robotically for you, where shifting may or may not be computer controlled, are lumped together as "semi-automatic transmissions". While there are certain situations in which direct control over the clutch has its advantages, the automatically controlled clutch allows for much faster and more accurate gear shifts. The clutch pedal is really only used in racing these days to raise the level of skill required by a driver.
Great! What about oxygen? Carbon? Water?
Oxygen is there, and so is hydrogen, so water is simple enough. Carbon is a bit harder to come by. That's one of the raw materials that would be needed to ship up.
Oh is that all there is to it? We just have to ship a hypothetical refinery which can somehow process all the different materials without any supply chain of any kind. Where pray tell can we find this magic piece of technology?
Yes. That's all there is to it. Remember, we're talking about a building project of a scale larger than anything ever produced on Earth, and we're talking about doing it in space. Everything involved is some magical piece of technology, yet to be developed. We're talking something on the order of 100+ year speculation here.