This would require there to be the same attribute being the deciding factor for all competitors. If you take cricket bats for example they are fixed width but there is a huge variation in weight. Heavier bats hit are but slow your ability to react and hence mean you have to plan shots earlier. Lighter bats mean you have to swing harder but have far more scope to start your shots later or change angle mid shot.
When it comes to cycling the gearing will be tuned to the particular rider. Watch a cycling competition and you will see riders travelling at the same speed with very different foot speed. This is particularly noticeable on the mountain stages, are you a low force high rpm rider or a high force low rpm rider.
From the OP 'Our userbase is constantly expanding' so product is obviously not dying. Then he says "these users expect modern conveniences like intuitive UI and documented processes". Well do they? Or does the software do exactly what these new customers want it to do? This sounds an awful lot like "I don't like the UI and I want to change it".
Documented processes is one thing. Get your documentation up to scratch.
But sure as fuck don't mess with a long term UI because you think it should look modern. In business the first thing is does it work and does it work well. The next thing is why am I wasting time learning a new way to do an old trick?
There is a reason I run linux mint and not Ubuntu or Windows 8 / 10. They fucked up the UI.
Absolutely agree. The difference here is that these machines wont have a market for them if the process doesn't work where as surface machinery has a reliable second hand market. I'm not saying it is technically impossible, or that it won't happen in the future but the risk profile is crazy and the chances of it succeeding financially are close to zero.
I'm not so sure. I suspect that mineral extraction from sea water would come before mining the sea bed. While the concentration of gold in sea water is ridiculously low, it is still present and could be collected as a by product of desalination. The tech doesn't exist for that to be economically viable in the current market but it probably compares well against sea bed mining.
I wonder if it would end up being localised. Rough calculations based on their resource claims sees them having to bring thousands of tonnes of ore to the surface (each machine is worth about 60,000 tonne of gold ore). I wouldn't be surprised if the silt plumes were 100s of kms long as once the dredgers collect the ore it needs to be raised to the surface dropping silt the whole way.
Actually I think environmental regulation will probably stamp on this real hard. If they start creating the kind of silt plumes I envisage this would (they need to bring hundreds of thousands of tonnes of material to the surface) this will be affecting surrounding nations. Australia would get especially pissy if the silt was hitting the great barrier reef for example, and I doubt Indonesia would sit idly by while their fishing grounds are annihilated.
Even if that was the case for gold they would have to move a huge amount of ore. Fire Creek in the US is the highest grade gold mine in the world, by a huge margin, at 44gm per tonne. Even if that was at 10 times that amount they would have to shift huge tonnage of material to make it economic. One dredger is $30 million, assuming no maintenance or running cost they are going to have to bring 60,000 tonnes of ore to the surface just to cover the cost of the machine....
Not even slightly. Have a look at the production cost of the pilbara mines in NW Australia. Those mines have existing port infrastructure and rail infrastructure allowing them to export to China and Japan. PNG would have to compete against the Australian cost base and it stands zero chance of doing that with existing tech. Doing it with this tech is completely impossible.
This has to compete against mines on land operating with excellent infrastructure and somehow do it for less money.
I'm sorry but it just isn't going to happen any time soon. Olympic Dam in South Australia has absolutely massive gold, copper and uranium deposits but the economics of that mine couldn't be made to stack up in the current market. There is no way that untested, experimental mining in an incredibly hostile environment stands a chance.
A manpad or stinger / variation of is only effective when a jet is operating at low altitude. These are known to be in the hands of various forces in the middle east and I would assume in the hands of an ISIS group. They are completely ineffective against strike aircraft above 20,000ft which is where these craft are going to be operating.
Until the enemy have something like an S-125 or a BUC system there is realistic missile risk. Also lessons were learned after a NATO jet was downed in Serbia in the 90s and entry and exit points are moved around to ensure no traps can be setup. So again it doesn't matter that the enemy knows that the jets take off out of the UAE, you don't know how far they have diverted before approaching the target.
Why? It's not like ISIS has any capability to shoot down the fighters and the planes are well known to be stationed in the UAE. They aren't going to run into opposition on the way to target. We're not talking a fight between equals here.
The French have the capability to bomb any target in the region at will and there is nothing ISIS can do to stop them. All ISIS can hope for is to obscure or harden their assets enough to with stand the bombs. Or to have so many low value assets that a bomb costs more than what it destroys.
Oh definitely. But all the reports indicate 10 French aircraft were involved. Given they have 12 stationed in the UAE and those were the planes that were active in that theatre already it would be highly unlikely for it to be any CdG craft.
Makes for really long mission times, reduces payload and puts way more strain on the planes and the pilots. I doubt that it is worth it at this time as they are not supporting ground troops or intercepting things that will cause them damage.
It's not there yet. Once the CdG is there then yes they will be able to increase sorties. The CdG carries 21 strike air craft but the biggest difference is the mission time is halved compared to the bases in the UAE.
It's a lot more of a commitment then show the flag. And redeploying advanced fighters doesn't happen over night. When you consider that the entire French airforce has about 156 suitable strike aircraft in its fleet you see deploying 12 or nearly 10% is a big commitment. They have also announced prior to the latest attack that they were deploying their aircraft carrier to the region.
