Russia and France both have fighters in development on par with the F22. Russia, in particular, may not have many qualms about selling that fighter to foreign buyers who don't much care for the US.
What we want is not the status quo, exactly, but it may make sense to stick with ICEs. There are several technologies like this that may increase efficiency enough that it won't be worth it to scrap all the infrastructure surrounding normal petrol, either from a strictly economic or environmental standpoint.
The laser can be focused to a specific point more easily, allowing it to ignite a stratified charge better. This makes it better at igniting a leaner mixture. Coupled with Direct Injection and maybe some octane boost trickery, this could make gas engines get the same compression ratio as a diesel while still reving over 3k.
Pure hydrogen has a terrible octane rating and is extremely inefficient in an IC. However, you can mix a little into regular gas to boost its octane rating, letting you run higher compression or turbo boost. It also increases the flame front speed, which is particularly good for Wankels. Mazda's Furai concept is being developed along these lines.
I'm not convinced of that. It's just that most programmers start with a language the lends itself to iteration rather than recursion. Since most languages in common use also prefer iteration, any given programmer rarely has an incentive to learn to think in terms of recursion.
I don't think that's necessarily intellectually lazy, either. Almost any major language has enough little niches that you can spend a lifetime learning them all. It just depends on if you want to be generalist or a specialist.
Partially because it was too early for its time (particularly the speed for convenience tradeoff), partially because of infighting between different LISP camps, and finally because once those two issues were resolved, other languages had emerged that took the same ideas further (like OCaml and Haskell).
Was this "design flaw" in the Apollo series and the public was not made aware that aborting an Apollo rocket would kill the crew 100% guaranteed?
No, because the Saturn series of rockets didn't use solid rocket boosters. By all rights, neither should Ares, except there's a desire to reuse old Shuttle equipment.
Is this astroturfing? Their website implies that they can streamline frame rendering down by several orders of magnitude, but there's no indication about how. Their FAQ is content-free, using buzzword-laden statements like " . . . gives non-linear access to lighting, ambient occlusion, materials . . .." What is "non-linear" supposed to mean here?
There's always going to be a place for a render farm. Even if 3D modelers tomorrow can work in real time with settings that would take hours to render today, that'll just mean that the render farm will be running with even higher settings that might not exist today. At some point, we'll be able to run a render farm doing ray tracing with hundreds of reflections and get realistic skin pores and wood grain out of the technique, but the modeler is only going to be working with 20 or so.
It's not like we are still researching the effects of electromagnetic radiation on children from local power stations using technology over one-hundred years old, or anything like that.
No, we're not. We're trying to get rid of a few attention whores who won't shut up about it after they've been proven wrong.
You'll never save money in the short, medium, or long term. Scratch that. Your accountant will tell you that you saved money. A more in-depth analysis (more than just subtracting expenses from your income) will reveal that you screwed up.
Power generation efficiency rises quite a bit with how much you can scale the system. Centralized infrastructure will always be able to generate more capacity for less money. Wind turbines are only good once they get really high and really big. Getting Carnot efficiency up means making temperatures that are unlikely to happen in anyone's backyard solar array (1500 C or more).
Greenest way to save money at home is to improve insulation and install a geothermal heat pipe. Greenest way to get directly involved in energy production is to invest in a windfarm. Small scale power production is for survivalists and ranchers who live far off the main grid.
Am I the only one who gets nervous with this concept?! If the beams are even slightly out you could be frying people rather than generating electricity.
The beams intended to be used are in frequencies that specifically pass through water, since it'll have to pass through a lot of it to get to the surface. Since people are ugly bags of mostly water, they're not going to absorb significant amounts of the radiation.
I really wish people would research this before posting about it. There are some problems with SBSP (like using up a geo slot, or if launch costs are ever going to come down enough to make it economical), but frying people with the beam isn't one of them. I blame Will Wright, who should have known better.
Thread should end right here. While the Rorschach test does have some limited scientific validity, it doesn't deserve to be as widespread as it is. The test's "effectiveness" relies on exactly the same psychological blindspot that fortune telling does. Wikipedia isn't hampering the effectiveness of anything that isn't already broken.
Does it fix FTP's multiple port usage? This design is a constant source of problems on firewalls, particularly stateful firewalls. Many types of firewalls from various vendors and operating systems have been penetrated over the years due to handling the complexities of FTP's port usage. There are fixes out there, of course, but the problem would go away if we standardized on OpenSSH SFTP.
