The ability to stick this electronic device into that pocket gives you a many to one relationship and will remove any market demand for integrated devices. In fact they are a disfeature[1].
[1] Is that a real word? Go on, pedants you know you want to look it up for me.
As has been pointed out, disfeature is a real world, but "I do not think it means what you think it means."
The word you want is probably misfeature: "...the term implies that the feature in question was carefully planned, but its long-term consequences were not accurately or adequately predicted..."
If Galileo is the spark that lights up the gas giant Jupiter, turning it into a second sun, that will be the last straw. We will then have no choice but to make safety the number one priority at NASA.
We'd also have to put aside all thoughts of a mission to Europa.
Still argue that a Shuttle-based HLV makes good sense.
Sounds like the Magnum launch vehicle proposed in the Mars Design Reference Mission 3.0. It would use the shuttle's Solid Rocket Boosters, and be of a similar size to the STS stack (orbiter, external tank, SRBs), so it could make use of the existing shuttle launch facilities.
The proposed Magnum vehicle would be able to launch roughly 3 times the mass the shuttle can handle.
Unfortunately, it seems work on the idea died with what was left of NASA's manned Mars mission program.
What were Apollo 2 thru 6? Or did they just skip fromn 1 to 7, and if so, was that the origin of so many computer software versions jumping to 7.x just to artificially make them appear more mature?
I knew I should have looked that up. Here goes:
Apollo 4 - First unmanned test of the full Apollo system (although the Lunar Module was a mockup)
Apollo 5 - Unmanned, tested the Lunar Module
Apollo 6 - Intended to simulate Command Module reentry at the speed it would have been travelling at on return from the Moon. Unmanned for obvious reasons. Numerous engine problems meant that it failed to achieve the required speeds.
As for Apollos 2 and 3, they didn't exist. Before the missions that tested the operations of the actual Apollo spacecraft, there were a series of missions for testing the Saturn V launch stack and the reentry heat shield, designated AS-201, AS-202, AS-203, and AS-204. AS-204 was intended to be the first manned Apollo mission, and was the one Ed White, Gus Grissom, and Roger Chaffee were preparing for when the disastrous fire happened.
After the fire, AS-204 was renamed Apollo 1 as a retroactive memorial. Then it gets a little weird. The NASA Project Designation Committee decided that the first full Apollo test mission would be named Apollo 4, and that the remaining 3 AS-20x missions would not be renamed. Why they did this seems to be a bit of a mystery.
Thus, the lack of an Apollo 2 or Apollo 3 can be blamed on a committee. It seems somehow appropriate.
And just to add some symmetry on the other end, there were 3 missions that were to be Apollos 18-20. These were cancelled to free up Saturn V launchers for Skylab, and funds for...wait for it...the space shuttle.
Only one of the Saturn V's set aside for Skylab was actually used. The other two are on display, one each at Johnson Space Center, and Kennedy Space Center (the specifics of which pieces of what rockets are where is a bit complicated, and not terribly interesting). A full-scale test version is on display at the Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama, but it was not built to actually fly.
It's almost as funny as when General Motors executives couldn't understand why the Chevy Nova was not selling in South America. Then some bright boy realized that 'No Va' is spanish for 'it doesn't go - it doesn't work'.
Hubble Altitude = 370 statute miles
Space Station Altitude = 240 statute miles
Difference = Waaaaay too much.
Altitude is not a problem. The problem is orbit inclination. Shuttles simply don't have the fuel on board to shift inclination from Hubble's orbit to ISS's orbit.
Others have pointed out why you wouldn't want to even if the shuttle was capable of doing so.
Hubble is 375 miles up; ISS is 240-ish. Wouldn't getting from Hubble to ISS just be a controlled reduction in orbital speed to dropped the altitude?
No.
Hubble and ISS have very different orbital inclinations (28.5 degrees for Hubble, 51.6 for ISS). Changing orbital inclination to this degree requires more fuel than an orbiting shuttle can carry. This has been discussed repeatedly on post-Columbia disaster articles.
How is my quote misleading? I quoted the exact same paragraph you did.
Your indentation implies that the second section is not dependent on the first, when it is.
The real question is are you aware of anyone in Texas being sanctioned for calling themselves a Software Engineer without being a PE?
The statute states that first offenses are dealt with by a cease and desist notice, not sanctions. Cease and desist notices do not appear to make it into the TBPE sanctions report.
And since your nick is Captain Nitpick:
You said, "If you weren't P.E. certified, you couldn't legally call yourself an engineer in Texas. No exceptions."