There are other considerations as well. You can only fly so many sorties per day at a sustainable level over a longer term so all targets need to be prioritised against each other. RIght now the French authorities are going to be absolutely pissed so they are likely operating at the short term sprint level. Without getting additional equipment to the area and additional people to the area the step up in attacks will likely be unsustainable.
According to http://www.theguardian.com/wor... they have 12 strike aircraft currently in the area. Depending on the mission time they MIGHT be able to run 3 sorties per day with pilot swapping but the aircraft will need to be grounded for maintenance after a couple of days of that level of use.
Yeah I read that. And I'm sure they can slow the probes enough for sensors to survive impact without too much problem. At 60km above surface lunar orbital speed is only about 1600m/s so slowing the probes to survive impact would be easy.
My question was more would they get more useful information on ground composition if they accelerate the probes into the surface and analyse the dust plumes instead of having the sensors on the probes.
I'm sure I read somewhere a while back about them smacking craft into the moon and then analysing the debris clouds that were cast up. Would this not work better, allowing you to get data from significantly deeper? As I would have thought sensors on the probes would be unlikely to survive strong impacts.
On a side note wtf has happened to Slashdot that there is only 1 on topic comment on this story?
In addition to this I would highly recommend against buying your vehicle if you plan to do long term commercial work with it. You end up with a capital asset which is not tax deductible except for the depreciation schedule, which is often not that accurate. Also once they reach a certain mileage and age you will start to see problems that can put your business at risk. You are much better operating on a lease and turning the vehicle over regularly.
I'd expect at that cost it is a full cost car lease including fuel and servicing. If that is the case it isn't that expensive.
I have a full cost lease, which covers finance, fuel, insurance, servicing, registration, tyres etc and it costs $483.15 for fortnight on a $50,000 car budgeted at 27,000 km per year.
Who and how? Millions take the easy path so they install ubuntu, or maybe mint. So NONE of them are running as root. The closest that they will get to root is sudo. And if they are someone who is operating outside of the repos they are already moving into the realm of "not that easy" and they have to type the root password to give it permission to install.
Christ if I am working on a server that I don't get a toss about and I'm working in root 99% of the software spits up a warning saying "we really really really don't recommend you run this as root"
Slashdot Mirror
This would require there to be the same attribute being the deciding factor for all competitors. If you take cricket bats for example they are fixed width but there is a huge variation in weight. Heavier bats hit are but slow your ability to react and hence mean you have to plan shots earlier. Lighter bats mean you have to swing harder but have far more scope to start your shots later or change angle mid shot.
When it comes to cycling the gearing will be tuned to the particular rider. Watch a cycling competition and you will see riders travelling at the same speed with very different foot speed. This is particularly noticeable on the mountain stages, are you a low force high rpm rider or a high force low rpm rider.
From the OP 'Our userbase is constantly expanding' so product is obviously not dying. Then he says "these users expect modern conveniences like intuitive UI and documented processes". Well do they? Or does the software do exactly what these new customers want it to do? This sounds an awful lot like "I don't like the UI and I want to change it".
Documented processes is one thing. Get your documentation up to scratch.
But sure as fuck don't mess with a long term UI because you think it should look modern. In business the first thing is does it work and does it work well. The next thing is why am I wasting time learning a new way to do an old trick?
There is a reason I run linux mint and not Ubuntu or Windows 8 / 10. They fucked up the UI.
I'd probably have an issue with you destroying my property.
Absolutely agree. The difference here is that these machines wont have a market for them if the process doesn't work where as surface machinery has a reliable second hand market. I'm not saying it is technically impossible, or that it won't happen in the future but the risk profile is crazy and the chances of it succeeding financially are close to zero.
That is of gold not ore. The highest grade mine in the world is 44g per tonne of ore. 871,000g of gold = 19795 tonnes of ore.
I'm not so sure. I suspect that mineral extraction from sea water would come before mining the sea bed. While the concentration of gold in sea water is ridiculously low, it is still present and could be collected as a by product of desalination. The tech doesn't exist for that to be economically viable in the current market but it probably compares well against sea bed mining.
I wonder if it would end up being localised. Rough calculations based on their resource claims sees them having to bring thousands of tonnes of ore to the surface (each machine is worth about 60,000 tonne of gold ore). I wouldn't be surprised if the silt plumes were 100s of kms long as once the dredgers collect the ore it needs to be raised to the surface dropping silt the whole way.
Actually I think environmental regulation will probably stamp on this real hard. If they start creating the kind of silt plumes I envisage this would (they need to bring hundreds of thousands of tonnes of material to the surface) this will be affecting surrounding nations. Australia would get especially pissy if the silt was hitting the great barrier reef for example, and I doubt Indonesia would sit idly by while their fishing grounds are annihilated.
