In terms of distance, that's true. But in terms of what matters i.e. 'delta-v' (i.e. how fast you need to go to get somewhere), the moons surface is far closer to Mars than the earths surface, by a factor of about 2.
No, you've missed the point- I'm not talking about what happens when you click- I'm talking about the Gifs and jpegs that there are on each page- these are held on the ad server unlike the content, and rest assured they DO track you via these URLs; you do NOT have to click just visiting a web page is sufficient.
You might want to consider taking off your tinfoil hat and reading a book or two.
Not a bad idea, there's no URLs in a book; so theres no way they can track you, provided you don't get it from a library... and you pay cash;-).
So, the bottom line is it's ok for you to try to block adds, as long as you can recognize that when your favourite site closes you are part of the reason. And when a site is doing find and provides you of great pleasure or insight, you are not helping and are freeriding everyone elses "hard work".
I don't agree. You have to wonder for starters why it's so easy to block these ads.
It's partly/mainly because the ads redirect you to another site. Is this necessary? No.
Also, why are they redirecting you to another site? It's because they want to track you across the web. I DON'T want to be tracked across the web. I call that spying; I find that deeply unethical, far less ethical than me turning off the advertisements.
I mean what you going to do? Visiting a website should not invalidate my need for privacy just because some idiot thinks they I owe them a living off stealing my privacy. This is every bit as evil, and far more insidious than spam- this is a real 1984 scenario happening in our lives.
Making money on the web should come from selling stuff. Not stealing my privacy. And no I don't care if the websites go broke. I don't owe them a living, just because they think I do. This is the real issue.
Fine, if they want to turn the site off unless I agree to spying- in that case, I ain't going to that site, and I recommend you don't either.
I don't believe that to be correct. A jet can run for far long periods of time, as it doesn't carry an oxidiser with it.
Most so-called jet-packs are actually rocket packs, and they have to carry extra oxidiser (or a monopropellent such as hydrogen peroxide) and this greatly limits their life.
This means that the burn time is measured in tens of seconds.
However, a jet uses the atmosphere for the oxidiser; and hence has a much longer life; if you bothered to check the link, he's designing for a 20 minute burn time.
Jet packs (as in a jet, in a pack; rather than a rocket, in a pack) are rather more impressive; but so far as I know that has never been achieved yet, but there's someone trying...
No, no. 'Eating your own dog food' is a phrase used by Balmer to describe situations where you use your own products in house wherever possible. I think some of the Visual C range of products apparently did that pretty successfully; they used Visual C as soon as it worked at all, to help them develop Visual C further. That's classic eating your own dog food.
It means you end up using the product in much the same way that the customer does, so it often helps debugging and adding features that weren't in the original spec.
The phrase doesn't at all mean the product is only good for dogs (although bearing in mind the source of the phrase, the product may not be terribly good remember Windows 95?;-) )
Yeah, well John Carmack knocked up the rocket that crashed in a couple of months. Boeing have been working on theirs for maybe 5 years. And Johns rocket nearly worked, and I'm expecting Johns next rocket to work fully, although Delta IV's will go a bit higher I rather suspect.
Well, the Shuttle is booked for ISS, but the military hate using it anyway ever since the Challenger fiasco. If a Delta fails then their black projects don't get held up for years on end.
Also, they can't buy services elsewhere (the Russians have comparable or larger vehicles, for maybe 1/10 the cost), but a lot of these space programs, pretty much, are job creation programs for American citizens so they try to keep the tax dollars in America (quite apart from any security issues).
Actually, surprisingly, yes it could send a few tonnes to Mars. It turns out that the 'delta-v' to get to Mars is only slightly more than the delta-v to get to Geostationary orbit; so the payload would be a bit less that launched today, but it could make it; although you'd probably need to modify the guidance system.
