It's working on me. I might still need (well, "need") to use MS Windows for games, but with the way things are going I don't see myself ever upgrading from Windows XP (to a newer Windows version, that is). And since I've been using Windows XP as my main (and only, with the exception of my netbook) OS for more than seven years now, I think I might want to upgrade in the next few years. If Windows 7 and its successors are going to do what I think they're going to do, it's bye-bye Windows, hello Ubuntu.
This page, despite the horrible colors, does a pretty good job of explaining why helium is used instead of hydrogen.
The main reason to use helium is that hydrogen is indeed flammable, even though it may not have caused the fire on the Hindenburg, it's still highly reactive to oxygen.
From the link:
Hydrogen (atomic weight 1, but exists as pairs of atoms (diatomic), molecular weight 2), should weigh 2g per 24 litres at room temperature, whereas Helium (exists as lone atoms (monatomic), atomic weight 4), should weigh 4g per 24 litres at room temperature. But the mistake is to think that this would automatically make it float twice as buoyantly. The fact that's important is not the weight of the gas in the balloon, but the weight of the air which it displaces.
[...]
Both Hydrogen and Helium weigh almost nothing for the purposes of buoyancy in air. In contrast, air is mainly nitrogen, as pairs of atoms, which has a weight of about 28g per 24 litres at room temperature.
To put some figures on it, a 24 litre helium balloon would seem to weigh 4g minus 28g = minus 24g in air. In comparison a 24 litre hydrogen balloon would seem to weigh 2g minus 28g = minus 26g in air. -24g or -26g, take your pick? The difference is about 8%.
So basically, you're either flying a safe blimp, or a giant bomb with 8% better buoyancy.
With the exception that if they don't want to be in the EU, they can choose not to be. If England so desperately wants to go back to its time of Splendid Isolation, they can just say so. If they don't, the EU expects them to respect the treaties they helped set up.
how hard is it to have a remove feature that deletes a users information?
Not very hard at all, but it's handy to keep your users' information even after they deactivate their accounts if it doesn't get you into trouble.
Facebook could just implement some of these changes for Canadian citizens or people with a Canadian IP, but I hope this has international consequences.
No, you can bet that the competitors will win because repairing a graphite defect/delamination/crack/ requires a $100,000 hot bonder + materials as opposed to $0.10 worth of aluminum, $0.01 worth of rivets, and $80.00 worth of rivet gun.
Composites are really neat, and I love working on them, but mfg.+maint. of composite > mfg.+maint. of aluminum aircraft.
Just speaking from the air force side of things- going from Al to Carbon requires a manning increase in the structures shop of at least 3X. Graphite is a totally new game that most structures guys are simply not prepared to cope with. You need to take that into account when you're comparing budgets.
This is probably true, and I'd mod your post +1 Informative if I could, but the higher maintenance costs of composite materials are something everyone could have seen coming.
Airline companies are smart enough to take higher maintenance costs into account when they're considering buying composite aircraft to increase fuel efficiency, and might be prepared for them if the gains outweigh the costs. Even Boeing knew they'd have to make the 787 good enough to compensate for this cost, because else no one would buy them.
These new wrinkles, however, are exactly that: new. Nobody saw them coming, not even the engineers who should have seen them coming. That's what might cost Boeing some serious business, and could get them into trouble if more of their customers cancel their orders. It's bad enough not to earn money you wanted to earn, but it's even worse to lose money you thought you had already earned.
Boeing is designing a permanent fix to the wrinkle problem so future versions of the plane won't have to be modified. The existing fuselage wrinkles, she said, will not compromise the flight safety of the 787s.
The existing fuselage wrinkles might not compromise the flight safety of the 787s, but they will weigh and cost a lot more than planned because of the extra layers of carbon composite material. The added weight will reduce fuel efficiency for the entire lifetime of the airplane, which further increases the cost of use of these planes for the airlines that will be buying them.
As for the permanent fix:
Boeing said tests had shown it needed to reinforce areas where the plane's wings join the fuselage.
You can bet this means all future 787s will weigh more than Boeing told their investors they would, which means some companies who slightly prefered 787s over an alternative by, say, Airbus, might also cancel their orders and buy from the competition instead.
