You should include both values then, and add a reference to the dead tree manual for your version. You're allowed to have dead tree references in the wikipedia; although they may try to give you shit about it anyway.
Actually in the UK we have the Office of Fair Trading although it is non-ministerial (at Taxpayer's expense), and the advertising group the Advertising Standards Agency (at advertisers expense).
They both seem to have unaccountably quickly run out of ponies in the rush since they were offered 12 days ago though.
That's unfair! Sometimes it succeeded at staying up for ohhhh... whole minutes at a time, sometimes consecutive minutes even. On a really good day, you even needed the shutdown feature.
I don't think iPlayer in particular is too much of a problem myself. The amount of content there isn't so stupidly big that the ISP can't cache it; they only have to download one copy of the show from the BBC for all of their customers.
Once it's cached, it becomes essentially local traffic for the ISP, which is a lot cheaper for them.
It's not that they're trying to save oxidiser, they're trying to save propellant of all kinds.
The problem with rockets is that you have to run at full exhaust speed at all times, and that costs fuel, because a high exhaust speed implies a lot of energy. But at low vehicle speeds, a high exhaust speed just means you're throwing exhaust backwards very fast- you really want the exhaust speed and the vehicle speeds to be similar. That's how turbofans work, and why A380s don't use turbojets or rockets.
If you don't run a rocket at full exhaust speed, then it costs you propellant mass to get the same thrust (but saves energy/*fuel*), but propellant is the one thing you can't waste when you're trying to reach orbit.
Really the skylon idea uses nitrogen as a reaction mass, it sucks in the air, burns it with hydrogen and then chucks the whole lot out the back.
Once you get to about Mach 5, the rocket efficiency is up about 60% and then you can just do the burn for orbit.
You're wrong about the engines, the engines are actively cooled at the inlet- they see ground level conditions throughout the flight.
You're also wrong about nitrogen, nitrogen is perfectly good reaction mass up to about Mach 5. Beyond that it tends to come apart. Guess what speed Skylon calls it quits and turns on the rockets?
The other point you're missing is that at low speeds rockets are horribly inefficient; the exhaust velocity is much too high. By using the nitrogen as reaction mass; powered by the hydrogen fuel reacting with atmospheric oxygen Skylon can reduce the exhaust velocity and get massively better efficiency. That means it needs a lot less propellant, and then when it does turn on the rockets, it has performance in hand. The design has twice the payload fraction of a rocket design because of that.
FWIW the design doesn't liquify the air, it just cools it a lot.
Liquifying the air would boil off too much liquid hydrogen fuel.
Cooling the air at the intake like this lets the engine be made out of light alloys, which slashes the weight, as well as permitting the engine to run at full thrust even at top speed (normal engines have to throttle back to avoid melting or have to be built with heavy materials or heavy cooling systems.)
These techniques have been used to advantage on statically compiled code however, and gave very significant speed-ups.
HP's dynamo project wrote a machine code interpreter that essentially ran faster than the original processor could execute the code on its own(!) It did it by specifically targetting the areas the compiler had trouble finding due to the compilation process and rewriting the machine code on the fly.
The techniques more or less *have* to be used for byte code systems to get decent performance, but standard languages also can benefit a surprisingly large amount (and more so on highly optimised code).
Really, the ISP needs to give a maximum budget for the fraction of your connection bandwidth you can set as high-priority (probably in practice this would be the contention ratio you have paid for); if you go consistently above that, the ISP should downgrade the excess to best-effort.
Actually most terrorists, in practice, are can-do middle class people like engineers and doctors. It may be FOR 3rd worlders though, but it's mostly the middle class that actually does it.
As I understand it, the Irish problem largely went away with 9/11. Suddenly a lot of "well meaning" (?) Irish Americans sympathetic to terrorism discovered that... um... terrorism is bad, and funding ceased.
There's a graph of incidence of cancer against oxygen concentration. As you increase the oxygen percentage of the air, the rate of cancer goes up, and if you reduce it, it goes down. If you reduce it too far, you die.
However, if you plot the curve back to the 0% oxygen axis you find that there's a certain amount of cancer still there- that's the cancer due to other causes than oxygen.
But there's a gap- some of the cancer that you get due to the normal oxygen levels you need to live raises the cancer rate measurably.
