This could interfere with celestial navigation. What do I do if suddenly a part of a pepsi can is now the brightest thing in the sky?
When the solar flares take out the GPS satellites, we're all in trouble now.....
Yet somehow they keep delivering stuff to the ISS? That's their rocket, and their vehicle.
If they are as bad as you say the NOBODY would be flying their satellites on them.
I'd love to see your source.......cause I actually work in the industry, and directly support their flights to ISS.
Uber never promises you will make any sort of minimum amount. They tout "make up to...", but ever "make at least". On one hand, I can feel bad. Think is, only way it really changes is if the drivers band together and won't drive unless they get paid more.
Oh wait, that's what Uber is against........
For any account, only count one play per week. Technically these are supposed to be individual user accounts, so you count one user as liking the song.
Done, fixed forever.
Ok, but in this case all parties are NOT able to act according to their own interests. If the Uber/Lyft drivers could set their prices do you not think they would set them higher to better fit a NYC cost of living? Or maybe they'd underbid eachother and make rides even cheaper? We don't' know because this is not a real Free Market. It's the NYC Taxi forced prices vs. the Uber/Lyft corporate forced price.
I'm upset about this mostly because of how close Amazon cut it. This could have been done a month ago (I've got a friend who bough some in early July and got one of these e-mails). Like some said above, that makes this look like profiteering now that prices for "Safe" ones are bumped up. Finding retailers that have them in stock, and can deliver before the eclipse is a problem at this point.
Let's solve this Baseball Style:
Either you come to a quick agreement
or
You each get to tell give your offer to an arbitrator. He gets to pick one of them. One of you wins, the other will be pissed. Maybe motivation to agree.
No, I suggested that a current rocket, that is currently in use, uses a very reliable engine (and is currently routinely used to launch our critical defense infrastructure - more often that it's US made competitors right now) and will also be used to launch humans in the next couple of years.
Please address all complaints about the current status to your congressman...
Two different number there. 1 in 270 for the whole mission (so ascent, on-orbit issues, and descent/landing). Ascent by itself (the only portion of flight that uses these engines) has to meet 1 in 500.
My understanding is that Space-X has not actually re-used any engines on a real flight to this point. They have only fired some of the returned ones on test pads. That means any cracks on a returned engine were from just one flight.
It's good engineering design to have it be able to survive a loss of an engine.
It's bad engineering design to have a known failure mode and not address it - especially if humans are going to be on board - even if the rocket can handle the loss.
Plenty of other engines have been inspected on the ground after running one or more full flight cycles on engine test stands (like every engine ever used), so there is actually data on more engine types than just those two. The damage comes from the part where they run the turbines at ludicrous speed for several minutes, not the fact that they re-enter
Standards when a human is on board are way more stringent than for cargo. They have to meet an overall 1 in 500 probability of failure during ascent, and it sounds like the blades are bad enough that that hurts them on meeting this requirement.
That being said, there are plenty of other parts I'm worried about, like structural failures in fuel tanks (they've had two of those that have actually destroyed rockets).
Trump had nothing to do with them cutting the price of those fighters. Just because he says it does not make it true.
If you actually look into it, he's taking credit for the fact that the next batch they build (90 as opposed to the initial 10), will cost less per fighter (about 6 -7 million less) than the last batch. 90x6.7 million =~ 600 million.
The discussions on those costs started before he was elected....so yeah.....liar.
Snowden made a choice to go further than he should have. He could have become a whistle-blower, and had the protections provided by that, but instead, he chose to just release these documents out there. He clearly had a knowledge that he was violating the law, or he would not have fled the country when doing it.
Uninstall all software like this put on there by the hardware vendor (goes for any vendor).
My firewall software can tell me if that's on.
My antivirus can tell me if that's on.
I can perform my own backups thank you.
There ya go, fixed forever.
The definition of use in commerce (my emphasis added) - right from the USPTO: For applications filed under the use-in-commerce basis, you must be using the mark in the sale or transport of goods or the rendering of services in “interstate” commerce between more than one state or U.S. territory, or in commerce between the U.S. and another country. For goods, the mark must appear on the goods (e.g., tags or labels), the container for the goods, or displays associated with the goods. For services, the mark must be used in the sale or advertising of the services.