As I said in the comment you were replying to: "Why do you think I have that sig? It's because everybody screws up occasionally."
I'm tired of arguing this, but since you insist on playing, I'm bringing in a pinch hitter.
The Texas Engineering Practice Act, article 3271a of the Revised Civil Statutes, does not allow an in-house employee of a private corporation, though classified internally as an "engineer" or under another engineering title, to use the title of "engineer" on business cards, cover letters, or other forms of correspondence that are made available to the public.
John Cornyn Attorney General of Texas
(emphasis added)
Now, John Cornyn is no longer Texas Attorney General (He got himself into the US Senate), but I doubt the current AG would have a radically different interpretation of this statute.
In the state of Texas, you cannot call yourself an "engineer" in any meaningful manner without PE certification (unless you drive trains). You can insist the company secretary call you an engineer, but you'd better be damned sure she (or he, whatever) doesn't say you're an engineer when a client calls.
Its one more step towards mankind's ultimate dream , bouncy world! Car crash? No problem, you're in bouncy world! Airplane fly into a building? Boing! Ha, Ha, Ha, everybody OK!
It's even funnier if you imagine this being read by the Zombo.com guy.
But then again you could be worng, and look at that, YOU ARE!
Why do you think I have that sig? It's because everybody screws up occasionally. But since you don't want to play nice...(and you misspelled "wrong")
Lets see if we can find the relevant parts:
Section 20. EXEMPTIONS.
(a) The following persons shall be exempt from the licensure provisions of this Act, provided that such persons are not directly or indirectly represented or held out to the public to be legally qualified to engage in the practice of engineering:...SNIP...
(3) a person doing the actual work of installing, operating, repairing, or servicing locomotive or stationary engines, steam boilers, Diesel engines, internal combustion engines, refrigeration compressors and systems, hoisting engines, electrical engines, air conditioning equipment and systems, or mechanical and electrical, electronic or communications equipment and apparatus;....SNIP...
Well, that would seem to apply quite nicely not only to train engineers, but also software and systems engineers.
Your indentation is extremely misleading. Subsubsection (3) only applies if the requirements of subsection (a) are met.
Since the requirements of 20(a) must be met first, let's take a look at it by itself:
(a) The following persons shall be exempt from the licensure provisions of this Act, provided that
such persons are not directly or indirectly represented or held out to the public to be legally qualified to engage in the practice of engineering:
Wow, your options are:
Make sure nobody ever refers to you as an engineer outside the company ever. ("We have a software engineer on staff")
Every time you are referred to as a "software engineer", immediately follow it with "but he isn't legally qualified to practice engineering in the state of Texas." This would apply not only to you, but to everyone else at the company, and probably to your friends and family as well ("indirectly represented").
Call yourself an engineer, but don't do anything resembling "the practice of engineering".
The only way to ensure option 1 is to make sure nobody in the company calls you an engineer, so they won't slip up when talking to people outside the company. This is no different than not calling yourself an engineer at all.
Option 2 is worse than calling yourself something other than a software engineer, and a lot less reliable.
Now, you might say that software engineering doesn't fall under the "practice of engineering" bit.
*ahem*
Section 2. DEFINITIONS. As used in this Act the term:
(4) "Practice of engineering" or "practice of professional engineering" shall mean any service or creative work, either public or private, the adequate performance of which requires engineering education, training or experience in the application of special knowledge or judgment of the mathematical, physical, or engineering sciences to such services or creative work.
To the extent the following services or types of creative work meet this definition, the term includes consultation, investigation, evaluation, analysis, planning, engineering for program management, providing an expert engineering opinion or testimony, engineering for testing or evaluating materials for construction and other engineering uses, and mapping; design, conceptual design, or conceptual design coordination of engineering works and systems; development or optimization of plans and specifications for engineering works and systems; planning the use or alteration of land and water or the design or analysis of works or systems for the use or alteration of land and water; performing engineering surveys and studies; engineering for construction,
And with most people away from town, bad guys could break in to a lot of stores and so on, with little risk of being caught. Or perhaps there could be panic situations with riots where people get robbed, injured or killed when everybody finds out about the earthquake. It's a nice technology, but there are many questions around it that need to be solved.
The questions have been solved. Emergency managers on the US east and gulf coasts (and, I assume, their counterparts in other nations affected by tropical cyclones) have plenty of experience running evacuations without causing the collapse of civilization.
This of course assumes several days notice. If only hours or minutes are available, a tornado siren approach would be more effective.
