Actually, Napster did exactly that, and got massively destroyed in court.
Other companies have avoided this fate so far by not promoting themselves on that basis.
This decision doesn't change that, in fact I'm not sure they've really said anything that wasn't blindingly obvious in the first place. Which may mean that Grokster is going to be let off the hook in the lower court; but we shall see if Grokster has made any faux-pas.
Deep Blue ran on purpose designed ASICs whereas Hydra runs on FPGAs which are slower, but more flexible. Turns out that the inherent slower speed of FPGAs and Moore's law roughly cancels.
However, the chess technology in Hydra is 8 years newer in other respects, and so Hydra is able to look about 8 moves further ahead (albeit with slightly less accuracy, but it turns out it's a pretty big win anyway). So Hydra would be expected to comfortably beat Deep Blue, should they ever meet, which is unlikely in fact (although Deep Blue still exists, IBM are hardly likely to boot it up just to lose).
I think if you are at a comet for example, with lots of lighter materials, like ice, methane as well as some metal, then the processes are similar to those on the earth.
You can produce oxygen from the water via electrolysis, and use that to react with the methane to produce carbon dioxide, which you can then separate into carbon and oxygen.
Now, iron oxide is actually distillable out from rock at a 1000 odd centigrade temperature, and with the carbon and some more of the oxygen you can smelt. You need to spin the smelter.
Once you have iron you can turn it into steel.
Alternatively once you have the carbon you can form it into electrodes to use it to electrolyse aluminum. Aluminum is potentially more useful since the strength/weight ratio is better, and it's easier to work. It's also useful to use it hammered flat to make solar ovens.
Once you have the raw materials, it gets easier to claw yourself up to better materials. Different tempers (tempering is cheap and easy with solar ovens BTW) you can cut tools in the softer untempered state, then temper them up.
Many of the steps like electrolysis need reasonably obscene amounts of energy though, and although the solar energy is cheap, the equipment to turn it into electric power isn't. So there are difficulties; it works best if you're planning on staying for a while.
But there's nothing there we don't know how to do.
It could be, but most asteroids spin, so no, probably fairly trivial to deal with. Just set up a tent around the area and the stuff will tend to collect itself away from the spin axis.
And if you just toss the rubble over the side of the asteroid, it comes back 1/2 an orbit later due to orbital mechanics. That's quite a few months or even years. And it comes back at the same speed that you launched it at, so you don't want to launch it too fast.
That strikes me as a bit hasty. I mean, so it's the closest planet. And? I mean how do you know that's the best place to live? Wouldn't an asteroid where you have easy access to other asteroids, lots of solar power, lots of volatiles for rocket fuel and lots of materials you can smelt be better?
Or a moon of Jupiter? Or for that matter Phobos or Deimos? (Which incidentally give access to Mars surface if you really want to.)
I mean, the surface pressure of Mars is 0.6% of an earth atmosphere. By any normal standards it's really practically a vacuum; the living accomodations need to be basically the same as a space vehicle. There's nothing known to be special about Mars, no energy sources (although you can certainly take nuclear power with you), and it's difficult to trade stuff with Earth or other places because of its moderately high gravity. So people there are likely to be fairly poor in the very long term IMHO. It seems a very expensive place to live.
But I'm personally not opposed to it, it just seems to be a purely emotional thing about it being nearby.
I mean, as an example, if I stuff drugs into your hand on the street- are you possessing? I would say not, you're only holding it. On the other hand if you look at it, and carefully put it into your pocket, then you possess it; or if you just paid for it, holding it in your hand is enough to possess it. I would argue that holding it in the cache is like holding it in your hand.
If it's something you take, then accidentally seeing something on the web doesn't imply possession.
On the other hand, deliberately seeing something means that you are clearly taking it to your computer.
It's a subtle difference, but it seems to me important here.
Here, particularly, it seems to me that he took possession of many files, he was clearly deliberately possessing them.