But the ISS isn't like that. It's already in orbit, and it's already producing results. If anything useful at all still gets done on it, then deorbiting it will have negative consequences, and if later they want to change their mind they can't just go and put it back in orbit.
That has to be compared the benefits that could be provided by another project with the same amount of funding. The Sunk Cost Fallacy still applies, as does Opportunity Cost. The ISS just isn't that useful compared to other space projects.
Remember all the talk about a permanent space station from which to stage lunar and martian missions?
Would have been great, and the shuttle was originally designed with that in mind, but the ISS can't do it. You need a station in orbit around the equator for that, but the ISS was put at a big inclination in order to make it easier for the Russians to get to it.
On the one hand, I'm sad to see a major space project come and go like this. On the other hand, I'm not sure what the ISS can accomplish compared to spending that money on another major space project.
Not necessarily. You can only seriously call yourself an Open Source developer if you've written and released some code. While some bad programmers still get that far, this process alone with get rid of a lot of chaff. The same may or may not be true of government volunteers.
Nearly any energy production process you can think of is going to benefit from being scaled up way beyond what you can do in your backyard. Wind turbines, in particular, get a lot more efficient when they're as tall and as large as you can practically make them. The individual turbine blades on wind farms are as long as they can be while still being legal to fit on trucks for hiways.
Backyard wind turbines are simply going to fall to economies of scale, unless you have a very big backyard.
Alternatively, he's an experienced businessman who knows that such things are rarely caused by any single factor, or that a the reasons behind a single spike don't change the underlieing dependence problem.
Myers, who bought "City of Heroes" when it hit store shelves in 2004, quickly learned that players ignored the area's stated purpose. Heroes chatted peacefully with villains in the combat zone. Instead of fighting each other, members of the two factions sparred with computer-controlled enemies..
What kind of silly carebear game is this? Try Eve, where the time it takes to rid yourself of such nonsense is measured in the time it takes to warm up a railgun.
Slashdot Mirror
Russia and France both have fighters in development on par with the F22. Russia, in particular, may not have many qualms about selling that fighter to foreign buyers who don't much care for the US.
What we want is not the status quo, exactly, but it may make sense to stick with ICEs. There are several technologies like this that may increase efficiency enough that it won't be worth it to scrap all the infrastructure surrounding normal petrol, either from a strictly economic or environmental standpoint.
The laser can be focused to a specific point more easily, allowing it to ignite a stratified charge better. This makes it better at igniting a leaner mixture. Coupled with Direct Injection and maybe some octane boost trickery, this could make gas engines get the same compression ratio as a diesel while still reving over 3k.
Pure hydrogen has a terrible octane rating and is extremely inefficient in an IC. However, you can mix a little into regular gas to boost its octane rating, letting you run higher compression or turbo boost. It also increases the flame front speed, which is particularly good for Wankels. Mazda's Furai concept is being developed along these lines.
Because mechanics now are such experts on electricity. Or cars, for that matter.
I'm not convinced of that. It's just that most programmers start with a language the lends itself to iteration rather than recursion. Since most languages in common use also prefer iteration, any given programmer rarely has an incentive to learn to think in terms of recursion.
I don't think that's necessarily intellectually lazy, either. Almost any major language has enough little niches that you can spend a lifetime learning them all. It just depends on if you want to be generalist or a specialist.
Partially because it was too early for its time (particularly the speed for convenience tradeoff), partially because of infighting between different LISP camps, and finally because once those two issues were resolved, other languages had emerged that took the same ideas further (like OCaml and Haskell).
Why were those particular languages picked?
Probably because someone competent and authoritative enough was willing to speak on the languages listed.
. . . yet it was one of the first high level languages . . .
Missed it by a few decades. LISP was arguably the first high level language. You could also make a case for COBOL.
Was this "design flaw" in the Apollo series and the public was not made aware that aborting an Apollo rocket would kill the crew 100% guaranteed?
No, because the Saturn series of rockets didn't use solid rocket boosters. By all rights, neither should Ares, except there's a desire to reuse old Shuttle equipment.
It did actually happen. A solid rocket failure is how Challenger went.
Is this astroturfing? Their website implies that they can streamline frame rendering down by several orders of magnitude, but there's no indication about how. Their FAQ is content-free, using buzzword-laden statements like " . . . gives non-linear access to lighting, ambient occlusion, materials . . . ." What is "non-linear" supposed to mean here?