So, exactly how much training did Einstein have? Wasn't he working as a patent clerk when he came up with some ground-breaking theories?
Einstein was working as a patent clerk because he couldn't find a job teaching Physics or Mathematics, the two areas he had received formal university training in.
What, do you think that while we're colonizing every star in the Universe we're going to stop at just one colony planet per star?
Actually, no. I just didn't have a good estimate on hand for the number of colonies per star. Also, 52 bits leaves enough address space to divide up among a reasonable number of colonies, although as you show, it will still fall down for a Dyson Sphere with a habitable surface.
In other words, once we've fully converted every star in the universe into Dyson spheres, we'll have hundreds of people for every available IP address! You were simply being short-sighted to assume otherwise.;-)
I figured that by the time we conquered the universe, IPv8 would be ready. Perhaps I'm overly optimistic.
Does this mean within the next few eons we may have to transition to a 256 bit IP space or will IPv6 be enough?
In the long-standing tradition of dorks, I'm going to take your joke question seriously and answer it.
If I'm counting zeroes correctly, we've got 7e22 stars to deal with. Base 2 log of 7e22 is 75.8898. Since having fractional bits isn't really feasible, that gets rounded up to 76.
IPv6 uses 128 bit addresses, so subtracting off the 76 bits for specifying the star leaves us with 52 bits to play with. 2^52 gives us 4.5e15 addresses, which is roughly a million times more addresses than IPv4's 32 bits allow.
In short, IPv6 does have a big enough address space to cover the visible universe, as long as you're not trying to assign individual IP addresses to trillions of nanobots.
No. Halon does not work by displacing oxygen. Read practically every post in this thread explaining how Halon actually works.
You know, you're right, I was misinformed. However, halon systems are still dangerous.
It works by breaking the burning cycle. From another poster:
The halogens (bromine and chlorine) in Halon preferentially glom onto free protons without releasing much heat, thus breaking the burning cycle. It only takes a low percentage of Halon to do this.
Nice how you left out the next line:
Of course, the halides that are formed are toxic, so you still want to leave ASAP.
Gaseous HBr and HCl are nasty stuff. I'm standing by my assertation that halon systems are unsuitable for residential usage
You should only install a halon system in your house if you value your property more highly than your family's lives. If you don't have a problem with causing your family to die by suffocation, go for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Rep. Lampson's congressional district includes Johnson Space Center, which would benefit greatly from an expansion of manned spaceflight.
As has been pointed out, disfeature is a real world, but "I do not think it means what you think it means."
The word you want is probably misfeature: "...the term implies that the feature in question was carefully planned, but its long-term consequences were not accurately or adequately predicted..."
Boy howdy, I sure am glad you spelled that one out. Wouldn't want any subtlety around here.
We'd also have to put aside all thoughts of a mission to Europa.
Sounds like the Magnum launch vehicle proposed in the Mars Design Reference Mission 3.0. It would use the shuttle's Solid Rocket Boosters, and be of a similar size to the STS stack (orbiter, external tank, SRBs), so it could make use of the existing shuttle launch facilities.
The proposed Magnum vehicle would be able to launch roughly 3 times the mass the shuttle can handle.
Unfortunately, it seems work on the idea died with what was left of NASA's manned Mars mission program.
I knew I should have looked that up. Here goes:
As for Apollos 2 and 3, they didn't exist. Before the missions that tested the operations of the actual Apollo spacecraft, there were a series of missions for testing the Saturn V launch stack and the reentry heat shield, designated AS-201, AS-202, AS-203, and AS-204. AS-204 was intended to be the first manned Apollo mission, and was the one Ed White, Gus Grissom, and Roger Chaffee were preparing for when the disastrous fire happened.
After the fire, AS-204 was renamed Apollo 1 as a retroactive memorial. Then it gets a little weird. The NASA Project Designation Committee decided that the first full Apollo test mission would be named Apollo 4, and that the remaining 3 AS-20x missions would not be renamed. Why they did this seems to be a bit of a mystery.
Thus, the lack of an Apollo 2 or Apollo 3 can be blamed on a committee. It seems somehow appropriate.
And just to add some symmetry on the other end, there were 3 missions that were to be Apollos 18-20. These were cancelled to free up Saturn V launchers for Skylab, and funds for...wait for it...the space shuttle.
Only one of the Saturn V's set aside for Skylab was actually used. The other two are on display, one each at Johnson Space Center, and Kennedy Space Center (the specifics of which pieces of what rockets are where is a bit complicated, and not terribly interesting). A full-scale test version is on display at the Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama, but it was not built to actually fly.
