Life support and equipment cooling was entirely in the ascent stage. Other than that, the entire descent stage was self-sufficient. It had its own batteries, fuel, and so on. The only interconnections between the ascent and descent stages were electrical. When staging occurred a set of explosive bolts were detonated for physical separation and a set of explosive-driven guillotines severed the electrical connections, leaving the ascent stage disconnected from but sitting on top of the ascent stage. Then the APS fired and pushed the ascent stage away.
Anything that wasn't needed during or after the ascent was left behind in the descent stage. They did this to save weight. During the descent and lunar stay, the LM consumed resources from the descent stage. After that, the ascent stage was on its own.
The descent engine and ascent engine were entirely separate, since the entire descent stage of the LM was discarded on the moon for return. There were no interconnections between the two. That does not mean they couldn't have burned the DPS to exhaustion, staged, and then burned the APS for as long as required.
In any event, the shuttle cannot carry enough fuel to make the orbit change required in this instance simply because the tanks aren't big enough. You can't put 500 gallons of gas in a tank that only holds 300. This is not a simple matter of flying in a line from point A to point B. Go download Orbiter and educate yourself.
You don't. They came to this conclusion by having a team of researchers go over reports of past incidents. Multiple reports from multiple sources at multiple events saying the same things can be considered valid proof for things that we aren't willing or able to test directly.
Was there ever a real need to screw with the ATC other than giving airlines more control of the system so they can adjust things to maximize their profits?
Out here in the real world, I've tried getting Open Source more involved in our day to day operations, but I keep losing badly because of the user interfaces and lack of other user-facing niceties. Free alone was not sufficient for my user-facing deployments to survive. The servers are one thing, but I would like to ditch Outlook and Office. I lost OpenOffice because the management did not want to retrain and the interface was too different and "lacked polish", and then lost Evolution because it was "ugly" and did not work like Outlook. Since I had to run Outlook and Office I lost my Linux terminal server. It was replaced with desktops running XP. Now I am losing Postfix because it doesn't work with Outlook calendars and doesn't have a global address book. The users want Exchange like "everyone else has". That means a Windows Server deployment. I have Open Source here, and it's gradually losing out because it can't compete on features. Free alone is not doing the job.
I believe it is right and proper for a sysadmin to hate the users. This has been the order of things since the time of the dinosaurs, and the way it should be. We can't all be the BOFH, but we can all try.
(Besides, if I didn't hate the users, what excuse would I have for keeping a bat under my desk to threaten the users with?)
... and went right back to Outlook and Exchange when the owner and sales team complained that they didn't understand how to work Evolution, how the interface looked like it came from 1998, and how their calendars didn't work like Outlook calendars.
That's what I meant. Every design has flaws, but Chernobyl wasn't so flawed that it would have spontaneously blown up with no provocation. If the operators had not initiated the incident, it would not have happened. The anti-nuclear lobby and their friends in the press would have you believe that all nuclear plants are an armed thermonuclear weapon simply waiting for the chance to explode and kill millions, and that is absolutely false. Even the demonized RBMK design would not have blown up without people doing what the designers told them not to do or not doing what the designers told them they had to do.
OK, so only minor modification was needed to make them safe then? That still doesn't mean the design is a ticking time bomb that will kill us all like the media wants us to believe.
Then why are there RBMK reactors identical to Chernobyl which still operate even today? If they were as inherently dangerous as everyone is told to believe, they would have all blown up by now. Yet Chernobyl remains the only incident.
But Chernobyl DIDN'T scram. They pushed the button for it, but when they did, the reactor was too far gone. The rod channels had warped, and the rods didn't go all the way in - only their graphite tips.
If they hadn't overheated it to the point of warping the rod channels, the rods would have gone all the way in and the reactor would have scrammed successfully.
Otherwise, even with the heavy rewriting of the manual, the design would still be unsafe, and they wouldn't still be operating today.
In both cases (Chernobyl and TMI) procedure was violated or nonexistent for what the operators were trying to do. In Chernobyl's case, operational procedure was violated in several instances to conduct a test for which no procedure existed. In TMIs case, procedure was violated in tagging out pumps leading to a problem in which there was no procedure for diagnosis.
Neither plant would have been "inherently" unsafe or dangerous if operated within their design envelopes under established procedure. Once the humans violated procedure, their actions made their equipment unsafe.