There's always going to be a place for a render farm. Even if 3D modelers tomorrow can work in real time with settings that would take hours to render today, that'll just mean that the render farm will be running with even higher settings that might not exist today. At some point, we'll be able to run a render farm doing ray tracing with hundreds of reflections and get realistic skin pores and wood grain out of the technique, but the modeler is only going to be working with 20 or so.
It's not like we are still researching the effects of electromagnetic radiation on children from local power stations using technology over one-hundred years old, or anything like that.
No, we're not. We're trying to get rid of a few attention whores who won't shut up about it after they've been proven wrong.
. . . and to save money (in the long term).
You'll never save money in the short, medium, or long term. Scratch that. Your accountant will tell you that you saved money. A more in-depth analysis (more than just subtracting expenses from your income) will reveal that you screwed up.
Power generation efficiency rises quite a bit with how much you can scale the system. Centralized infrastructure will always be able to generate more capacity for less money. Wind turbines are only good once they get really high and really big. Getting Carnot efficiency up means making temperatures that are unlikely to happen in anyone's backyard solar array (1500 C or more).
Greenest way to save money at home is to improve insulation and install a geothermal heat pipe. Greenest way to get directly involved in energy production is to invest in a windfarm. Small scale power production is for survivalists and ranchers who live far off the main grid.
Am I the only one who gets nervous with this concept?! If the beams are even slightly out you could be frying people rather than generating electricity.
The beams intended to be used are in frequencies that specifically pass through water, since it'll have to pass through a lot of it to get to the surface. Since people are ugly bags of mostly water, they're not going to absorb significant amounts of the radiation.
I really wish people would research this before posting about it. There are some problems with SBSP (like using up a geo slot, or if launch costs are ever going to come down enough to make it economical), but frying people with the beam isn't one of them. I blame Will Wright, who should have known better.
Also, where does a psychiatrist/psychologist turn to when he himself needs metal treatment?
Good question. I like a copper pipe, but some prefer steel.
Thread should end right here. While the Rorschach test does have some limited scientific validity, it doesn't deserve to be as widespread as it is. The test's "effectiveness" relies on exactly the same psychological blindspot that fortune telling does. Wikipedia isn't hampering the effectiveness of anything that isn't already broken.
Does it fix FTP's multiple port usage? This design is a constant source of problems on firewalls, particularly stateful firewalls. Many types of firewalls from various vendors and operating systems have been penetrated over the years due to handling the complexities of FTP's port usage. There are fixes out there, of course, but the problem would go away if we standardized on OpenSSH SFTP.
But the ISS isn't like that. It's already in orbit, and it's already producing results. If anything useful at all still gets done on it, then deorbiting it will have negative consequences, and if later they want to change their mind they can't just go and put it back in orbit.
That has to be compared the benefits that could be provided by another project with the same amount of funding. The Sunk Cost Fallacy still applies, as does Opportunity Cost. The ISS just isn't that useful compared to other space projects.
Remember all the talk about a permanent space station from which to stage lunar and martian missions?
Would have been great, and the shuttle was originally designed with that in mind, but the ISS can't do it. You need a station in orbit around the equator for that, but the ISS was put at a big inclination in order to make it easier for the Russians to get to it.
On the one hand, I'm sad to see a major space project come and go like this. On the other hand, I'm not sure what the ISS can accomplish compared to spending that money on another major space project.
Just what we need, a bunch of /b/tards, trolls, and the dregs of society decideding where the money is going to go.
I think that's the definition of "democracy".
Not necessarily. You can only seriously call yourself an Open Source developer if you've written and released some code. While some bad programmers still get that far, this process alone with get rid of a lot of chaff. The same may or may not be true of government volunteers.
Nearly any energy production process you can think of is going to benefit from being scaled up way beyond what you can do in your backyard. Wind turbines, in particular, get a lot more efficient when they're as tall and as large as you can practically make them. The individual turbine blades on wind farms are as long as they can be while still being legal to fit on trucks for hiways.
Backyard wind turbines are simply going to fall to economies of scale, unless you have a very big backyard.
Alternatively, he's an experienced businessman who knows that such things are rarely caused by any single factor, or that a the reasons behind a single spike don't change the underlieing dependence problem.
Myers, who bought "City of Heroes" when it hit store shelves in 2004, quickly learned that players ignored the area's stated purpose. Heroes chatted peacefully with villains in the combat zone. Instead of fighting each other, members of the two factions sparred with computer-controlled enemies..
What kind of silly carebear game is this? Try Eve, where the time it takes to rid yourself of such nonsense is measured in the time it takes to warm up a railgun.