But if you are going into polar orbit (or other high inclination orbit) then the equatorial boost becomes a problem because you have to overcome all that momentum.
The F-117 uses the same flight computers as the FA-18. Other components were pulled from the F-16. The plane used as much proven technology as possible because they were dealing with quite a bit of new technology in the form of an unproven airframe.
Fighter planes are getting more expensive because the cost of keeping the companies running that build them. Defense is one area that has been resistant to offshoring.
Alternating current would have the same (disastrous) effect.
The fluorescent light trick you mention happens because the person is not grounded and no current flows through their body. But when the vapor atoms are brought to a high voltage, they become excited and fluoresce. The same thing happens with DC and high voltages.
There are two spheres of thought when it comes to spaceflight.
1) Spaceflight is dangerous and people will die. Systems that try to mitigate the risk and are tremendously expensive will fail. The expense associated with these systems reduces the number of designs that can be attempted. Instead we should try riskier and less expensive alternatives so that we have more competing designs on the table. Trying more of the riskier ideas will more quickly lead to a reliable, safe transport as the benefits and risks for each system can be ironed out.
2) Spaceflight should spare no expense for safety. We are already spending a lot of money on this endeavor, I do not want to see it go up in smoke. Do it right the first time, cut costs after the system is well understood. Slow steady progress is better then going down a dead-end.
I think the big argument is that the slow steady folks are perceived as eating up money that could be used by the Burt Rutans of the world. But I think in the long run, both approaches are going to get there at the same time and with the same amount of money, because although an individual #1 system may cost a lot less than #2, you have to account for all the failures in #1 that didn't pan out.
The problem is not necessarily educational entertainment, but rather that in an effort to create a plot device, writers need to break the laws of physics. While this is fine for fanciful styles (fantasy, sci-fi, etc) it should be avoided in settings where there is no expectation that the laws of physics will not apply. When talking about the starship Enterprise, I expect that there will be a lot of stuff unsupported by science. But when I am watching a police show, the writer should not break the laws of physics for a plot device. This is, in my opinion, a lack of imagination and a weak style of writing.
I'm sure that Hawaii has benefited from federal money at some point. If you tried to make the case that no money should be spend unless every single citizen can be shown to have a tangible benefit, you'd never get anything done.
Perhaps that is the real point - to keep government from doing anything.
All circuitry is analog. Nature knows not of this "digital" of which you speak. Digital logic is simply an abstraction that makes things easier to design, but it is implemented with the good old transistor. The transistor can be operated like a switch, but it is still a bunch of electrons flowing through a semiconductor bound by the laws of physics and quantum mechanics.
Since time and space shifting have been shown to be fair use, then it stands to reason that downloading a song that is freely available on the air is fair use. One is simply shifting the space from a radio to a MP3 player and the time from the program schedule to on-demand.
There are quite a few complaints about the M4 and they are working on a hybrid that incorporates the AK gas system to reduce fouling. Also, the 5.56 NATO is regarded as inferior because with the shorter barrel of the M4 (14 inches vs 20 inches for the M-16) the round loses a lot of energy. They are also looking at the 6.8mm SPC cartridge to give a heavier bullet with more "stopping power". I would not be suprised to see a new service rifle come out of all this in the near future.
As I understand the main purpose of buying ATI is to develop an architecture where you can have an arbitrary number of cores for arbitrary functions. Intel's solution hangs coprocessors out on a peripheral bus (graphics cards). AMDs idea is to make coprocessors peers on the same processor connection fabric. So core 1 of the main processor can talk just as easily to the second core as it can talk to the graphics chip and physics chip (or whatever other specialized core you envision).
Consider your example of the $400 chip being obsolete with the next generation of chips. In Intel's world, you remove or disable the old one an use the new one. In AMD's world, you use them both. With both chips having the same access to the CPU, both can perform their functions. This opens up tremendous opportunities for software developers and breaks away from the traditional architecture.