Just to set things straight:
That point could be argued, but it's also one where the layman's opinion is doubly irrelevant.
Altitude is not a problem. The problem is orbit inclination. Shuttles simply don't have the fuel on board to shift inclination from Hubble's orbit to ISS's orbit.
Others have pointed out why you wouldn't want to even if the shuttle was capable of doing so.
No.
Hubble and ISS have very different orbital inclinations (28.5 degrees for Hubble, 51.6 for ISS). Changing orbital inclination to this degree requires more fuel than an orbiting shuttle can carry. This has been discussed repeatedly on post-Columbia disaster articles.
Your indentation implies that the second section is not dependent on the first, when it is.
The statute states that first offenses are dealt with by a cease and desist notice, not sanctions. Cease and desist notices do not appear to make it into the TBPE sanctions report.
As I said in the comment you were replying to: "Why do you think I have that sig? It's because everybody screws up occasionally."
I'm tired of arguing this, but since you insist on playing, I'm bringing in a pinch hitter.
(emphasis added)
Now, John Cornyn is no longer Texas Attorney General (He got himself into the US Senate), but I doubt the current AG would have a radically different interpretation of this statute.
In the state of Texas, you cannot call yourself an "engineer" in any meaningful manner without PE certification (unless you drive trains). You can insist the company secretary call you an engineer, but you'd better be damned sure she (or he, whatever) doesn't say you're an engineer when a client calls.
It's even funnier if you imagine this being read by the Zombo.com guy.
Yes, but you can be damn sure they know what they're doing.
(I'm kidding. Both about train drivers needing PE certification, and railroad personnel knowing what they're doing.)
Why do you think I have that sig? It's because everybody screws up occasionally. But since you don't want to play nice...(and you misspelled "wrong")
Your indentation is extremely misleading. Subsubsection (3) only applies if the requirements of subsection (a) are met.
Since the requirements of 20(a) must be met first, let's take a look at it by itself:
Wow, your options are:
The only way to ensure option 1 is to make sure nobody in the company calls you an engineer, so they won't slip up when talking to people outside the company. This is no different than not calling yourself an engineer at all.
Option 2 is worse than calling yourself something other than a software engineer, and a lot less reliable.
Now, you might say that software engineering doesn't fall under the "practice of engineering" bit.
*ahem*
If you weren't P.E. certified, you couldn't legally call yourself an engineer in Texas. No exceptions.
iMovie is a video editing program.
iDVD is for assembling existing video and images into a DVD, and making the menus for accessing them.
The only overlap (that I am aware of) is they both have the ability to turn still images into slideshows.
The questions have been solved. Emergency managers on the US east and gulf coasts (and, I assume, their counterparts in other nations affected by tropical cyclones) have plenty of experience running evacuations without causing the collapse of civilization.
This of course assumes several days notice. If only hours or minutes are available, a tornado siren approach would be more effective.
Einstein was working as a patent clerk because he couldn't find a job teaching Physics or Mathematics, the two areas he had received formal university training in.
If our civilization starts facing villains from Voyager, then we've achieved a level of mediocrity that justifies our destruction.
You changed the address by reading it!
Actually, no. I just didn't have a good estimate on hand for the number of colonies per star. Also, 52 bits leaves enough address space to divide up among a reasonable number of colonies, although as you show, it will still fall down for a Dyson Sphere with a habitable surface.
I figured that by the time we conquered the universe, IPv8 would be ready. Perhaps I'm overly optimistic.
In the long-standing tradition of dorks, I'm going to take your joke question seriously and answer it.
If I'm counting zeroes correctly, we've got 7e22 stars to deal with. Base 2 log of 7e22 is 75.8898. Since having fractional bits isn't really feasible, that gets rounded up to 76.
IPv6 uses 128 bit addresses, so subtracting off the 76 bits for specifying the star leaves us with 52 bits to play with. 2^52 gives us 4.5e15 addresses, which is roughly a million times more addresses than IPv4's 32 bits allow.
In short, IPv6 does have a big enough address space to cover the visible universe, as long as you're not trying to assign individual IP addresses to trillions of nanobots.
You know, you're right, I was misinformed. However, halon systems are still dangerous.
Nice how you left out the next line:
Gaseous HBr and HCl are nasty stuff. I'm standing by my assertation that halon systems are unsuitable for residential usage
You should only install a halon system in your house if you value your property more highly than your family's lives. If you don't have a problem with causing your family to die by suffocation, go for it.