First stage should be swimming anyway; they ditch in mid-atlantic. If it's not- that's bad- it means it hit the mainland, it could have taken out Disneyland or something. So you've got it backwards in fact but I knew what you meant;-)
I think the VTOL with CarterCopter is safer than you seem to think. And they are still developing the system and its flight controls, so there is much scope to deskill this operation if it proves tricky.
In a Cartercopter doing vertical take off, you intentionally and always lose power immediately after takeoff.
Nonsense; you're adding airspeed and increasing lift all the time.
In any case you do NOT have to do VTOL in a CarterCopter, unlike a helicopter. And its horizontal takeoff and landing is better and safer than normal fixed wing takeoffs, and it uses hardly any runway at all; heck it can land on the taxi ways.
Not quite. This bird is a combination aeroplane/autogyro. Normal autogyros have a top speed of 110 mph or so, this one has already gone 180 mph, and they think it can do 450 mph; and certainly they're looking like they can easily beat the fastest helicopters at 250 mph.
Although it is marginally better in STOL because there is no "dead man's zone."
Not marginally, its a lot better. It's an aircraft with a 30mph takeoff speed, lands in pretty much its own rotor, and can takeoff in not much more. There's no dead zone that you can't avoid, and it has a maximum speed far higher than a helicopter. These are not exactly bad things.
But even going back to the VTO aspect, what happens when a helicopter loses power on takeoff anyway? You're often screwed right? If you do VTO in a Cartercopter it's if anything safer. And landing. Compare this to a glider for example. Who says you change your mind? What kind of idiot changes their mind 3 seconds before landing?
Autorotating in a helicopter is not a major incident except when you have to do so abruptly at low altitude or low speed.
So you're saying aurototation is simple except when it isn't. Great.
There's no reason that autorotation in a CarterCopter would be any "easier" than in a regular helicopter
Well Cartercopter is a gyrocopter, so it's always autorotating. At low speeds/altitudes CarterCopter gyro is up to speed, so there's no drama at all- in stark contrast to a helicopter. At high speeds you are flying on the stuby wings and the rotor is slowed right down, but you can make sure you are at high altitude, so you've got plenty of time to spin up the rotor. Flown sensibly there's no necessity to ever be in a dead-zone.
Unlikely. However there's always cartercopters which has demonstrated speeds of 180 mph and should have a top speed of about 450 mph, lands on a dime and can easily autorotate down if the power goes out (unlike a helicopter, where it is a major incident). Significantly it looks much safer than a helicopter, and outperforms helicopters (except a CarterCopter basically lacks hover, since it has an unpowered rotor, but for transportation, who cares?).
That's the nearest thing to a flying car I know of right now- unlike the other systems, this one seems to have fewer drawbacks.
It's not quite as simple as that though. Cycling often means having to carry multiple clothes and showering at the far end, so you need towels, soap, shampoo etc. It can easily add 15-30 minutes to a commute of a few miles. A segway needs, at most, rain gear; although its top speed is not as fast it's probably still a win.
Actually it's because 10% is usually reserved for 'root' so that when a user fills the disk up enough to see an "out of disk space" message, the system can still write to logs and the administrator still has some room to do general maintance to keep the machine running.
That's historically not the reason in fact, although the spare space is used for this reason.
You can't really make a generalization like that about "UNIX filesystems," because there are so many different types that behave differently.
Only in detail. Every single filesystem I've seen detailed benchmarks for (XFS, FAT32, ReiserFS, ext3, ext2) degrade sharply above the 85% usage point, the exact point varies by a few percent, but in general this occurs.
Anyway, if you don't believe me; no skin off my nose, go ahead max out your disk usage- I don't care if you're filesystem grinds to a halt.
SCSI is a more robust bus with better error detection.
Errors are common on IDE? Not as far as I know.
It also has a well thought out and more reliable electrical specification, allows multiple initiators, and can be used for hot swap.
Sure, for a RAID server it's probably ideal. For a desktop? Why?
