All those deposits of ($)9999.99 would look rather suspect in your bank account which I am sure would raise a few red flags
The whole point of my post was that no Federally significant flags go up until you break the six nines barrier.
Most banks give not a shit (and will actively avoid caring) if you serially deposit $9899.47 every night at 8:53 p.m. Nor do they have to report it to anyone.
However - if you start depositing $10,000.00 once a year, everyone starts paying attention to what you are doing, provided you weren't under suspicion already. It's relatively easy to get a warrant to monitor an account, but regular biweekly deposits just short of $10k don't raise an alarm. Otherwise, most of Silicon Valley's senior marketing folks would be under the Federal gun.
Thanks for making one of the most cogent and insightful posts about this entire hullabaloo. As a previous poster said, NASA bashing has become rather fashionable, and the inflammatory statements in the media and here at slashdot ("drunk" pilots, assuming that someone was drinking immediately before launch, etc.) put the whole thing in a sensational light.
To remind everyone: we're talking about detectable amounts of alcohol in the blood of someone on the shuttle. This is not a case of drunk pilots or mission specialists stumbling into the shuttle - but that's exactly the impression the public has been given because of media outlets that are bound by profits.
So, they are working off of a sample size of twenty??? Not sure if I would draw too many conclusions from this dataset.
Exactly - and one of those twenty is Delta Air Lines flight 191 - a freak accident in which the back of the aircraft separated and stopped, while the front of the airplane crashed into two four-million gallon water tanks, blew up, and killed everyone in it.
That's enough to skew your data right there. But I'm sure we'll hear all the funny quotes about "backing into mountains" anyway. The back of the airplane is barely safer - if you're in a crash that kills people, it's likely that the vast majority of the people on the airplane will die.
On PowerMacs you could get a list like this when you booted while holding down some magic keys.
Command-option O-F.
On PowerSurge (first generation PCI Power Macs, around 1995-1996) machines, the default output-device was the serial port. Later, the output-device became the main display.
PowerMac G5 computers were the last Open Firmware machines. I kind of miss being able to setup some OF options on my Mac Pro.
IIRC, he also released the first OS on CD-ROM as well. Apple's OS was STILL on floppies up until what, 1996-97?
Absolutely not. Apple included the IIvx software on CD-ROM (and floppy - System 7.0.1 with IIvx enabler) in 1994. Later that year, the Quadra 630/650 System Software (again, 7.0.1 or 7.1 with an enabler) shipped on CD. Next up was System 7.1.1., shipped with the PowerSurge machines (first PCI power Macs - the 9500/7500) shipped on CD-ROM.
Apple was ahead in CD-ROM distribution; when I started work there in 1994, many calls were from IIvx and Quadra 630/650 owners asking for replacement CDs.
They could set up a decent home listening rig, but instead buy the latest crappy iPod dock/speaker combo.
I plug my iPod (and more than a few Apple Lossless tracks) into an Adcom GTP-350 connected to a Parasound HCA-500 driving 1998 Paradigm MiniMark-3s.
I'd argue that when playing Apple Lossless or direct 44.1/8 rips, the sound from this setup gets within discerning distance of 8-track digital tape through studio clean amps driving NS-10Ms.
My whole setup cost ~$390.00 on eBay. And I, for one, am glad most people plug their iPods into Bose-esque "all highs, all lows" setups.
It makes the quality home listening equipment cheaper for the rest of us.
That jet crashed because the pilot exceeded the rudder travel limits; he wa-wahed the rudder so fast it snapped; without slew control, he crashed in Queens.
Airbus did make changes to the rudder to strengthen it and avoid a repeat. Wake turbulence was a factor, but not the cause of the incident.
Sadly, this has also been refuted many times [realclimate.org].
I think the sad part is the parrots who think they're being rebels for regurgitating the same disproven theories over and over again.
Often, when engaged in conversation, these rebel parrots make fun of Al Gore, so you'll know pretty quickly the real reason they have a problem with global warming science. It's more important for them to prove a person wrong than it is to review the facts objectively.
You will never, refute all you like, see an electronic ignition system as reliable as a piston aircraft's.