He's not talking about getting something for free, he's talking about taxpayers' money (or customers' money) being spent in a way that helps the taxpayers (or customers). They said it themselves, they've got enough money to do it. The only stopping them is probably the fact that it's more fun hoarding money than spending it to help the people who gave it to you.
As long as the person you're taking money from is naive, unorganised and distant enough, like, say, your average telco customer, there aren't that many costly consequences. It's always better to just rip off your customers if you're in a position to do so.
Unfortunately, many people who do know a lot of science act religious. They treat people who don't know it as inferior, and I believe that turns a lot of people away from learning about it. Not because they think science is less valid, but in a sense, because they don't want to be like the jackass that just got done making them feel worthless.
Those sudden appearances seem less likely because of the air traffic control systems. They - in the ideal situation of course, there's probably some work to be done in this area - know at all times where all airplanes are and will be, so collisions can be avoided before becoming imminent.
More control surfaces, true, but this also means more ways to avoid a collision. When two cars are driving towards each other, they each have roughly three choices: go left, go straight ahead or go right. If the other guy does the same thing (mirrored), they collide. Two airplanes going straight towards each other have roughly 3*3 choices: left, straight or right horizontally and up, level or down vertically. This makes collisions 3 times less likely for airplanes than cars if they act randomly (without communication or conventions).
I know it's not that simple, I'm just saying that there's a lot more room up there than there is on the ground. It's also not a great comparison because you're basically playing with fast-moving, miles-large safety spheres that can't collide with others (as opposed to cars, which often keep distances measured in inches from other cars), that have to keep moving at a near constant speed (as opposed to cars, which can brake, stop, and wait on the spot for a while),...
Planes could use Inertial navigation systems during takeoff, landing and normal cruising if GPS is somehow blocked. I believe planes have the upper hand on this issue, because they're more likely to be equipped with high-tech equipment to replace the old eyeball.
I'm no expert on airplane emergencies, but I guess pilot schools face the same problem as programmers. Pilots have to be trained to know what to do in any possible emergency, and if something happens they didn't see in a simulator, they're on their own to figure it out. I'll admit that at this point I'd rather have a trained and experienced human than a machine do the trial and error, even though they're both not programmed to handle the situation.
Still, without taking mechanical breakdowns into account, everything can be planned and programmed in advance, provided nobody enters the airspace without notifying air traffic control. UAVs would need a lot of system monitoring to make sure that if something breaks down, a pilot can take control of the aircraft from the ground.
I didn't say it would be simple, but I still think it would be simpler.
I was picturing something like an Airbus A-380 with 800 people in it and a red blinky Captain light singing Daisy, Daisy to calm the passengers down when they hit turbulence. I'm sure it won't come to that just yet.
I was thinking about autonomous ground vehicles for a second as well, but I think UAVs are, in fact, simpler to accomplish than unmanned cars. Planes don't have to deal with pedestrians jumping in front of them, corners they can't see past, or people in front of them hitting the brakes.
Of course, planes are a lot more complex than cars from a technological point of view and there are many more things that can go wrong and break down, but even human pilots can't extinguish a burning engine in the air.
Well yeah, in 50 years time. I look forward to cars driving themselves as well, but the technology just isn't ready yet. For now, people are still better at handling the unexpected.
Money doesn't necessarily mean a pre-defined amount of dollars, euros, pounds or yen, just some kind of payment. A practically unlimited amound of FB friends is the best kind of currency in this day and age, alas.
This guy is going home with a whole lot of cool points, and might even get into the Guiness Book of World Records as "The Most Popular Guy in History", even before Barack Obama, Michael Jackson and Adolf Hitler.
Slashdot Mirror
It's working on me. I might still need (well, "need") to use MS Windows for games, but with the way things are going I don't see myself ever upgrading from Windows XP (to a newer Windows version, that is). And since I've been using Windows XP as my main (and only, with the exception of my netbook) OS for more than seven years now, I think I might want to upgrade in the next few years. If Windows 7 and its successors are going to do what I think they're going to do, it's bye-bye Windows, hello Ubuntu.
This page, despite the horrible colors, does a pretty good job of explaining why helium is used instead of hydrogen.
The main reason to use helium is that hydrogen is indeed flammable, even though it may not have caused the fire on the Hindenburg, it's still highly reactive to oxygen.