Rule of thumb, unless you don't care about performance or added reliability isn't worth the price to you, use SCSI.
No; that's nonsense. There is no significant difference in peak throughput, reliability or latency between IDE and SCSI; both throughput and reliability are dominated by the performance and reliability of the physical harddrive. The bits simply come off the disk at a certain rate determined by the spin, and that's a rate well below the capacity of ATA133.
BTW, if you're seeing a significant performance increase from keeping your drive mostly empty, you're using the wrong file system.
Oh definitely; but I try to keep my disks mostly full, and not nearly full. The fragmentation increases even under UNIX as the partition fills; although it deals with it far better than say FAT32, there's still a hit. Ever wondered why most UNIX filesystems can be 109% full? It's because in that last 10% performance is dropping off very markedly; and in fact above 85% full things are starting to really crawl. But the dropoff starts earlier than that.
When we're dealing with a monopoly, the rules are different.
Did you ever stop to think about that statement. Really think about it?
I have. Large monopolies like Microsoft scare the shit out of me. If they don't you, then you don't understand what Microsoft can do right now.
Ever wonder how fscked the world would be if that attitude were applied universally?
It's not an attitude. It's a fact, a law; and law is supposed to be applied universally. There are specific rules that deal with monopolies. And they are there for good reason. Some markets are natural monopolies, but it is wrong to allow monopolistic practices to spread to non monopoly markets; the consumer and the businesses in those markets, and all their employees always suffer. To the extent that the laws succeed in that goal- they are good law.
The reason why these faster drives are not sold as IDE is simple. Anyone who is willing to pay $1000 for a ~80GB harddrive is also willing to pay $75 for a decent controller card (if it's not already built into their workstation).
Yeah, but only while they are expensive.
When you think about it, you shouldn't need more than 20GB for your system, apps, and maybe a few games.
Where do you get off telling everyone what to think? Seriously? My system has 80 gig right now, partly because it's a multiboot and I like keeping my disks 30-50% empty because it improves performance.
As far as the slower IDE drive, just spend your money on more RAM for the system and increase the cache.
Beyond a certain point adding RAM doesn't help much, caches only increase in speed marginally for a doubling of the cache size. Adding faster disks helps basically all of the slowest OS tasks go much faster.
And don't rely on the CPU intensive built-in IDE controller on most Intel/AMD motherboards...buy a decent controller card instead.
Yeah right CPU intensive makes a big difference in these days of 3 Ghz processors. Processors are getting faster MUCH faster than drives- the overhead is dropping by a factor of nearly 2 each year.
And if you really want to get ~15000RPM with IDE technology, just get an IDE RAID controller and use striping...using this method you can actually get to much higher theoretical speeds than a single 15000RPM drive. with 4 7200RPM drives you could get up to a theoretical speed of 28800RPM!!!
No. 15000 rpm gives half the latency of any number of 7200 RPM. Latency usually is the bottleneck, not throughput. RAID improves throughput, not latency.
Rule of thumb, unless you have lots of disks on one processor- SCSI is a waste of time and money.
Well, until you have any redundancy money in your hand it pays to be a bit circumspect; particular with Nortel as they give good redundancy packages, well above the legal minimum in many cases.
Ironically, Nortel don't give out references anymore- they say 'X worked for us from year A to year B' and that's it. No salary details, no character references.
Slashdot Mirror
In terms of distance, that's true. But in terms of what matters i.e. 'delta-v' (i.e. how fast you need to go to get somewhere), the moons surface is far closer to Mars than the earths surface, by a factor of about 2.
You might want to consider taking off your tinfoil hat and reading a book or two.
Not a bad idea, there's no URLs in a book; so theres no way they can track you, provided you don't get it from a library... and you pay cash ;-).
I don't agree. You have to wonder for starters why it's so easy to block these ads.
It's partly/mainly because the ads redirect you to another site. Is this necessary? No.