Thusfar, the shuttle's launch record is slightly better than Soyuz's, but they're mostly comparable.
Actually, the death rate for Shuttle is about 0.21, which is worse. It's not statistically significant though, and the confidence limits on Soyuz are bigger.
They had always seated three, but there were concerns about the safety of the emergency chute with three people on board
That and they couldn't wear spacesuits with 3, which is why those 3 cosmonauts died, right? That's why they grew the later versions so they could deal with depressurisation without everyone croaking.
I fail to understand how you could call a craft that keeps having failures, even if it hasn't killed many *cosmonauts* (although it's killed dozens of others in recorded deaths, and possibly hundreds), as "hardened"
Because they can have major failures, and the safeties will usually mean they survive. The Shuttle has no major failure redundancy at all- if the SRBs fail- dead. If the vehicle loses attitude control during reentry- dead. Soyuz has had the equivalents of both these failures and pulled through. It's just more robust; by no means perfect, by no means, but probably a little safer overall. Not more reliable, less if anything, but still, I think, safer.
Still, if Soyuz has a weak point, it's the landing- those landing rockets are rather unreliable, even dangerous. Somebody is going to die eventually. I don't have a good feel for the death rate due to that though; maybe 1%.
Once again, may I remind you: no personal insults, or the conversation ends.
It's more fuel efficient, but conventional wings weigh about 12%. The fuel is about 10%. The cleverest idea I've heard is adding gyrocopter or helicopter blades; they only weigh about 1% or so of landing weight.
That's not right, certainly it's wrong for the leading edge tiles, those are behind an opaque plasma; you can *see* it lapping past the windows on the Columbia tapes.
It's vaguely possible that the flaky ceramic tiles might be in a transparent plasma, because they are subject to rather lower temperatures, but I'd be rather surprised; I've seen pictures of reentry taken from the ground and it certainly doesn't look like it to me.
Nah, you've just got the 10c tour from those link, the $10 tour I took involved reading the previously classified paper by the guy who invent bluff body reentry that included the stuff about convective heating, boundary layers etc. I can't imagine that they'd want to explain that stuff to school kids; so they simplify. Trouble is, you're assume that that's all there is to it; wrong!
Dividing deaths by flights is not correct, you need to adjust for how many were on each flight; and this makes a big difference for Soyuz, the earlier, less reliable model only seated 2. The newer one seats three; and has killed no cosmonauts.
As of June 2003 Soyuz was running:
Soyuz/T/TM/TMA: cosmonauts launched to date: 213, deaths 4
That's a death rate per launched cosmonaut of 0.019; just under 2%.
And they've launched several times since then, with no deaths.
Read and weep moron; now stop playing your stupid games and piss off.
"I certainly wouldn't want my children to do it, as a parent. But I also realize that there are quite literally tons of people who if you presented them with the option of a shuttle flight and told them up front there was a 5% chance they wouldn't be coming back, they'd do it."
I took this to be a discussion in the death rate of crew per launch of launch vehicles. You also seem to take it as a question about how many ground staff died decades ago, and for some bizarro reason you seem to think that deaths surrounding unmanned launches count towards manned ones! What an ass you are Rei!
And you still haven't condemned Peenemunde. The people that supervised on that, also worked on Apollo! Thousands dead related to a manned launch (by your own assinine, moronic specious sophistic logic)!
In a battle of wits, you are unarmed. Rei, you are ever trying to change the question, trying to pretend the question is other than it is, or the answer was always different to what was given, desperately hoping nobody will notice. Are you are too set in your ugly-hearted troll ways to even bother to read what I wrote about this? The question is very clear. The answer is also clear: get the fuck out of here.
I accuse you of utter callousness towards the people at Peenemunde; they died building suborbital vehicles! You never once said how unnecessary their deaths were, thousands died! We were clearly talking about safety, and you don't care about them... you're a real bitch you know that? You're a dirty, ugly, nasty bitch for not mentioning them. I just vomitted. Thousands dead, and you express your evil nature by not mentioning them in that way; you're saying they're nothing.
