How do you know how what sort of cooling mechanism is in place or how effective the heat shield will be? Just looking at pictures? For all you know there could be some elaborate fluid cooling system internally distributed, making blunt edges less necessary. Or that heat shield could be more effective than what your extensive calculations and research indicate.
My point is is that you shouldn't be so quick to judge. Or maybe you're just shoehorning some semi-related facts in an insightful-sounding post to raise your karma.
The X-15 was relieved of having to rely on its own propulsion (for the most part) to reach that altitude. The aircraft was carried under the wing of a B-52, then dropped off at 45,000 feet after which the four hydrogen peroxide rocket motors would be ignited.
Ok, I'm sitting outside in a dry wood and need to start the fire. The bow drill is acceptable. But say I'm sitting inside during a storm trying to light a candle, should I run outside and try to make a bow drill out of some soggy sticks? And something like a button-press spark generator would seem to be less troublesome to use than the bow drill.
Haven't seen this one yet. I think there should be a hand-powered fire starter (spark generator basically) for lighting candles when the power's out or lighting camp fire kindling, or whatever else needs a flame. It'd double as a stun-gun I suppose if it could store sufficient power.
This is the first Slashdot story I've read that doesn't have a "Die SCO, linux forever" slant to it. Not that I support SCO or anything (I very much take the majority opinion here, that of SCO being wrong), I just find it interesting to see a mostly objective story on SCO for once.
What I see as the flaw in Microsoft's MDI implementation is the potential for wasted screen space. With Mozilla, all screen space occupied by the Mozilla window is constantly used.
The parent emphasizes the political incorrectness of the name "GIMP" somewhat bluntly, but the point still stands. If GIMP wants to become mainstream it should conform to acceptable naming conventions. Why do all the most popular widespread applications have such tame (and admittedly bland) titles, or at least words that are far from any slang?
I'm not surprised... A lot of attempts at emotional art done by techies are often cliche and ludricrously melodramatic, bordering on the silly. Look at the demo scene and their so called "poetry." Most of it is shit, made by people who think poetic meaning is derived from loosely (or not at all) connected words.
P.S. This ties in with the whole "what is art?" debate, which I don't feel like getting into...
But a high speed missile with a large warhead can be made more cheaply. This could serve as a basis, but scale it up and substitute either a ton of hobbyist rocket engines or create your own solid-fueled rocket engine, and you've got something more effective and cheaper (I'd think).
I'm not sure how easy it'd be to use this demilitarized, declassified F/A-18 for weapons use. The aircraft in its current state has kamikaze potential like any other, but employment of any actual modern air platform weapons would be almost impossible. No weapons fire-control software, possibly no radar, no weapons pylons (required to handle the complex mechanical and electrical linkages with weaponry, subject to great stress).
It might be possible to jury-rig some sort of home-made pylon (at great expense) for carrying dumb bombs (simple ones that do not require any type of software control, yes even "dumb" bombs have a small amount of computerized control), but then again you could do that with any aircraft. Any aircraft can be used to drop something (crop dusters, 172's, MD-500's etc.).
Of course where the F/A-18 fundamentally differs from civilian aircraft is its performance (any civilian sport aircraft could out-turn it though), but even that is of scattered use. Maneuvering performance is only useful in air to air combat, and it would be impractical for this aircraft to be converted for usage with air to air weaponry by yourself, unless you have connections with very skilled weaponry engineers and a lot of time and money. Then again, if you have those connections and funds, you could probably buy a real military aircraft from Russia and not need this F/A-18 in the first place.
Now its performance would of course increase its kamikaze potential, but due to its size, this aircraft would probably not be much more effective in that respect than a regional or business jet. And there are plenty of those around already.
Instead of the original G4's 4-stage or G4+ chip's 7-stage integer pipeline, the PowerPC 970 follows the superpipelined approach of the 20-stage Pentium 4 with a 16-stage integer pipeline -- 21 stages for floating-point instructions, as many as 25 stages for single-instruction-multiple-data (SIMD) multimedia instructions.
Look! IBM's perpetuating the MHz myth!