From the link:
Hydrogen (atomic weight 1, but exists as pairs of atoms (diatomic), molecular weight 2), should weigh 2g per 24 litres at room temperature, whereas Helium (exists as lone atoms (monatomic), atomic weight 4), should weigh 4g per 24 litres at room temperature. But the mistake is to think that this would automatically make it float twice as buoyantly. The fact that's important is not the weight of the gas in the balloon, but the weight of the air which it displaces.
[...]
Both Hydrogen and Helium weigh almost nothing for the purposes of buoyancy in air. In contrast, air is mainly nitrogen, as pairs of atoms, which has a weight of about 28g per 24 litres at room temperature. To put some figures on it, a 24 litre helium balloon would seem to weigh 4g minus 28g = minus 24g in air. In comparison a 24 litre hydrogen balloon would seem to weigh 2g minus 28g = minus 26g in air. -24g or -26g, take your pick? The difference is about 8%.
So basically, you're either flying a safe blimp, or a giant bomb with 8% better buoyancy.
3 million businesses pressuring 1 judge to decide whether or not the work of millions of scientists is trustworthy.
And if you won't listen to Snaller, listen to Admiral Adama.
Isn't the Labour party in power? Aren't they the good guys?
Good guys? When was the last time you checked up on politics?
With the exception that if they don't want to be in the EU, they can choose not to be. If England so desperately wants to go back to its time of Splendid Isolation, they can just say so. If they don't, the EU expects them to respect the treaties they helped set up.
P.S. I know this is hugely hypothetical.
This time next year:
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs rated 14+ (for indecent displays of affection)
You would think so, but apparently they solved that problem by just telling them to STFU.
"Our legal advice is that those previously prosecuted will be unable to overturn their prosecution or receive financial recompense," she said.
So people who were previously prosecuted for breaking a non-law will be unable to overturn their prosecution.
Right, because Linux runs on air and penguin droppings.
The upside of course would be the eventual decline of questions like, "can I borrow your charger?".
And with it, a further decline in geeks' chances to score chicks.
how hard is it to have a remove feature that deletes a users information?
Not very hard at all, but it's handy to keep your users' information even after they deactivate their accounts if it doesn't get you into trouble.
Facebook could just implement some of these changes for Canadian citizens or people with a Canadian IP, but I hope this has international consequences.
Leave it to Canada to solve all our problems, eh?
No, you can bet that the competitors will win because repairing a graphite defect/delamination/crack/ requires a $100,000 hot bonder + materials as opposed to $0.10 worth of aluminum, $0.01 worth of rivets, and $80.00 worth of rivet gun.
Composites are really neat, and I love working on them, but mfg.+maint. of composite > mfg.+maint. of aluminum aircraft.
Just speaking from the air force side of things- going from Al to Carbon requires a manning increase in the structures shop of at least 3X. Graphite is a totally new game that most structures guys are simply not prepared to cope with. You need to take that into account when you're comparing budgets.
This is probably true, and I'd mod your post +1 Informative if I could, but the higher maintenance costs of composite materials are something everyone could have seen coming.
Airline companies are smart enough to take higher maintenance costs into account when they're considering buying composite aircraft to increase fuel efficiency, and might be prepared for them if the gains outweigh the costs. Even Boeing knew they'd have to make the 787 good enough to compensate for this cost, because else no one would buy them.
These new wrinkles, however, are exactly that: new. Nobody saw them coming, not even the engineers who should have seen them coming. That's what might cost Boeing some serious business, and could get them into trouble if more of their customers cancel their orders. It's bad enough not to earn money you wanted to earn, but it's even worse to lose money you thought you had already earned.
Boeing is designing a permanent fix to the wrinkle problem so future versions of the plane won't have to be modified. The existing fuselage wrinkles, she said, will not compromise the flight safety of the 787s.
The existing fuselage wrinkles might not compromise the flight safety of the 787s, but they will weigh and cost a lot more than planned because of the extra layers of carbon composite material. The added weight will reduce fuel efficiency for the entire lifetime of the airplane, which further increases the cost of use of these planes for the airlines that will be buying them. As for the permanent fix:
Boeing said tests had shown it needed to reinforce areas where the plane's wings join the fuselage.
