Power steering is actually a safety hazard - if you engine fails you will quickly lose the ability to safely steer the vehicle - especially if you are applying the brakes.
Troll much? I suggest you try what you claim for yourself, it's not hard. On a modern slushbox, if you have sufficient speed (40mph should be fine), you can turn the key to I position to kill the engine, and then simply turn back to II position to get the engine going again (without having to use the starter). You can then see how silly your statement is. Power steering is useful at low speeds, or if you puncture a front tire at high speeds. The former situation is an annoying inconvenience, the latter is truly being less safe so I can't agree with you here. Stability under application of brakes is improved by both ABS and stability augmentation, power steering got zilch to do with it. In fact power steering will help you out when you unilaterally lose traction when you don't have ABS. So again, you're less safe without it. Where the heck did you get all your misinformation from, again?
You don't seemingly have a clue how those attributes are assigned to crash classifications. Roadway departure means that what killed them was caused by the car departing the road, it doesn't mean that the car had some characteristics that made it more likely to depart the roadway, or that the people killed even caused the car to depart the road. It often means that the car was pushed off the road by colliding objects, bounced off something, etc. It doesn't mean that someone lost control and veered of the road, not usually. Same goes for alcohol-related crashes. The driver at fault didn't need to have had a single drink in his/her whole life yet the crash can be so classified, and very often *is*.
As far as reliability goes, a decent and well maintained car with 100k miles on it is expected to be no different from a brand new car. Yes, there are some model years and makes that are bad outliers, but overall 100k isn't much these days.
I don't care what the rest of the world thinks the traffic and automobile regulations are in the U.S., I'm only interested in the reality, and obviously you just don't get it. There are legal requirements that must be met by current model year cars that are sold in the U.S., requirements that often have no counterparts elsewhere in the world. Cayenne8 was stating as much. Yeah, things may be different in other parts of the world, but hey, Cayenne8 doesn't want to market Tata in the U.S., the Tata people want that, and he rightly points out that the current version simply is not fit for the market. That's an accurate statement, I don't know what the heck your problem is. Similarly, the statement about traffic in the U.S. and its demand for decent acceleration is similarly true. In other words: you're just silly or don't get it.
BeagleBoard isn't even remotely in the same league as Arduino-style products. BeagleBoard is like a PC. Arduino processor boards are like what you might have in a graphing calculator if you're lucky:)
Does one, seriously, need to spin everything in green brouhaha these days? Biodegradable fiber optic, yeah sure, as if it made the tiniest shred of difference. For one, semiconductor industry produces quite a bit of waste water and waste solvents, all laced with pretty nasty, toxic stuff. For another, the semiconductor material itself, even when doped, is pretty much fucking sand. It doesn't fucking have to be biodegradable, because it non-degrading is not a fucking issue at all. We don't fucking need sand to biodegrade, you retards. Sigh.
It'd be worthwhile if they could, for example, make biodegradable chip packaging, that would be a revolution since by volume and by mass there's a couple times more packaging (encapsulant) than semiconductor material. Or, say, biodegradable chip substrates.
One also has to understand the real and oft ignored costs of making things biodegradable. There was, once upon a time, a snafu with biodegradable wiring insulation in automotive wiring harnesses. Some hullaballoo must have figured that hey, stripping wires is "hard work" and with war on drugs raging on they might run out of drug addicts and/or alcoholics who'd do this to support their habits (or kids in third world regions, perhaps). So instead they made things even more wasteful as said harnesses started failing left right and center, and people spent way more energy than was saved by any biodegradability to troubleshoot the damn things and fix them. It's almost like the switch to lead-free soldering: yeah, sure it will reduce the leached lead in badly managed (acid-phase) landfills, but the amounts seen in practice are so small anyway that they are not a big concern as far as I understand it. What is a concern, though, is reduced yields and longevity of consumer electronics, and resultant waste of energy.