A similar failure of the Shuttle could kill hundreds
No, it could not.
Oh well if you say so, the recent report I read that analysed the distribution of people on a typical launch day, and recommended reductions in access was wrong was it? Hey, here's an idea, why don't you read stuff before posting? It's dangerous I know, you might actually learn something. Fragments from an explosion can fly for miles in fact. These people are in range.
That's rather sickening, to be honest.
Yes, the contents of your brain are. I never said, meant, or even thought that.
You did.
So you sicken yourself; and then attempt to blame others.
Thanks for the suggestion. It means so much more coming from an expert like yourself. I mean everyone else in the literature who has looked at the problem thinks that radiation is a more or less negligable effect, but presumably you will publish your groundbreaking research proving them all wrong soon? Can't wait to read it!
By the way, tiles are not nearly as brittle as you pretend.
Oh well, I take it all back, the tiles have been a complete success then. And you can fly through rain, and you can't damage it with your fingernail at all. And they are extremely cheap. Isn't that wonderful?
Shuttle tiles are still the best thermal radiators in existence. The reason is that they use a ceramic which is a good radiator on its own, and have it be made of fine threads in a very porous style so that it has a huge surface area.
That's not how they work.
You can't lose significant heat by radiation during reentry- you're surrounded by plasma at ridiculous temperatures, to lose heat you would have to be as hot or hotter than that. Bad, bad idea, you're trying not to get hot!
No. Here's tiles 1.0.1. The ceramic shuttle tiles have high temperature resistance, but very low heat capacity. When they are at red heat because of the low heat capacity you can pick them with your bare fingers (provided you hold it by the corners!) because there's little energy there and so your fingers can conduct the heat away without burning; your fingers cool the ceramic down rather than it heating your fingers up. They also have reasonably low thermal conductivity which helps. The idea is that the tiles get hot, but not as hot as the plasma, and the vehicle conducts the small amount of heat away. So they don't radiate, they just don't absorb much.
All very clever, but it's been a disaster, the tiles are too flipping fragile (they would be destroyed flying through rain), they get damaged on every flight, and they are outrageously expensive to replace. Some tiles can take a week to replace because you have to work from the back of the wing forwards, removing all the tiles, fix the tile and then put them all back again.
Slashdot Mirror
Other companies have avoided this fate so far by not promoting themselves on that basis.
This decision doesn't change that, in fact I'm not sure they've really said anything that wasn't blindingly obvious in the first place. Which may mean that Grokster is going to be let off the hook in the lower court; but we shall see if Grokster has made any faux-pas.
However, the chess technology in Hydra is 8 years newer in other respects, and so Hydra is able to look about 8 moves further ahead (albeit with slightly less accuracy, but it turns out it's a pretty big win anyway). So Hydra would be expected to comfortably beat Deep Blue, should they ever meet, which is unlikely in fact (although Deep Blue still exists, IBM are hardly likely to boot it up just to lose).
More, we are human, the definitive tool user on Earth. There's no shame in that.
Hero: "We need to go down to the surface!"
Girl: "Oh yeah, go down..."
Made me laugh at the time.
You can produce oxygen from the water via electrolysis, and use that to react with the methane to produce carbon dioxide, which you can then separate into carbon and oxygen.
Now, iron oxide is actually distillable out from rock at a 1000 odd centigrade temperature, and with the carbon and some more of the oxygen you can smelt. You need to spin the smelter.
Once you have iron you can turn it into steel.
Alternatively once you have the carbon you can form it into electrodes to use it to electrolyse aluminum. Aluminum is potentially more useful since the strength/weight ratio is better, and it's easier to work. It's also useful to use it hammered flat to make solar ovens.
Once you have the raw materials, it gets easier to claw yourself up to better materials. Different tempers (tempering is cheap and easy with solar ovens BTW) you can cut tools in the softer untempered state, then temper them up.