Guys, there's more to CPU architecture than what Apple's advertising department claims (or at least used to claim). I don't think anyone would doubt the PPC970/G5's superiority to the G4 performance-price wise (or has Apple somehow made a terrible mistake? ha), and yet it has a far longer pipeline than the G4. Perhaps there is more to pipeline size than trying to achieve a higher clock in exchange for less computation per cycle?
Or perhaps the only "megahertz myth" are Apple's vast simplifications of modern CPU technology?
I'd consider the article flamebait because of the baiting way in which it is written. A more mature way to describe the purpose of this software might be "a tool for migrating from Linux to FreeBSD", leaving out the controversial "upgrade" part. The author could have written the description in a neutral (in my opinion at least) tone, but decided on an inflammatory one.
Did you specify the weight of the aircraft and weight of the fuel to be impossibly low numbers in order for your design to work? And use an incredibly low SFC not derived from any real engine specification? Since said values aren't calculated by X-Plane based on any structural information, they're just typed in in Plane Maker.
Which is where Plane Maker fails as a complete aircraft design tool. It can simulate linear aerodynamics, but not the troubles of developing various types of "unobtanium" necessary for light weight or creating efficient hypersonic engines that don't need an inordinate amount of fuel. Many of the specifications created for an aircraft in Plane Maker aren't derived from anything, they're just arbitrary values entered by the user.
I guess it is just a bit of wishful thinking and selective reading on the submitters part
If the submitter's hypothesis was accurate, I wonder what his main point would be. Music theft increases sales? Kind of like how logging builds up forests? All right, not a great analogy since software theft (in this case), involves no material loss, unlike logging.
Or would stealing music then be justified? By downloading mp3s instead of purchasing the CD's, I'm somehow increasing the album's sales. If all of us download illegal mp3s, then by progression, the CD's sales should increase infinitely!
Slashdot Mirror
How do you know how what sort of cooling mechanism is in place or how effective the heat shield will be? Just looking at pictures? For all you know there could be some elaborate fluid cooling system internally distributed, making blunt edges less necessary. Or that heat shield could be more effective than what your extensive calculations and research indicate.
My point is is that you shouldn't be so quick to judge. Or maybe you're just shoehorning some semi-related facts in an insightful-sounding post to raise your karma.
(btw I am an aeronautical engineering major)
The X-15 was relieved of having to rely on its own propulsion (for the most part) to reach that altitude. The aircraft was carried under the wing of a B-52, then dropped off at 45,000 feet after which the four hydrogen peroxide rocket motors would be ignited.
Clearly Matrix inspired.
Ok, I'm sitting outside in a dry wood and need to start the fire. The bow drill is acceptable. But say I'm sitting inside during a storm trying to light a candle, should I run outside and try to make a bow drill out of some soggy sticks? And something like a button-press spark generator would seem to be less troublesome to use than the bow drill.
Flint and matches are not reusable. Also, in my experience using flint and steel is tedious and leads to cuts on hands.
Well, I was thinking of something a bit more inexpensive. And something that didn't consume fuel (hand-powered, in fact).
Haven't seen this one yet. I think there should be a hand-powered fire starter (spark generator basically) for lighting candles when the power's out or lighting camp fire kindling, or whatever else needs a flame. It'd double as a stun-gun I suppose if it could store sufficient power.
I feel obligated to reply to this story.
This is the first Slashdot story I've read that doesn't have a "Die SCO, linux forever" slant to it. Not that I support SCO or anything (I very much take the majority opinion here, that of SCO being wrong), I just find it interesting to see a mostly objective story on SCO for once.
Perhaps additional torque (and in effect angular momentum) could be imparted by thrusters on the sky station?
What I see as the flaw in Microsoft's MDI implementation is the potential for wasted screen space. With Mozilla, all screen space occupied by the Mozilla window is constantly used.
The parent emphasizes the political incorrectness of the name "GIMP" somewhat bluntly, but the point still stands. If GIMP wants to become mainstream it should conform to acceptable naming conventions. Why do all the most popular widespread applications have such tame (and admittedly bland) titles, or at least words that are far from any slang?