But - being realistic for a moment - when's the last time something like a solid-state igniton module failed on you or for anyone you know?
Mags and leaded avgas are nice, but it's time to prod Lycoming and Continental into the 21st century. The tech to run reciprocating aircraft engines dependably on non-leaded fuels is available - we're just stuck with 'proven' engine designs from the postwar period that require lead to work properly.
I loath flying in the commuter planes; slow, noisy, cramped.
Unfortunately for you, (and me) most flyers care more about schedule convenience, and perceive all aircraft as the same noisy, cramped environment.
I would think that larger planes would also improve efficiency.
Sure, I'd prefer to stuff medium to high density routes with nothing but 767s, 787s and 777s flying 1-2x a day instead of the 5-6 flights each day between say, SJC and DFW. But it ain't gonna happen. It's easier to sell a ticket on a 50-seat Canadair to someone who wants to leave in mid-afternoon than to convince them to wait several hours to take a more efficient, larger jet. And the efficiencies of scale aren't all that bad for small jets, either.
(Even when I did try to shoehorn my schedule around so I could fly United's 777 service instead of yet another aging 737 or claustrophobic 757, United screwed up and I got to watch the 777 push back as the jet I was in taxied to the gate over an hour late. I ended up on the smelly, cramped 737 I was trying to avoid.)
Most people don't fly high density routes because the hub-and-spoke system puts lots of people on lots of planes going to a handful of airports. It's easier to service the system with lots of small to medium sized airplanes.
Remember, just because a thought seems obvious doesn't mean that (a)it's been capitalized on, or (b) that it's easy.
I think it's more likely (B). With so many variables to juggle once a jet is off the ground, it's probably far easier for the airlines to tell their captains to fly at the airspeed appropriate to make the destination at the scheduled time.
Per flight, the fuel savings won't be worth the cost and logistics hassle if even 5% of arrivals are forced early and/or late. Once a flight is a few minutes late, it bumps other flights behind it (or at least eats up the ground crew's turnaround margins). If the flight is a few minutes early, it'll sit on the ground waiting for a gate, turning at least one engine and possibly the APU.
After United's weight/balance blackout problems earlier today, it's easy to understand why airlines are hesitant to touch any variables. Load factors are so high and timeslots so tight that it takes several days to get the system running smoothly after a major disruption.
I would think the plane would probably smack its self into any payload it carried.
This happened with the M-21 drone delivery version of the A-12, which was the predecessor type to the SR-71 Blackbird. While practicing the drone release, the drone bounced off of the shock wave (despite the prodigious thrust of its ramjet) and impacted the M-21, essentially ceaving the jet in half.
Any payload released at these speeds or altitudes has to get past the shock wave first - and that's a problem so intractable that Lockheed gave up on it....in the 60s.
Slashdot Mirror
All those deposits of ($)9999.99 would look rather suspect in your bank account which I am sure would raise a few red flags
The whole point of my post was that no Federally significant flags go up until you break the six nines barrier.
Most banks give not a shit (and will actively avoid caring) if you serially deposit $9899.47 every night at 8:53 p.m. Nor do they have to report it to anyone.
However - if you start depositing $10,000.00 once a year, everyone starts paying attention to what you are doing, provided you weren't under suspicion already. It's relatively easy to get a warrant to monitor an account, but regular biweekly deposits just short of $10k don't raise an alarm. Otherwise, most of Silicon Valley's senior marketing folks would be under the Federal gun.
That's a real dumb thing to do; every deposit over $9999.99 is subject to tax reporting.
You should report the incident immediately to the bank and the IRS. Otherwise, they will screw you to the wall for money laundering.
Thanks for making one of the most cogent and insightful posts about this entire hullabaloo. As a previous poster said, NASA bashing has become rather fashionable, and the inflammatory statements in the media and here at slashdot ("drunk" pilots, assuming that someone was drinking immediately before launch, etc.) put the whole thing in a sensational light.
To remind everyone: we're talking about detectable amounts of alcohol in the blood of someone on the shuttle. This is not a case of drunk pilots or mission specialists stumbling into the shuttle - but that's exactly the impression the public has been given because of media outlets that are bound by profits.