If you let a remote javascript app write directly to your databases without the server doing some sort of checking on things, then you are an idiot and deserve what you get.
I believe that marriage is primarily a religious ceremony and should not be under the jurisdiction of any government, state or local. There should be no laws for or against any marriage. As for the legal side-effects of a marriage, shared ownership of property and so on, those should be obtainable by simply filing paperwork, with or without a marriage. The government should not be involved.
Recently in California, a law was passed causing the state to have more jurisdiction over marriage, and forcing it to recognize gay marriages. This lasted for several months before a vote was taken causing the state to use its new jurisdiction to forbid and annul gay marriages. Now the state has jurisdiction, a prohibition is in place, and it will be a hundred times harder to repeal the prohibition than it was to get the original law passed in the first place. Those who fought to pass the law have successfully shot themselves in the foot.
This is how net neutrality will die. Right now, with this administration, we stand a chance of causing the federal government to take jurisdiction over internet carriers and enforce net neutrality. This sounds all well and good, but once they have that jurisdiction, the situation can change, and that power can be turned against us by prohibiting neutrality. Forcing carriers to block access to "objectionable" material, or something like that.
I'm more scared about giving the government jurisdiction over the internet. Just look at what happened with gay marriage rights in California. As soon as they gave the government power over it, the power was turned against them. As soon as we acknowledge the government has jurisdiction over internet usage it's going to be used against us. It's just a matter of time.
For every user that buys a Vista license and then downgrades, MS gets to claim that as a Vista sale. The higher sales numbers serve as marketing copy. It's artificially inflating their sales.
Function calls are not free. Especially in kernel space. Everything costs time. You need to do the most you can with the least instructions. 100 lines of inline code will probably run faster than a function call.
How are we supposed to determine whether or not someone can be issued a reproduction license without a national DNA database to determine the suitability of their genes? I mean, we can't allow just anyone to have children, right?
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't work in wine?
Life support and equipment cooling was entirely in the ascent stage. Other than that, the entire descent stage was self-sufficient. It had its own batteries, fuel, and so on. The only interconnections between the ascent and descent stages were electrical. When staging occurred a set of explosive bolts were detonated for physical separation and a set of explosive-driven guillotines severed the electrical connections, leaving the ascent stage disconnected from but sitting on top of the ascent stage. Then the APS fired and pushed the ascent stage away.
Anything that wasn't needed during or after the ascent was left behind in the descent stage. They did this to save weight. During the descent and lunar stay, the LM consumed resources from the descent stage. After that, the ascent stage was on its own.
The descent engine and ascent engine were entirely separate, since the entire descent stage of the LM was discarded on the moon for return. There were no interconnections between the two. That does not mean they couldn't have burned the DPS to exhaustion, staged, and then burned the APS for as long as required.
In any event, the shuttle cannot carry enough fuel to make the orbit change required in this instance simply because the tanks aren't big enough. You can't put 500 gallons of gas in a tank that only holds 300. This is not a simple matter of flying in a line from point A to point B. Go download Orbiter and educate yourself.
You don't. They came to this conclusion by having a team of researchers go over reports of past incidents. Multiple reports from multiple sources at multiple events saying the same things can be considered valid proof for things that we aren't willing or able to test directly.
Was there ever a real need to screw with the ATC other than giving airlines more control of the system so they can adjust things to maximize their profits?
And they're missing the Sacred Artifact, which is an XL1201 of course...
So THAT'S where all that bandwidth was going!
I could forgive him if it was porn, but THIS...
So now my DBA can be EVEN MORE disconnected from reality?
Out here in the real world, I've tried getting Open Source more involved in our day to day operations, but I keep losing badly because of the user interfaces and lack of other user-facing niceties. Free alone was not sufficient for my user-facing deployments to survive. The servers are one thing, but I would like to ditch Outlook and Office. I lost OpenOffice because the management did not want to retrain and the interface was too different and "lacked polish", and then lost Evolution because it was "ugly" and did not work like Outlook. Since I had to run Outlook and Office I lost my Linux terminal server. It was replaced with desktops running XP. Now I am losing Postfix because it doesn't work with Outlook calendars and doesn't have a global address book. The users want Exchange like "everyone else has". That means a Windows Server deployment. I have Open Source here, and it's gradually losing out because it can't compete on features. Free alone is not doing the job.