Many of the steps like electrolysis need reasonably obscene amounts of energy though, and although the solar energy is cheap, the equipment to turn it into electric power isn't. So there are difficulties; it works best if you're planning on staying for a while.
But there's nothing there we don't know how to do.
And if you just toss the rubble over the side of the asteroid, it comes back 1/2 an orbit later due to orbital mechanics. That's quite a few months or even years. And it comes back at the same speed that you launched it at, so you don't want to launch it too fast.
No, I think you can. Make it like a spiral. A spiral has outward acceleration at all points. There's probably other ways to do it too.
You can't brace your heavy equipment against the ground for stability and leverage.
Why not? Just stick a bunch of crampons into the rock. What's the big deal?
Your rubble doesn't settle into neat piles near your work area, for easy disposal or use in some other project.
Stick it in a bag. Again, big deal. Bags are reusable, and lightweight in large sizes (cube/square law).
machinery that must first be manufactured on Earth, and then lifted into space.
Nah. Just lift a milling machine, and smelt your own raw materials up there.
Or a moon of Jupiter? Or for that matter Phobos or Deimos? (Which incidentally give access to Mars surface if you really want to.)
I mean, the surface pressure of Mars is 0.6% of an earth atmosphere. By any normal standards it's really practically a vacuum; the living accomodations need to be basically the same as a space vehicle. There's nothing known to be special about Mars, no energy sources (although you can certainly take nuclear power with you), and it's difficult to trade stuff with Earth or other places because of its moderately high gravity. So people there are likely to be fairly poor in the very long term IMHO. It seems a very expensive place to live.
But I'm personally not opposed to it, it just seems to be a purely emotional thing about it being nearby.
If it's something you take, then accidentally seeing something on the web doesn't imply possession.
On the other hand, deliberately seeing something means that you are clearly taking it to your computer.
It's a subtle difference, but it seems to me important here.
Here, particularly, it seems to me that he took possession of many files, he was clearly deliberately possessing them.
Looks like it goes right through Canada, quite a bit of America, and China(?)
You suspicious people!
There's not a great deal of difference with launch rate (even before the Shuttle was grounded).
2.1%... or 0.021
Actually, the death rate for Shuttle is about 0.21, which is worse. It's not statistically significant though, and the confidence limits on Soyuz are bigger.
That and they couldn't wear spacesuits with 3, which is why those 3 cosmonauts died, right? That's why they grew the later versions so they could deal with depressurisation without everyone croaking.
I fail to understand how you could call a craft that keeps having failures, even if it hasn't killed many *cosmonauts* (although it's killed dozens of others in recorded deaths, and possibly hundreds), as "hardened"
Because they can have major failures, and the safeties will usually mean they survive. The Shuttle has no major failure redundancy at all- if the SRBs fail- dead. If the vehicle loses attitude control during reentry- dead. Soyuz has had the equivalents of both these failures and pulled through. It's just more robust; by no means perfect, by no means, but probably a little safer overall. Not more reliable, less if anything, but still, I think, safer.
Still, if Soyuz has a weak point, it's the landing- those landing rockets are rather unreliable, even dangerous. Somebody is going to die eventually. I don't have a good feel for the death rate due to that though; maybe 1%.
Once again, may I remind you: no personal insults, or the conversation ends.
Fuck you then!
It's more fuel efficient, but conventional wings weigh about 12%. The fuel is about 10%. The cleverest idea I've heard is adding gyrocopter or helicopter blades; they only weigh about 1% or so of landing weight.
It's vaguely possible that the flaky ceramic tiles might be in a transparent plasma, because they are subject to rather lower temperatures, but I'd be rather surprised; I've seen pictures of reentry taken from the ground and it certainly doesn't look like it to me.
Nah, you've just got the 10c tour from those link, the $10 tour I took involved reading the previously classified paper by the guy who invent bluff body reentry that included the stuff about convective heating, boundary layers etc. I can't imagine that they'd want to explain that stuff to school kids; so they simplify. Trouble is, you're assume that that's all there is to it; wrong!