Really? Because I just put 13 gallons in my ~3mpg Civic this morning.
Try to be snarky...
That's a ~36mpg Civic. On "Slow down cowboy!" mode - because it thinks it is about outta gas.
gasoline is used up and is non-renewable
Really? Because I just put 13 gallons in my ~3mpg Civic this morning.
Don't be an alarmist - you might just find people listening to you.
So, they are working off of a sample size of twenty??? Not sure if I would draw too many conclusions from this dataset.
Exactly - and one of those twenty is Delta Air Lines flight 191 - a freak accident in which the back of the aircraft separated and stopped, while the front of the airplane crashed into two four-million gallon water tanks, blew up, and killed everyone in it.
That's enough to skew your data right there. But I'm sure we'll hear all the funny quotes about "backing into mountains" anyway. The back of the airplane is barely safer - if you're in a crash that kills people, it's likely that the vast majority of the people on the airplane will die.
Maybe we should look into David Vitter.
Louisiana corruption runs awful deep - especially among diaper-wearing legislators.
Here's an interesting post about Mr. Vitterthat he seems to wish he could hide.
Louisiana politics won't be rid of it's ghosts until the Metairie racialists are flushed from the experience.
It's a pity, as BeOS was pretty stunning on a 400MHz Celeron.
Hell, it was impressive on a 75MHz PowerPC 603, and mind-blowing on a 132MHz PowerPC 604.
Too bad about it not having a printing architecture for so long, though. BeOS was an impressive demonstration - just not very productive.
Who spends $400 for the ability to make margaritas?
I'm just taking a shot in the dark here, but....restaurants? Bars? Frat houses? People both rich and stupid enough to have an H2 in the driveway?
In particular, I have seen speeds of 19-22Mb/s burst to testing sites, and almost 2.0MB/s non-bursting.
I have seen fairly consistent rates in Silicon Valley (San Jose) of 14-19Mbps on Comcast's basic Internet service.
Only 1.5Mbps up.
On PowerMacs you could get a list like this when you booted while holding down some magic keys.
Command-option O-F.
On PowerSurge (first generation PCI Power Macs, around 1995-1996) machines, the default output-device was the serial port. Later, the output-device became the main display.
PowerMac G5 computers were the last Open Firmware machines. I kind of miss being able to setup some OF options on my Mac Pro.
navel
I knew a navel aviator once. He could never manage to break the lint barrier.
IIRC, he also released the first OS on CD-ROM as well. Apple's OS was STILL on floppies up until what, 1996-97?
Absolutely not. Apple included the IIvx software on CD-ROM (and floppy - System 7.0.1 with IIvx enabler) in 1994. Later that year, the Quadra 630/650 System Software (again, 7.0.1 or 7.1 with an enabler) shipped on CD. Next up was System 7.1.1., shipped with the PowerSurge machines (first PCI power Macs - the 9500/7500) shipped on CD-ROM.
Apple was ahead in CD-ROM distribution; when I started work there in 1994, many calls were from IIvx and Quadra 630/650 owners asking for replacement CDs.
They could set up a decent home listening rig, but instead buy the latest crappy iPod dock/speaker combo.
I plug my iPod (and more than a few Apple Lossless tracks) into an Adcom GTP-350 connected to a Parasound HCA-500 driving 1998 Paradigm MiniMark-3s.
I'd argue that when playing Apple Lossless or direct 44.1/8 rips, the sound from this setup gets within discerning distance of 8-track digital tape through studio clean amps driving NS-10Ms.
My whole setup cost ~$390.00 on eBay. And I, for one, am glad most people plug their iPods into Bose-esque "all highs, all lows" setups.
It makes the quality home listening equipment cheaper for the rest of us.
That's funny, I generally find that people become dumber when pheromones are involved.
No kidding. That bitch in accounting who wears tons of perfume seems to think she's the smartest woman alive.
That jet crashed because the pilot exceeded the rudder travel limits; he wa-wahed the rudder so fast it snapped; without slew control, he crashed in Queens.
Airbus did make changes to the rudder to strengthen it and avoid a repeat. Wake turbulence was a factor, but not the cause of the incident.