Well, for one, they don't have to to be the owner of it. In the US, it's first to use, not first to register. It's pretty clear they have been using it well before this application was submitted - an application that says it's not in use by that company yet.
I'd love to hope that the trademark office will just reject it, but they'll probably drag this out.
Is it me, or do these patents just sound like "take these previously invented things and put them together".
Combinations of things that already have been invented should not be patent-able.
On top of that, I'd live to put a very short statute of limitations on filing claims like these. You have 6 months from the time the item was publicly released on the market. That's it. No waiting about for years so you can claim larger infringement.
Except it's not a direct stream to the ground.
ISS -> TDRS (Hands over to a new satellite three times every 90 minutes) -> Ground -> Streaming service where the guy recorded it.
ISS does not have a magic WIFI connection to the ground to stream video 24x7
ISS transmits to the TDRS satellites in Geostationary Orbit which in turn transmit to the ground. It takes three satellites to maintain full voice communication all the way around (East, West, Gap). There are handovers of the communications three times every 90 minutes. Brief video outages are to be expected. NASA can't control when those happen. They just happen when the orbital mechanics say they will.
I really don't see a difference between this and gambling at a horse track. Yes it gambling, but yes, there is a measure of skill that can help skew the results. Horse race gamblers pour over info about the horses and jockeys, the same as fantasy players pour over information about the football players.
The issue here is NY is pissed they they are not getting their cut of it. The whole point of "regulating" gambling is that the States can set the percentages they get from the gambling going on.
It's not just an issue of decay. 4600 satellites, in what I would have to assume will be a lot of different orbit causes a big risk of conjunctions (that's close approaches, within the margin or error of your known orbits, so risk of possibly hitting). Guess what happens when two objects moving at 17000 mph hit each-other. They are going to have and cause others to have a lot of debris avoidance maneuvers.
Yeah, this was the whole they might be a terrorist so take this letter and give me what I say and tell nobody thing. The use of those letters was well reported. It wasn't caused by actions in regular criminal trials as much as that.
Slashdot Mirror
This could interfere with celestial navigation. What do I do if suddenly a part of a pepsi can is now the brightest thing in the sky? When the solar flares take out the GPS satellites, we're all in trouble now.....
Yet somehow they keep delivering stuff to the ISS? That's their rocket, and their vehicle. If they are as bad as you say the NOBODY would be flying their satellites on them. I'd love to see your source.......cause I actually work in the industry, and directly support their flights to ISS.
Uber never promises you will make any sort of minimum amount. They tout "make up to...", but ever "make at least". On one hand, I can feel bad. Think is, only way it really changes is if the drivers band together and won't drive unless they get paid more. Oh wait, that's what Uber is against........
For any account, only count one play per week. Technically these are supposed to be individual user accounts, so you count one user as liking the song. Done, fixed forever.
Ok, but in this case all parties are NOT able to act according to their own interests. If the Uber/Lyft drivers could set their prices do you not think they would set them higher to better fit a NYC cost of living? Or maybe they'd underbid eachother and make rides even cheaper? We don't' know because this is not a real Free Market. It's the NYC Taxi forced prices vs. the Uber/Lyft corporate forced price.
I'm upset about this mostly because of how close Amazon cut it. This could have been done a month ago (I've got a friend who bough some in early July and got one of these e-mails). Like some said above, that makes this look like profiteering now that prices for "Safe" ones are bumped up. Finding retailers that have them in stock, and can deliver before the eclipse is a problem at this point.
Let's solve this Baseball Style: Either you come to a quick agreement or You each get to tell give your offer to an arbitrator. He gets to pick one of them. One of you wins, the other will be pissed. Maybe motivation to agree.
No, I suggested that a current rocket, that is currently in use, uses a very reliable engine (and is currently routinely used to launch our critical defense infrastructure - more often that it's US made competitors right now) and will also be used to launch humans in the next couple of years.
Please address all complaints about the current status to your congressman...
Two different number there. 1 in 270 for the whole mission (so ascent, on-orbit issues, and descent/landing). Ascent by itself (the only portion of flight that uses these engines) has to meet 1 in 500.
My understanding is that Space-X has not actually re-used any engines on a real flight to this point. They have only fired some of the returned ones on test pads. That means any cracks on a returned engine were from just one flight.