I don't know what republicans you are talking to, but all the ones I know of are quite religious, and many of them unfortunately are also first-rate hypocrites, too. Going to church is, for them, like going to a country club. Tea and cookies and all that jazz, and commiseration with com-uh-patriots.
Sorry but making those electric vehicles currently takes so much energy that it just about balances any energy savings you may make over the life of the vehicle. Money has energy equivalents, and electric vehicles cost more simply because they take so much more energy to make. Look at numerous wheel-to-well analyses out there, they all pretty much agree that electric is not cheaper. It doesn't save any energy. It does make us just a bit more independent since instead of burning oil you burn coal, but at the present it's only a slight slant towards coal. Just making those vehicles takes a lot of oil and natural gas for various industrial processes that come up with all the parts. I guess it's an envrionmental-disasters-for-independence type of a tradeoff. Maybe one could argue it's OK, but we're all NIMBY on that. Keep the Virginias beautiful and all that.
Last I heard it was supposedly a misconception, hmm. Fell free to prove me wrong citing a credible paper with experimental results that shows this effect.
It may not be relevant, but it's a modular kernel, with runtime loadable modules, so a one more module that takes 100kb of disk space shouldn't be a big deal. No runtime memory or performance costs until you use it.
Because you made up a problem where there's none, that's why. Speed of gravitation is simply how fast change propagates. You wiggle something here, it makes wiggles on something somewhere else, but later. This doesn't preclude steady state. A gravitational potential well doesn't need a round trip to begin to affect something. If an object comes into being in a potential well, it is immediately under the action of gravitation of the central mass in said potential well. It will, alas, take light time for the effect of the object's being to affect the central mass, and whatever effects that had to propagate back. Same goes for a potential well in electric field, etc. Yes, there will be photons or gravitons that carry out the interaction, but if my outsider understanding is any good here, don't forget that those carriers are created on a whim, and their creation or destruction is all that you need for an interaction to occur.
Smaller engines give you that. You want it to get a decent acceleration even at full weight, you must have thrust that exceeds the weight by a good margin. If you only lose 22% of thrust (2 out of 9 engines), it won't fall back to the pad -- the thrust is still higher than the weight. It will perform like crap, though, and will burn too much fuel by staying in the atmosphere for too long, but at least you get out alive, and probably with correct orbit in the end (unless you're secondary payload, ha).
I agree, I didn't say that this PR slant wasn't accurate:) Something things are accurate and beneficial to PR. I just hope it won't happen too often or a singularity will form and we'll all disappear, or worse;)
1. The capsule has quite a bit of inertia, so if you nudge it slightly, it will only react, well, slightly. There, all nice and qualitative, no math involved:)
2. The latching mechanism is designed to have effectively zero mating force. The mating force comes from actuators on the robot arm. Once the grappler is in position (prior to any contact), it will pull the Dragon in, not push on it. Again, qualitatively speaking and ignoring some details.
3. You design the arm to apply sufficient torque, like, duh. Have you seen how slender it is? Demonstrably the torques involved weren't an issue.
At this point in time it's nothing of the sort. You can't reliably predict from merely the success rate (engine OK vs. engine lost) of those two launches any sort of an expected failure rate, even if you narrow it down to certain failure modes. You're not only "not a great statistics guy", you never bothered to learn the basics. It's not hard, you just didn't try, that's all.
Huge blow? It's a test satellite. It'll do fine in a lower orbit. Sure it won't last very long there (1 year or so I'd think), but it wasn't meant to last very long anyway. Sure it was meant to last longer, but they can do most of the intended tests at the present orbit, I'd think.
Slashdot Mirror
Power steering is actually a safety hazard - if you engine fails you will quickly lose the ability to safely steer the vehicle - especially if you are applying the brakes.