The McCarthy Committee on UnAmerican Activities
I took this to mean that a committee named in honor of McCarthy had just been convened to investigate this matter.
But thanks for the history lesson.
We have measurements for Mars as far back, as accurate and as geographically diverse as those here on Earth?
Jesus. People who hate Al Gore will believe anything that validates their dislike of him.
Sadly, this has also been refuted many times [realclimate.org].
I think the sad part is the parrots who think they're being rebels for regurgitating the same disproven theories over and over again.
Often, when engaged in conversation, these rebel parrots make fun of Al Gore, so you'll know pretty quickly the real reason they have a problem with global warming science. It's more important for them to prove a person wrong than it is to review the facts objectively.
You will never, refute all you like, see an electronic ignition system as reliable as a piston aircraft's.
But - being realistic for a moment - when's the last time something like a solid-state igniton module failed on you or for anyone you know?
Mags and leaded avgas are nice, but it's time to prod Lycoming and Continental into the 21st century. The tech to run reciprocating aircraft engines dependably on non-leaded fuels is available - we're just stuck with 'proven' engine designs from the postwar period that require lead to work properly.
I loath flying in the commuter planes; slow, noisy, cramped.
Unfortunately for you, (and me) most flyers care more about schedule convenience, and perceive all aircraft as the same noisy, cramped environment.
I would think that larger planes would also improve efficiency.
Sure, I'd prefer to stuff medium to high density routes with nothing but 767s, 787s and 777s flying 1-2x a day instead of the 5-6 flights each day between say, SJC and DFW. But it ain't gonna happen. It's easier to sell a ticket on a 50-seat Canadair to someone who wants to leave in mid-afternoon than to convince them to wait several hours to take a more efficient, larger jet. And the efficiencies of scale aren't all that bad for small jets, either.
(Even when I did try to shoehorn my schedule around so I could fly United's 777 service instead of yet another aging 737 or claustrophobic 757, United screwed up and I got to watch the 777 push back as the jet I was in taxied to the gate over an hour late. I ended up on the smelly, cramped 737 I was trying to avoid.)
Most people don't fly high density routes because the hub-and-spoke system puts lots of people on lots of planes going to a handful of airports. It's easier to service the system with lots of small to medium sized airplanes.
Remember, just because a thought seems obvious doesn't mean that (a)it's been capitalized on, or (b) that it's easy.
I think it's more likely (B). With so many variables to juggle once a jet is off the ground, it's probably far easier for the airlines to tell their captains to fly at the airspeed appropriate to make the destination at the scheduled time.
Per flight, the fuel savings won't be worth the cost and logistics hassle if even 5% of arrivals are forced early and/or late. Once a flight is a few minutes late, it bumps other flights behind it (or at least eats up the ground crew's turnaround margins). If the flight is a few minutes early, it'll sit on the ground waiting for a gate, turning at least one engine and possibly the APU.
After United's weight/balance blackout problems earlier today, it's easy to understand why airlines are hesitant to touch any variables. Load factors are so high and timeslots so tight that it takes several days to get the system running smoothly after a major disruption.
The soviets tried many times to shoot down the SR-71, but it was simply faster than the missiles.
Uh...cite a source? I've searched the web and can't seem to find your source for Soviet shoot-down attempts.
And FYI: The Soviet-designed SA-2 missile? 4-4.5 Mach. That's faster than a Blackbird.
I would think the plane would probably smack its self into any payload it carried.
This happened with the M-21 drone delivery version of the A-12, which was the predecessor type to the SR-71 Blackbird. While practicing the drone release, the drone bounced off of the shock wave (despite the prodigious thrust of its ramjet) and impacted the M-21, essentially ceaving the jet in half.
Any payload released at these speeds or altitudes has to get past the shock wave first - and that's a problem so intractable that Lockheed gave up on it....in the 60s.
Seems like an efficient way to intercept an ICBM. Shouldn't be a problem mounting a 50 calibre machine gun on the belly.
No kidding. Where do I find these magic 4200 m.p.h. bullets? At Mach 6.1, this thing will be traveling over a mile per second.