I believe it is right and proper for a sysadmin to hate the users. This has been the order of things since the time of the dinosaurs, and the way it should be. We can't all be the BOFH, but we can all try.
(Besides, if I didn't hate the users, what excuse would I have for keeping a bat under my desk to threaten the users with?)
... and went right back to Outlook and Exchange when the owner and sales team complained that they didn't understand how to work Evolution, how the interface looked like it came from 1998, and how their calendars didn't work like Outlook calendars.
If you are running a business, ASCAP will bill you for ANY performance, whether or not you are playing free music.
That's a few years old. IIRC it was a modified half-life engine game. I remember seeing screenshots from it.
That's what I meant. Every design has flaws, but Chernobyl wasn't so flawed that it would have spontaneously blown up with no provocation. If the operators had not initiated the incident, it would not have happened. The anti-nuclear lobby and their friends in the press would have you believe that all nuclear plants are an armed thermonuclear weapon simply waiting for the chance to explode and kill millions, and that is absolutely false. Even the demonized RBMK design would not have blown up without people doing what the designers told them not to do or not doing what the designers told them they had to do.
OK, so only minor modification was needed to make them safe then? That still doesn't mean the design is a ticking time bomb that will kill us all like the media wants us to believe.
Then why are there RBMK reactors identical to Chernobyl which still operate even today? If they were as inherently dangerous as everyone is told to believe, they would have all blown up by now. Yet Chernobyl remains the only incident.
But Chernobyl DIDN'T scram.
They pushed the button for it, but when they did, the reactor was too far gone. The rod channels had warped, and the rods didn't go all the way in - only their graphite tips.
If they hadn't overheated it to the point of warping the rod channels, the rods would have gone all the way in and the reactor would have scrammed successfully.
Otherwise, even with the heavy rewriting of the manual, the design would still be unsafe, and they wouldn't still be operating today.
In both cases (Chernobyl and TMI) procedure was violated or nonexistent for what the operators were trying to do. In Chernobyl's case, operational procedure was violated in several instances to conduct a test for which no procedure existed. In TMIs case, procedure was violated in tagging out pumps leading to a problem in which there was no procedure for diagnosis.
Neither plant would have been "inherently" unsafe or dangerous if operated within their design envelopes under established procedure. Once the humans violated procedure, their actions made their equipment unsafe.
If you let a remote javascript app write directly to your databases without the server doing some sort of checking on things, then you are an idiot and deserve what you get.
I believe that marriage is primarily a religious ceremony and should not be under the jurisdiction of any government, state or local. There should be no laws for or against any marriage. As for the legal side-effects of a marriage, shared ownership of property and so on, those should be obtainable by simply filing paperwork, with or without a marriage. The government should not be involved. Recently in California, a law was passed causing the state to have more jurisdiction over marriage, and forcing it to recognize gay marriages. This lasted for several months before a vote was taken causing the state to use its new jurisdiction to forbid and annul gay marriages. Now the state has jurisdiction, a prohibition is in place, and it will be a hundred times harder to repeal the prohibition than it was to get the original law passed in the first place. Those who fought to pass the law have successfully shot themselves in the foot. This is how net neutrality will die. Right now, with this administration, we stand a chance of causing the federal government to take jurisdiction over internet carriers and enforce net neutrality. This sounds all well and good, but once they have that jurisdiction, the situation can change, and that power can be turned against us by prohibiting neutrality. Forcing carriers to block access to "objectionable" material, or something like that.
I'm more scared about giving the government jurisdiction over the internet. Just look at what happened with gay marriage rights in California. As soon as they gave the government power over it, the power was turned against them. As soon as we acknowledge the government has jurisdiction over internet usage it's going to be used against us. It's just a matter of time.
Touhou in three posts.
For every user that buys a Vista license and then downgrades, MS gets to claim that as a Vista sale. The higher sales numbers serve as marketing copy. It's artificially inflating their sales.
Function calls are not free. Especially in kernel space. Everything costs time. You need to do the most you can with the least instructions. 100 lines of inline code will probably run faster than a function call.
How are we supposed to determine whether or not someone can be issued a reproduction license without a national DNA database to determine the suitability of their genes? I mean, we can't allow just anyone to have children, right?