It's good engineering design to have it be able to survive a loss of an engine.
It's bad engineering design to have a known failure mode and not address it - especially if humans are going to be on board - even if the rocket can handle the loss.
Well, the RD-180 on the Atlas V (the one Boeing will use for their first flight) has been a very reliable engine.
Plenty of other engines have been inspected on the ground after running one or more full flight cycles on engine test stands (like every engine ever used), so there is actually data on more engine types than just those two. The damage comes from the part where they run the turbines at ludicrous speed for several minutes, not the fact that they re-enter
Standards when a human is on board are way more stringent than for cargo. They have to meet an overall 1 in 500 probability of failure during ascent, and it sounds like the blades are bad enough that that hurts them on meeting this requirement.
That being said, there are plenty of other parts I'm worried about, like structural failures in fuel tanks (they've had two of those that have actually destroyed rockets).
Trump had nothing to do with them cutting the price of those fighters. Just because he says it does not make it true. If you actually look into it, he's taking credit for the fact that the next batch they build (90 as opposed to the initial 10), will cost less per fighter (about 6 -7 million less) than the last batch. 90x6.7 million =~ 600 million. The discussions on those costs started before he was elected....so yeah.....liar.
Snowden made a choice to go further than he should have. He could have become a whistle-blower, and had the protections provided by that, but instead, he chose to just release these documents out there. He clearly had a knowledge that he was violating the law, or he would not have fled the country when doing it.
Uninstall all software like this put on there by the hardware vendor (goes for any vendor). My firewall software can tell me if that's on. My antivirus can tell me if that's on. I can perform my own backups thank you. There ya go, fixed forever.
The definition of use in commerce (my emphasis added) - right from the USPTO: For applications filed under the use-in-commerce basis, you must be using the mark in the sale or transport of goods or the rendering of services in “interstate” commerce between more than one state or U.S. territory, or in commerce between the U.S. and another country. For goods, the mark must appear on the goods (e.g., tags or labels), the container for the goods, or displays associated with the goods. For services, the mark must be used in the sale or advertising of the services.
Well, for one, they don't have to to be the owner of it. In the US, it's first to use, not first to register. It's pretty clear they have been using it well before this application was submitted - an application that says it's not in use by that company yet. I'd love to hope that the trademark office will just reject it, but they'll probably drag this out.
Is it me, or do these patents just sound like "take these previously invented things and put them together". Combinations of things that already have been invented should not be patent-able. On top of that, I'd live to put a very short statute of limitations on filing claims like these. You have 6 months from the time the item was publicly released on the market. That's it. No waiting about for years so you can claim larger infringement.
Yes they can. Silly camera artifacts just are not that interesting.
Except it's not a direct stream to the ground. ISS -> TDRS (Hands over to a new satellite three times every 90 minutes) -> Ground -> Streaming service where the guy recorded it.
ISS does not have a magic WIFI connection to the ground to stream video 24x7 ISS transmits to the TDRS satellites in Geostationary Orbit which in turn transmit to the ground. It takes three satellites to maintain full voice communication all the way around (East, West, Gap). There are handovers of the communications three times every 90 minutes. Brief video outages are to be expected. NASA can't control when those happen. They just happen when the orbital mechanics say they will.
How much water or other suppressant can it carry? Doesn't help if you can get to a fire, and not have anything to put it out.....
I really don't see a difference between this and gambling at a horse track. Yes it gambling, but yes, there is a measure of skill that can help skew the results. Horse race gamblers pour over info about the horses and jockeys, the same as fantasy players pour over information about the football players. The issue here is NY is pissed they they are not getting their cut of it. The whole point of "regulating" gambling is that the States can set the percentages they get from the gambling going on.
It's not just an issue of decay. 4600 satellites, in what I would have to assume will be a lot of different orbit causes a big risk of conjunctions (that's close approaches, within the margin or error of your known orbits, so risk of possibly hitting). Guess what happens when two objects moving at 17000 mph hit each-other. They are going to have and cause others to have a lot of debris avoidance maneuvers.
Yeah, this was the whole they might be a terrorist so take this letter and give me what I say and tell nobody thing. The use of those letters was well reported. It wasn't caused by actions in regular criminal trials as much as that.