So, it looks like oxygen causes cancer, and hence so does breathing!!!
Thing is, you're assuming that it is a limited public resource, but the evidence is actually that if the nodes are carefully designed to minimise the amount of radio power emitted then adding more nodes actually doesn't change the bandwidth that's available to each of the users.
The problem is that maglev is ground level, whereas aircraft fly at high altitude.
At high speeds, most of the energy used goes in airdrag, and so aircraft are much more efficient because they fly where the air is thinner, and this ultimately means that can go faster and they cost less.
Maglev is good if you want to go relatively short distances very quickly, where aircraft don't have a chance to gain much altitude before they come down again, but not long distances.
One point I believe you've missed. There probably isn't 'an' ADC computer, so I suspect that they just switched off the broken one and used a different one.
Only if this was a fundamental design error could the aircraft have crashed, but it doesn't sound like this was.
Yeah, the top is under tension because it's spinning around with the Earth. Partly it's balanced by the weight of the cable, but there's an excess, which is supplied by the cable that attaches to the Earth- so the cable is kept under tension.
When the elevator car starts to climb the excess at the Earth is reduced by the weight of the car. As it climbs higher the weight reduces and the tension goes up again. When it reaches GEO the tension is back to normal and you can launch the next payload (or a smaller payload earlier).
There are actually a few different looped designs for space elevators. They have less payload per launch because the cable has to be the same thickness which means its very stressed in the middle at geo.
A normal space elevator has a tapered shape which means the cable is under equal/optimum stress along its whole length which gives you more capacity.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it seems to be learning at the geometric rate known as a 'slashdotting'.
Maybe it's like skiing: "you're only learning when you're falling over".
I forget the details but actually main isn't generally the first function called by the OS (there's initialisation before that); so no, not always ;-)
You should include both values then, and add a reference to the dead tree manual for your version. You're allowed to have dead tree references in the wikipedia; although they may try to give you shit about it anyway.
In Formula 1 motor racing a DNF result means "Did Not Finish"
I always thought this was a bit of clue as to its eventual fate. ;-)
Nah, they should name the node Colbert, and the urine recycling unit Serenity, after the expression the astronauts doubtless make when using it.
Actually in the UK we have the Office of Fair Trading although it is non-ministerial (at Taxpayer's expense), and the advertising group the Advertising Standards Agency (at advertisers expense).
They both seem to have unaccountably quickly run out of ponies in the rush since they were offered 12 days ago though.
That's unfair! Sometimes it succeeded at staying up for ohhhh... whole minutes at a time, sometimes consecutive minutes even. On a really good day, you even needed the shutdown feature.
I don't think iPlayer in particular is too much of a problem myself. The amount of content there isn't so stupidly big that the ISP can't cache it; they only have to download one copy of the show from the BBC for all of their customers.
Once it's cached, it becomes essentially local traffic for the ISP, which is a lot cheaper for them.
A managers good workers are the one that get them promoted, not the ones that do good work... and that's ultimately a problem for the organisation.
It's not that they're trying to save oxidiser, they're trying to save propellant of all kinds.
The problem with rockets is that you have to run at full exhaust speed at all times, and that costs fuel, because a high exhaust speed implies a lot of energy. But at low vehicle speeds, a high exhaust speed just means you're throwing exhaust backwards very fast- you really want the exhaust speed and the vehicle speeds to be similar. That's how turbofans work, and why A380s don't use turbojets or rockets.
If you don't run a rocket at full exhaust speed, then it costs you propellant mass to get the same thrust (but saves energy/*fuel*), but propellant is the one thing you can't waste when you're trying to reach orbit.
Really the skylon idea uses nitrogen as a reaction mass, it sucks in the air, burns it with hydrogen and then chucks the whole lot out the back.
Once you get to about Mach 5, the rocket efficiency is up about 60% and then you can just do the burn for orbit.
You're wrong about the engines, the engines are actively cooled at the inlet- they see ground level conditions throughout the flight.
You're also wrong about nitrogen, nitrogen is perfectly good reaction mass up to about Mach 5. Beyond that it tends to come apart. Guess what speed Skylon calls it quits and turns on the rockets?