Also, why are they redirecting you to another site? It's because they want to track you across the web. I DON'T want to be tracked across the web. I call that spying; I find that deeply unethical, far less ethical than me turning off the advertisements.
I mean what you going to do? Visiting a website should not invalidate my need for privacy just because some idiot thinks they I owe them a living off stealing my privacy. This is every bit as evil, and far more insidious than spam- this is a real 1984 scenario happening in our lives.
Making money on the web should come from selling stuff. Not stealing my privacy. And no I don't care if the websites go broke. I don't owe them a living, just because they think I do. This is the real issue.
Fine, if they want to turn the site off unless I agree to spying- in that case, I ain't going to that site, and I recommend you don't either.
Most so-called jet-packs are actually rocket packs, and they have to carry extra oxidiser (or a monopropellent such as hydrogen peroxide) and this greatly limits their life.
This means that the burn time is measured in tens of seconds.
However, a jet uses the atmosphere for the oxidiser; and hence has a much longer life; if you bothered to check the link, he's designing for a 20 minute burn time.
Check it out Andreas Project.
Now, that's a hobby!
It means you end up using the product in much the same way that the customer does, so it often helps debugging and adding features that weren't in the original spec.
The phrase doesn't at all mean the product is only good for dogs (although bearing in mind the source of the phrase, the product may not be terribly good remember Windows 95? ;-) )
Yeah, well John Carmack knocked up the rocket that crashed in a couple of months. Boeing have been working on theirs for maybe 5 years. And Johns rocket nearly worked, and I'm expecting Johns next rocket to work fully, although Delta IV's will go a bit higher I rather suspect.
Also, they can't buy services elsewhere (the Russians have comparable or larger vehicles, for maybe 1/10 the cost), but a lot of these space programs, pretty much, are job creation programs for American citizens so they try to keep the tax dollars in America (quite apart from any security issues).
There's a list of 'delta-v's here.
First stage should be swimming anyway; they ditch in mid-atlantic. If it's not- that's bad- it means it hit the mainland, it could have taken out Disneyland or something. So you've got it backwards in fact but I knew what you meant ;-)
Testing an engine on the ground is called 'ground testing'.
On the website, once it returns, check out the previous videos if you want to see that.
It doesn't really matter what OS you use if the powersupply lead shakes off at takeoff ;-(
In a Cartercopter doing vertical take off, you intentionally and always lose power immediately after takeoff.
Nonsense; you're adding airspeed and increasing lift all the time.
In any case you do NOT have to do VTOL in a CarterCopter, unlike a helicopter. And its horizontal takeoff and landing is better and safer than normal fixed wing takeoffs, and it uses hardly any runway at all; heck it can land on the taxi ways.
The idiot who is about to run into something.
No aircraft can help someone like that.
Not marginally, its a lot better. It's an aircraft with a 30mph takeoff speed, lands in pretty much its own rotor, and can takeoff in not much more. There's no dead zone that you can't avoid, and it has a maximum speed far higher than a helicopter. These are not exactly bad things.
But even going back to the VTO aspect, what happens when a helicopter loses power on takeoff anyway? You're often screwed right? If you do VTO in a Cartercopter it's if anything safer. And landing. Compare this to a glider for example. Who says you change your mind? What kind of idiot changes their mind 3 seconds before landing?
So you're saying aurototation is simple except when it isn't. Great.
There's no reason that autorotation in a CarterCopter would be any "easier" than in a regular helicopter
Well Cartercopter is a gyrocopter, so it's always autorotating. At low speeds/altitudes CarterCopter gyro is up to speed, so there's no drama at all- in stark contrast to a helicopter. At high speeds you are flying on the stuby wings and the rotor is slowed right down, but you can make sure you are at high altitude, so you've got plenty of time to spin up the rotor. Flown sensibly there's no necessity to ever be in a dead-zone.
That's the nearest thing to a flying car I know of right now- unlike the other systems, this one seems to have fewer drawbacks.