I'm not surprised... A lot of attempts at emotional art done by techies are often cliche and ludricrously melodramatic, bordering on the silly. Look at the demo scene and their so called "poetry." Most of it is shit, made by people who think poetic meaning is derived from loosely (or not at all) connected words.
P.S. This ties in with the whole "what is art?" debate, which I don't feel like getting into...
As an XP user of 4 years, I have never noticed this...
Think he means Usenet...
But a high speed missile with a large warhead can be made more cheaply. This could serve as a basis, but scale it up and substitute either a ton of hobbyist rocket engines or create your own solid-fueled rocket engine, and you've got something more effective and cheaper (I'd think).
I'm not sure how easy it'd be to use this demilitarized, declassified F/A-18 for weapons use. The aircraft in its current state has kamikaze potential like any other, but employment of any actual modern air platform weapons would be almost impossible. No weapons fire-control software, possibly no radar, no weapons pylons (required to handle the complex mechanical and electrical linkages with weaponry, subject to great stress).
It might be possible to jury-rig some sort of home-made pylon (at great expense) for carrying dumb bombs (simple ones that do not require any type of software control, yes even "dumb" bombs have a small amount of computerized control), but then again you could do that with any aircraft. Any aircraft can be used to drop something (crop dusters, 172's, MD-500's etc.).
Of course where the F/A-18 fundamentally differs from civilian aircraft is its performance (any civilian sport aircraft could out-turn it though), but even that is of scattered use. Maneuvering performance is only useful in air to air combat, and it would be impractical for this aircraft to be converted for usage with air to air weaponry by yourself, unless you have connections with very skilled weaponry engineers and a lot of time and money. Then again, if you have those connections and funds, you could probably buy a real military aircraft from Russia and not need this F/A-18 in the first place.
Now its performance would of course increase its kamikaze potential, but due to its size, this aircraft would probably not be much more effective in that respect than a regional or business jet. And there are plenty of those around already.
Look! IBM's perpetuating the MHz myth!
Guys, there's more to CPU architecture than what Apple's advertising department claims (or at least used to claim). I don't think anyone would doubt the PPC970/G5's superiority to the G4 performance-price wise (or has Apple somehow made a terrible mistake? ha), and yet it has a far longer pipeline than the G4. Perhaps there is more to pipeline size than trying to achieve a higher clock in exchange for less computation per cycle?
Or perhaps the only "megahertz myth" are Apple's vast simplifications of modern CPU technology?
They're pretty darn expensive. ~$110 for 30GB.
I'm particularly thankful for them because they make my laptop with a dead hard drive usable.
Indeed, the editor who approved this story and decided to keep the title is really fucking stuipd.
Where the hell did you find a Karma for $199? The cheapest I've found it is at Circuit City for $267, usually I see it selling for $300.
I'd consider the article flamebait because of the baiting way in which it is written. A more mature way to describe the purpose of this software might be "a tool for migrating from Linux to FreeBSD", leaving out the controversial "upgrade" part. The author could have written the description in a neutral (in my opinion at least) tone, but decided on an inflammatory one.
Did you specify the weight of the aircraft and weight of the fuel to be impossibly low numbers in order for your design to work? And use an incredibly low SFC not derived from any real engine specification? Since said values aren't calculated by X-Plane based on any structural information, they're just typed in in Plane Maker.
Which is where Plane Maker fails as a complete aircraft design tool. It can simulate linear aerodynamics, but not the troubles of developing various types of "unobtanium" necessary for light weight or creating efficient hypersonic engines that don't need an inordinate amount of fuel. Many of the specifications created for an aircraft in Plane Maker aren't derived from anything, they're just arbitrary values entered by the user.
I guess it is just a bit of wishful thinking and selective reading on the submitters part
If the submitter's hypothesis was accurate, I wonder what his main point would be. Music theft increases sales? Kind of like how logging builds up forests? All right, not a great analogy since software theft (in this case), involves no material loss, unlike logging.
Or would stealing music then be justified? By downloading mp3s instead of purchasing the CD's, I'm somehow increasing the album's sales. If all of us download illegal mp3s, then by progression, the CD's sales should increase infinitely!