The other point you're missing is that at low speeds rockets are horribly inefficient; the exhaust velocity is much too high. By using the nitrogen as reaction mass; powered by the hydrogen fuel reacting with atmospheric oxygen Skylon can reduce the exhaust velocity and get massively better efficiency. That means it needs a lot less propellant, and then when it does turn on the rockets, it has performance in hand. The design has twice the payload fraction of a rocket design because of that.
FWIW the design doesn't liquify the air, it just cools it a lot.
Liquifying the air would boil off too much liquid hydrogen fuel.
Cooling the air at the intake like this lets the engine be made out of light alloys, which slashes the weight, as well as permitting the engine to run at full thrust even at top speed (normal engines have to throttle back to avoid melting or have to be built with heavy materials or heavy cooling systems.)
These techniques have been used to advantage on statically compiled code however, and gave very significant speed-ups. HP's dynamo project wrote a machine code interpreter that essentially ran faster than the original processor could execute the code on its own(!) It did it by specifically targetting the areas the compiler had trouble finding due to the compilation process and rewriting the machine code on the fly. The techniques more or less *have* to be used for byte code systems to get decent performance, but standard languages also can benefit a surprisingly large amount (and more so on highly optimised code).
Really, the ISP needs to give a maximum budget for the fraction of your connection bandwidth you can set as high-priority (probably in practice this would be the contention ratio you have paid for); if you go consistently above that, the ISP should downgrade the excess to best-effort.
Never mind that, what about the right to arm nuclear bears? You're just not thinking about the big picture!
Actually most terrorists, in practice, are can-do middle class people like engineers and doctors. It may be FOR 3rd worlders though, but it's mostly the middle class that actually does it. As I understand it, the Irish problem largely went away with 9/11. Suddenly a lot of "well meaning" (?) Irish Americans sympathetic to terrorism discovered that ... um ... terrorism is bad, and funding ceased.
Fortunately governments aren't oligopolies in the political sphere so they can be trusted to do the right thing. Oh! Wait!
Cartercopter.
Much faster than a helicopter, twice as efficient as a helicopter. Takes off/lands in a postage stamp.
Actually, yeah, oxygen causes cancer.
There's a graph of incidence of cancer against oxygen concentration. As you increase the oxygen percentage of the air, the rate of cancer goes up, and if you reduce it, it goes down. If you reduce it too far, you die.
However, if you plot the curve back to the 0% oxygen axis you find that there's a certain amount of cancer still there- that's the cancer due to other causes than oxygen.
But there's a gap- some of the cancer that you get due to the normal oxygen levels you need to live raises the cancer rate measurably.
So, it looks like oxygen causes cancer, and hence so does breathing!!!
Thing is, you're assuming that it is a limited public resource, but the evidence is actually that if the nodes are carefully designed to minimise the amount of radio power emitted then adding more nodes actually doesn't change the bandwidth that's available to each of the users.
Thing is, maglev isn't so good for long distance.
The problem is that maglev is ground level, whereas aircraft fly at high altitude.
At high speeds, most of the energy used goes in airdrag, and so aircraft are much more efficient because they fly where the air is thinner, and this ultimately means that can go faster and they cost less.
Maglev is good if you want to go relatively short distances very quickly, where aircraft don't have a chance to gain much altitude before they come down again, but not long distances.
One point I believe you've missed. There probably isn't 'an' ADC computer, so I suspect that they just switched off the broken one and used a different one.
Only if this was a fundamental design error could the aircraft have crashed, but it doesn't sound like this was.
Really, you're arguing against yourself- if bandwidth is so cheap, how come it's so expensive to create more of it?
If it's that expensive they should charge more for it, and then they would be able to afford to grow their network.
Yeah, the top is under tension because it's spinning around with the Earth. Partly it's balanced by the weight of the cable, but there's an excess, which is supplied by the cable that attaches to the Earth- so the cable is kept under tension.
When the elevator car starts to climb the excess at the Earth is reduced by the weight of the car. As it climbs higher the weight reduces and the tension goes up again. When it reaches GEO the tension is back to normal and you can launch the next payload (or a smaller payload earlier).
There are actually a few different looped designs for space elevators. They have less payload per launch because the cable has to be the same thickness which means its very stressed in the middle at geo.
A normal space elevator has a tapered shape which means the cable is under equal/optimum stress along its whole length which gives you more capacity.