Depends on how hilly it is.
It's not quite as simple as that though. Cycling often means having to carry multiple clothes and showering at the far end, so you need towels, soap, shampoo etc. It can easily add 15-30 minutes to a commute of a few miles. A segway needs, at most, rain gear; although its top speed is not as fast it's probably still a win.
That's historically not the reason in fact, although the spare space is used for this reason.
You can't really make a generalization like that about "UNIX filesystems," because there are so many different types that behave differently.
Only in detail. Every single filesystem I've seen detailed benchmarks for (XFS, FAT32, ReiserFS, ext3, ext2) degrade sharply above the 85% usage point, the exact point varies by a few percent, but in general this occurs.
Anyway, if you don't believe me; no skin off my nose, go ahead max out your disk usage- I don't care if you're filesystem grinds to a halt.
Sure, for a RAID server it's probably ideal. For a desktop? Why?
Rule of thumb, unless you don't care about performance or added reliability isn't worth the price to you, use SCSI.
No; that's nonsense. There is no significant difference in peak throughput, reliability or latency between IDE and SCSI; both throughput and reliability are dominated by the performance and reliability of the physical harddrive. The bits simply come off the disk at a certain rate determined by the spin, and that's a rate well below the capacity of ATA133.
BTW, if you're seeing a significant performance increase from keeping your drive mostly empty, you're using the wrong file system.
Oh definitely; but I try to keep my disks mostly full, and not nearly full. The fragmentation increases even under UNIX as the partition fills; although it deals with it far better than say FAT32, there's still a hit. Ever wondered why most UNIX filesystems can be 109% full? It's because in that last 10% performance is dropping off very markedly; and in fact above 85% full things are starting to really crawl. But the dropoff starts earlier than that.
Did you ever stop to think about that statement. Really think about it?
I have. Large monopolies like Microsoft scare the shit out of me. If they don't you, then you don't understand what Microsoft can do right now.
Ever wonder how fscked the world would be if that attitude were applied universally?
It's not an attitude. It's a fact, a law; and law is supposed to be applied universally. There are specific rules that deal with monopolies. And they are there for good reason. Some markets are natural monopolies, but it is wrong to allow monopolistic practices to spread to non monopoly markets; the consumer and the businesses in those markets, and all their employees always suffer. To the extent that the laws succeed in that goal- they are good law.
Yeah, but only while they are expensive.
When you think about it, you shouldn't need more than 20GB for your system, apps, and maybe a few games.
Where do you get off telling everyone what to think? Seriously? My system has 80 gig right now, partly because it's a multiboot and I like keeping my disks 30-50% empty because it improves performance.
As far as the slower IDE drive, just spend your money on more RAM for the system and increase the cache.
Beyond a certain point adding RAM doesn't help much, caches only increase in speed marginally for a doubling of the cache size. Adding faster disks helps basically all of the slowest OS tasks go much faster.
And don't rely on the CPU intensive built-in IDE controller on most Intel/AMD motherboards...buy a decent controller card instead.
Yeah right CPU intensive makes a big difference in these days of 3 Ghz processors. Processors are getting faster MUCH faster than drives- the overhead is dropping by a factor of nearly 2 each year.
And if you really want to get ~15000RPM with IDE technology, just get an IDE RAID controller and use striping...using this method you can actually get to much higher theoretical speeds than a single 15000RPM drive. with 4 7200RPM drives you could get up to a theoretical speed of 28800RPM!!!
No. 15000 rpm gives half the latency of any number of 7200 RPM. Latency usually is the bottleneck, not throughput. RAID improves throughput, not latency.
Rule of thumb, unless you have lots of disks on one processor- SCSI is a waste of time and money.
Ironically, Nortel don't give out references anymore- they say 'X worked for us from year A to year B' and that's it. No salary details, no character references.
I'd hold out for unfair compensation if the boss sounds desparate. Contractors rates times desperation factor sounds about right.