Troll much? I suggest you try what you claim for yourself, it's not hard. On a modern slushbox, if you have sufficient speed (40mph should be fine), you can turn the key to I position to kill the engine, and then simply turn back to II position to get the engine going again (without having to use the starter). You can then see how silly your statement is. Power steering is useful at low speeds, or if you puncture a front tire at high speeds. The former situation is an annoying inconvenience, the latter is truly being less safe so I can't agree with you here. Stability under application of brakes is improved by both ABS and stability augmentation, power steering got zilch to do with it. In fact power steering will help you out when you unilaterally lose traction when you don't have ABS. So again, you're less safe without it. Where the heck did you get all your misinformation from, again?
You don't seemingly have a clue how those attributes are assigned to crash classifications. Roadway departure means that what killed them was caused by the car departing the road, it doesn't mean that the car had some characteristics that made it more likely to depart the roadway, or that the people killed even caused the car to depart the road. It often means that the car was pushed off the road by colliding objects, bounced off something, etc. It doesn't mean that someone lost control and veered of the road, not usually. Same goes for alcohol-related crashes. The driver at fault didn't need to have had a single drink in his/her whole life yet the crash can be so classified, and very often *is*.
As far as reliability goes, a decent and well maintained car with 100k miles on it is expected to be no different from a brand new car. Yes, there are some model years and makes that are bad outliers, but overall 100k isn't much these days.
So I see there are at least two people who get it :)
I don't care what the rest of the world thinks the traffic and automobile regulations are in the U.S., I'm only interested in the reality, and obviously you just don't get it. There are legal requirements that must be met by current model year cars that are sold in the U.S., requirements that often have no counterparts elsewhere in the world. Cayenne8 was stating as much. Yeah, things may be different in other parts of the world, but hey, Cayenne8 doesn't want to market Tata in the U.S., the Tata people want that, and he rightly points out that the current version simply is not fit for the market. That's an accurate statement, I don't know what the heck your problem is. Similarly, the statement about traffic in the U.S. and its demand for decent acceleration is similarly true. In other words: you're just silly or don't get it.
BeagleBoard isn't even remotely in the same league as Arduino-style products. BeagleBoard is like a PC. Arduino processor boards are like what you might have in a graphing calculator if you're lucky :)
Does one, seriously, need to spin everything in green brouhaha these days? Biodegradable fiber optic, yeah sure, as if it made the tiniest shred of difference. For one, semiconductor industry produces quite a bit of waste water and waste solvents, all laced with pretty nasty, toxic stuff. For another, the semiconductor material itself, even when doped, is pretty much fucking sand. It doesn't fucking have to be biodegradable, because it non-degrading is not a fucking issue at all. We don't fucking need sand to biodegrade, you retards. Sigh.
It'd be worthwhile if they could, for example, make biodegradable chip packaging, that would be a revolution since by volume and by mass there's a couple times more packaging (encapsulant) than semiconductor material. Or, say, biodegradable chip substrates.
One also has to understand the real and oft ignored costs of making things biodegradable. There was, once upon a time, a snafu with biodegradable wiring insulation in automotive wiring harnesses. Some hullaballoo must have figured that hey, stripping wires is "hard work" and with war on drugs raging on they might run out of drug addicts and/or alcoholics who'd do this to support their habits (or kids in third world regions, perhaps). So instead they made things even more wasteful as said harnesses started failing left right and center, and people spent way more energy than was saved by any biodegradability to troubleshoot the damn things and fix them. It's almost like the switch to lead-free soldering: yeah, sure it will reduce the leached lead in badly managed (acid-phase) landfills, but the amounts seen in practice are so small anyway that they are not a big concern as far as I understand it. What is a concern, though, is reduced yields and longevity of consumer electronics, and resultant waste of energy.
Agreed, I don't know the politicians (and feel all the better for it, there's enough to obsess about as it is). I agree about sociopathic behaviors.
Aaaaand, laaaadies and geeeentlemen, we have, we have, we have a winner! Thank you fermion.
I don't know what republicans you are talking to, but all the ones I know of are quite religious, and many of them unfortunately are also first-rate hypocrites, too. Going to church is, for them, like going to a country club. Tea and cookies and all that jazz, and commiseration with com-uh-patriots.