As of June 2003 Soyuz was running:
Soyuz/T/TM/TMA: cosmonauts launched to date: 213, deaths 4
That's a death rate per launched cosmonaut of 0.019; just under 2%.
And they've launched several times since then, with no deaths.
Read and weep moron; now stop playing your stupid games and piss off.
"I certainly wouldn't want my children to do it, as a parent. But I also realize that there are quite literally tons of people who if you presented them with the option of a shuttle flight and told them up front there was a 5% chance they wouldn't be coming back, they'd do it."
I took this to be a discussion in the death rate of crew per launch of launch vehicles. You also seem to take it as a question about how many ground staff died decades ago, and for some bizarro reason you seem to think that deaths surrounding unmanned launches count towards manned ones! What an ass you are Rei!
And you still haven't condemned Peenemunde. The people that supervised on that, also worked on Apollo! Thousands dead related to a manned launch (by your own assinine, moronic specious sophistic logic)!
In a battle of wits, you are unarmed. Rei, you are ever trying to change the question, trying to pretend the question is other than it is, or the answer was always different to what was given, desperately hoping nobody will notice. Are you are too set in your ugly-hearted troll ways to even bother to read what I wrote about this? The question is very clear. The answer is also clear: get the fuck out of here.
Oh look, more nonsense from the mad troll.
I accuse you of utter callousness towards the people at Peenemunde; they died building suborbital vehicles! You never once said how unnecessary their deaths were, thousands died! We were clearly talking about safety, and you don't care about them... you're a real bitch you know that? You're a dirty, ugly, nasty bitch for not mentioning them. I just vomitted. Thousands dead, and you express your evil nature by not mentioning them in that way; you're saying they're nothing.
No, it could not.
Oh well if you say so, the recent report I read that analysed the distribution of people on a typical launch day, and recommended reductions in access was wrong was it? Hey, here's an idea, why don't you read stuff before posting? It's dangerous I know, you might actually learn something. Fragments from an explosion can fly for miles in fact. These people are in range.
That's rather sickening, to be honest.
Yes, the contents of your brain are. I never said, meant, or even thought that.
You did.
So you sicken yourself; and then attempt to blame others.
Congratulations.
Thanks for the suggestion. It means so much more coming from an expert like yourself. I mean everyone else in the literature who has looked at the problem thinks that radiation is a more or less negligable effect, but presumably you will publish your groundbreaking research proving them all wrong soon? Can't wait to read it!
By the way, tiles are not nearly as brittle as you pretend.
Oh well, I take it all back, the tiles have been a complete success then. And you can fly through rain, and you can't damage it with your fingernail at all. And they are extremely cheap. Isn't that wonderful?
However, it more or less has to be computer controlled descent; the timing is a bit critical.
The description I heard was:
That's not how they work.
You can't lose significant heat by radiation during reentry- you're surrounded by plasma at ridiculous temperatures, to lose heat you would have to be as hot or hotter than that. Bad, bad idea, you're trying not to get hot!
No. Here's tiles 1.0.1. The ceramic shuttle tiles have high temperature resistance, but very low heat capacity. When they are at red heat because of the low heat capacity you can pick them with your bare fingers (provided you hold it by the corners!) because there's little energy there and so your fingers can conduct the heat away without burning; your fingers cool the ceramic down rather than it heating your fingers up. They also have reasonably low thermal conductivity which helps. The idea is that the tiles get hot, but not as hot as the plasma, and the vehicle conducts the small amount of heat away. So they don't radiate, they just don't absorb much.
All very clever, but it's been a disaster, the tiles are too flipping fragile (they would be destroyed flying through rain), they get damaged on every flight, and they are outrageously expensive to replace. Some tiles can take a week to replace because you have to work from the back of the wing forwards, removing all the tiles, fix the tile and then put them all back again.