Even if that was the case for gold they would have to move a huge amount of ore. Fire Creek in the US is the highest grade gold mine in the world, by a huge margin, at 44gm per tonne. Even if that was at 10 times that amount they would have to shift huge tonnage of material to make it economic. One dredger is $30 million, assuming no maintenance or running cost they are going to have to bring 60,000 tonnes of ore to the surface just to cover the cost of the machine....
Uh-huh. Gold is useful BECAUSE it isn't reactive. It is highly ductile, doesn't corrode quickly and it conducts electricity well.
Not even slightly. Have a look at the production cost of the pilbara mines in NW Australia. Those mines have existing port infrastructure and rail infrastructure allowing them to export to China and Japan. PNG would have to compete against the Australian cost base and it stands zero chance of doing that with existing tech. Doing it with this tech is completely impossible.
This has to compete against mines on land operating with excellent infrastructure and somehow do it for less money.
I'm sorry but it just isn't going to happen any time soon. Olympic Dam in South Australia has absolutely massive gold, copper and uranium deposits but the economics of that mine couldn't be made to stack up in the current market. There is no way that untested, experimental mining in an incredibly hostile environment stands a chance.
A manpad or stinger / variation of is only effective when a jet is operating at low altitude. These are known to be in the hands of various forces in the middle east and I would assume in the hands of an ISIS group. They are completely ineffective against strike aircraft above 20,000ft which is where these craft are going to be operating.
Until the enemy have something like an S-125 or a BUC system there is realistic missile risk. Also lessons were learned after a NATO jet was downed in Serbia in the 90s and entry and exit points are moved around to ensure no traps can be setup. So again it doesn't matter that the enemy knows that the jets take off out of the UAE, you don't know how far they have diverted before approaching the target.
Why? It's not like ISIS has any capability to shoot down the fighters and the planes are well known to be stationed in the UAE. They aren't going to run into opposition on the way to target. We're not talking a fight between equals here.
The French have the capability to bomb any target in the region at will and there is nothing ISIS can do to stop them. All ISIS can hope for is to obscure or harden their assets enough to with stand the bombs. Or to have so many low value assets that a bomb costs more than what it destroys.
Oh definitely. But all the reports indicate 10 French aircraft were involved. Given they have 12 stationed in the UAE and those were the planes that were active in that theatre already it would be highly unlikely for it to be any CdG craft.
Makes for really long mission times, reduces payload and puts way more strain on the planes and the pilots. I doubt that it is worth it at this time as they are not supporting ground troops or intercepting things that will cause them damage.
It's not there yet. Once the CdG is there then yes they will be able to increase sorties. The CdG carries 21 strike air craft but the biggest difference is the mission time is halved compared to the bases in the UAE.
It's a lot more of a commitment then show the flag. And redeploying advanced fighters doesn't happen over night. When you consider that the entire French airforce has about 156 suitable strike aircraft in its fleet you see deploying 12 or nearly 10% is a big commitment. They have also announced prior to the latest attack that they were deploying their aircraft carrier to the region.
There are other considerations as well. You can only fly so many sorties per day at a sustainable level over a longer term so all targets need to be prioritised against each other. RIght now the French authorities are going to be absolutely pissed so they are likely operating at the short term sprint level. Without getting additional equipment to the area and additional people to the area the step up in attacks will likely be unsustainable.
According to http://www.theguardian.com/wor... they have 12 strike aircraft currently in the area. Depending on the mission time they MIGHT be able to run 3 sorties per day with pilot swapping but the aircraft will need to be grounded for maintenance after a couple of days of that level of use.
Yeah I read that. And I'm sure they can slow the probes enough for sensors to survive impact without too much problem. At 60km above surface lunar orbital speed is only about 1600m/s so slowing the probes to survive impact would be easy.
My question was more would they get more useful information on ground composition if they accelerate the probes into the surface and analyse the dust plumes instead of having the sensors on the probes.
I'm sure I read somewhere a while back about them smacking craft into the moon and then analysing the debris clouds that were cast up. Would this not work better, allowing you to get data from significantly deeper? As I would have thought sensors on the probes would be unlikely to survive strong impacts.
On a side note wtf has happened to Slashdot that there is only 1 on topic comment on this story?
In addition to this I would highly recommend against buying your vehicle if you plan to do long term commercial work with it. You end up with a capital asset which is not tax deductible except for the depreciation schedule, which is often not that accurate. Also once they reach a certain mileage and age you will start to see problems that can put your business at risk. You are much better operating on a lease and turning the vehicle over regularly.
In * you pay taxi company to drive for it. Where * is every country in the world.
I'd expect at that cost it is a full cost car lease including fuel and servicing. If that is the case it isn't that expensive.
I have a full cost lease, which covers finance, fuel, insurance, servicing, registration, tyres etc and it costs $483.15 for fortnight on a $50,000 car budgeted at 27,000 km per year.
Who and how? Millions take the easy path so they install ubuntu, or maybe mint. So NONE of them are running as root. The closest that they will get to root is sudo. And if they are someone who is operating outside of the repos they are already moving into the realm of "not that easy" and they have to type the root password to give it permission to install.
Christ if I am working on a server that I don't get a toss about and I'm working in root 99% of the software spits up a warning saying "we really really really don't recommend you run this as root"