Sorry but making those electric vehicles currently takes so much energy that it just about balances any energy savings you may make over the life of the vehicle. Money has energy equivalents, and electric vehicles cost more simply because they take so much more energy to make. Look at numerous wheel-to-well analyses out there, they all pretty much agree that electric is not cheaper. It doesn't save any energy. It does make us just a bit more independent since instead of burning oil you burn coal, but at the present it's only a slight slant towards coal. Just making those vehicles takes a lot of oil and natural gas for various industrial processes that come up with all the parts. I guess it's an envrionmental-disasters-for-independence type of a tradeoff. Maybe one could argue it's OK, but we're all NIMBY on that. Keep the Virginias beautiful and all that.
Sure. But then they'd be China's problem, not ours.
Last I heard it was supposedly a misconception, hmm. Fell free to prove me wrong citing a credible paper with experimental results that shows this effect.
It may not be relevant, but it's a modular kernel, with runtime loadable modules, so a one more module that takes 100kb of disk space shouldn't be a big deal. No runtime memory or performance costs until you use it.
Ta-da :)
Because you made up a problem where there's none, that's why. Speed of gravitation is simply how fast change propagates. You wiggle something here, it makes wiggles on something somewhere else, but later. This doesn't preclude steady state. A gravitational potential well doesn't need a round trip to begin to affect something. If an object comes into being in a potential well, it is immediately under the action of gravitation of the central mass in said potential well. It will, alas, take light time for the effect of the object's being to affect the central mass, and whatever effects that had to propagate back. Same goes for a potential well in electric field, etc. Yes, there will be photons or gravitons that carry out the interaction, but if my outsider understanding is any good here, don't forget that those carriers are created on a whim, and their creation or destruction is all that you need for an interaction to occur.
Smaller engines give you that. You want it to get a decent acceleration even at full weight, you must have thrust that exceeds the weight by a good margin. If you only lose 22% of thrust (2 out of 9 engines), it won't fall back to the pad -- the thrust is still higher than the weight. It will perform like crap, though, and will burn too much fuel by staying in the atmosphere for too long, but at least you get out alive, and probably with correct orbit in the end (unless you're secondary payload, ha).
I agree, I didn't say that this PR slant wasn't accurate :) Something things are accurate and beneficial to PR. I just hope it won't happen too often or a singularity will form and we'll all disappear, or worse ;)
1. The capsule has quite a bit of inertia, so if you nudge it slightly, it will only react, well, slightly. There, all nice and qualitative, no math involved :)
2. The latching mechanism is designed to have effectively zero mating force. The mating force comes from actuators on the robot arm. Once the grappler is in position (prior to any contact), it will pull the Dragon in, not push on it. Again, qualitatively speaking and ignoring some details.
3. You design the arm to apply sufficient torque, like, duh. Have you seen how slender it is? Demonstrably the torques involved weren't an issue.
Go to the reliability section -- was that really that hard?! There's being lazy, and then there's you, and there's this big chasm in between.
At this point in time it's nothing of the sort. You can't reliably predict from merely the success rate (engine OK vs. engine lost) of those two launches any sort of an expected failure rate, even if you narrow it down to certain failure modes. You're not only "not a great statistics guy", you never bothered to learn the basics. It's not hard, you just didn't try, that's all.
Talk is cheap. Tesla could have claimed whatever the heck he wanted to, but it was a fantasy with no basis in fact. Demonstrably so.
Huge blow? It's a test satellite. It'll do fine in a lower orbit. Sure it won't last very long there (1 year or so I'd think), but it wasn't meant to last very long anyway. Sure it was meant to last longer, but they can do most of the intended tests at the present orbit, I'd think.
That's certainly true, but the government got it pretty much at firesale prices. They've got a bargain that hasn't been seen for quite a while.
Yeah, because you couldn't go straight to the horse's mouth and look things up on SpaceX's website. Don't use ESL as an excuse. It's not.