You can bet this means all future 787s will weigh more than Boeing told their investors they would, which means some companies who slightly prefered 787s over an alternative by, say, Airbus, might also cancel their orders and buy from the competition instead.
Giving up net neutrality might mean giving up **AA sponsorship, perhaps the government just isn't offering enough to top that.
He's not talking about getting something for free, he's talking about taxpayers' money (or customers' money) being spent in a way that helps the taxpayers (or customers). They said it themselves, they've got enough money to do it. The only stopping them is probably the fact that it's more fun hoarding money than spending it to help the people who gave it to you.
As long as the person you're taking money from is naive, unorganised and distant enough, like, say, your average telco customer, there aren't that many costly consequences. It's always better to just rip off your customers if you're in a position to do so.
Unfortunately, many people who do know a lot of science act religious. They treat people who don't know it as inferior, and I believe that turns a lot of people away from learning about it. Not because they think science is less valid, but in a sense, because they don't want to be like the jackass that just got done making them feel worthless.
jackass
I resent that!
Those sudden appearances seem less likely because of the air traffic control systems. They - in the ideal situation of course, there's probably some work to be done in this area - know at all times where all airplanes are and will be, so collisions can be avoided before becoming imminent.
More control surfaces, true, but this also means more ways to avoid a collision. When two cars are driving towards each other, they each have roughly three choices: go left, go straight ahead or go right. If the other guy does the same thing (mirrored), they collide. Two airplanes going straight towards each other have roughly 3*3 choices: left, straight or right horizontally and up, level or down vertically. This makes collisions 3 times less likely for airplanes than cars if they act randomly (without communication or conventions).
I know it's not that simple, I'm just saying that there's a lot more room up there than there is on the ground. It's also not a great comparison because you're basically playing with fast-moving, miles-large safety spheres that can't collide with others (as opposed to cars, which often keep distances measured in inches from other cars), that have to keep moving at a near constant speed (as opposed to cars, which can brake, stop, and wait on the spot for a while), ...
Planes could use Inertial navigation systems during takeoff, landing and normal cruising if GPS is somehow blocked. I believe planes have the upper hand on this issue, because they're more likely to be equipped with high-tech equipment to replace the old eyeball.
I'm no expert on airplane emergencies, but I guess pilot schools face the same problem as programmers. Pilots have to be trained to know what to do in any possible emergency, and if something happens they didn't see in a simulator, they're on their own to figure it out. I'll admit that at this point I'd rather have a trained and experienced human than a machine do the trial and error, even though they're both not programmed to handle the situation.
Still, without taking mechanical breakdowns into account, everything can be planned and programmed in advance, provided nobody enters the airspace without notifying air traffic control. UAVs would need a lot of system monitoring to make sure that if something breaks down, a pilot can take control of the aircraft from the ground.
I didn't say it would be simple, but I still think it would be simpler.
-1 Incoherent, for which I apologise.
And also something that makes it easier to read or use the computer while being driven around without getting carsick.
In Europe, we have trains.
I was picturing something like an Airbus A-380 with 800 people in it and a red blinky Captain light singing Daisy, Daisy to calm the passengers down when they hit turbulence. I'm sure it won't come to that just yet.
But hey, at least we're publicly debating!
I was thinking about autonomous ground vehicles for a second as well, but I think UAVs are, in fact, simpler to accomplish than unmanned cars. Planes don't have to deal with pedestrians jumping in front of them, corners they can't see past, or people in front of them hitting the brakes.
Of course, planes are a lot more complex than cars from a technological point of view and there are many more things that can go wrong and break down, but even human pilots can't extinguish a burning engine in the air.
Well yeah, in 50 years time. I look forward to cars driving themselves as well, but the technology just isn't ready yet. For now, people are still better at handling the unexpected.
I like the comforting feeling of knowing there's a pilot in the cockpit.
Money doesn't necessarily mean a pre-defined amount of dollars, euros, pounds or yen, just some kind of payment. A practically unlimited amound of FB friends is the best kind of currency in this day and age, alas. This guy is going home with a whole lot of cool points, and might even get into the Guiness Book of World Records as "The Most Popular Guy in History", even before Barack Obama, Michael Jackson and Adolf Hitler.