AMD didn't buy ATI to compete better on the intel platform. They want to make their own better platform and move computing away from the CPUPeripheral architecture.
Slashdot Mirror
But if you are going into polar orbit (or other high inclination orbit) then the equatorial boost becomes a problem because you have to overcome all that momentum.
It is a viral marketing campaign.
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2585632&cp=&parentPage=search
The F-117 uses the same flight computers as the FA-18. Other components were pulled from the F-16. The plane used as much proven technology as possible because they were dealing with quite a bit of new technology in the form of an unproven airframe.
Fighter planes are getting more expensive because the cost of keeping the companies running that build them. Defense is one area that has been resistant to offshoring.
I don't think that the Red Sox could go very far without another team to play.
Imagine how boring it would be watching a bunch of guys standing around in the field scratching themselves and spitting.
Alternating current would have the same (disastrous) effect.
The fluorescent light trick you mention happens because the person is not grounded and no current flows through their body. But when the vapor atoms are brought to a high voltage, they become excited and fluoresce. The same thing happens with DC and high voltages.
land prices ought to stay more or less the same, since the ammount of land almost never changes
But the demand for land does increase as the population increases, pushing up the price.
Supply and Demand. Not just one or the other.
"Should be" is the operative phrase. The fact is that ISPs see other people making money off of their network, and of course those people should pay.
There are two spheres of thought when it comes to spaceflight.
1) Spaceflight is dangerous and people will die. Systems that try to mitigate the risk and are tremendously expensive will fail. The expense associated with these systems reduces the number of designs that can be attempted. Instead we should try riskier and less expensive alternatives so that we have more competing designs on the table. Trying more of the riskier ideas will more quickly lead to a reliable, safe transport as the benefits and risks for each system can be ironed out.
2) Spaceflight should spare no expense for safety. We are already spending a lot of money on this endeavor, I do not want to see it go up in smoke. Do it right the first time, cut costs after the system is well understood. Slow steady progress is better then going down a dead-end.
I think the big argument is that the slow steady folks are perceived as eating up money that could be used by the Burt Rutans of the world. But I think in the long run, both approaches are going to get there at the same time and with the same amount of money, because although an individual #1 system may cost a lot less than #2, you have to account for all the failures in #1 that didn't pan out.
Einstein Quote:
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."
Ha! Brilliant!
(no mod points)
(looking puzzled)
"you removed my last piece of motivation for getting out of bed today"
I thought the M was for Miscellaneous.
Seriously, music videos have not been a part of that station since the late 80's.
MTV2 was a bit better IIRC (last time I watched was about 7-8 years ago.
The problem is not necessarily educational entertainment, but rather that in an effort to create a plot device, writers need to break the laws of physics. While this is fine for fanciful styles (fantasy, sci-fi, etc) it should be avoided in settings where there is no expectation that the laws of physics will not apply. When talking about the starship Enterprise, I expect that there will be a lot of stuff unsupported by science. But when I am watching a police show, the writer should not break the laws of physics for a plot device. This is, in my opinion, a lack of imagination and a weak style of writing.
The thing with Colin Powell is that you expect either rambling bluster a la most politicians (he's more of a statesman though)
(Opus is preparing for the Meadow Party debate, all dressed and admiring himself in the mirror.)
Opus (to himself): Yessiree, you sure will make a fine statesman.
Reflection: You're a politician.
Opus(indignant): I am a statesman.
Reflection: A statesman is a dead politician.
(Lord knows we need more statesmen!)
I'm sure that Hawaii has benefited from federal money at some point. If you tried to make the case that no money should be spend unless every single citizen can be shown to have a tangible benefit, you'd never get anything done.
Perhaps that is the real point - to keep government from doing anything.
He's still going to insist that the interface responds the way he wants it to when he touches it.
Add another $25US to the cost for the SATA to PATA bridge.
All circuitry is analog. Nature knows not of this "digital" of which you speak. Digital logic is simply an abstraction that makes things easier to design, but it is implemented with the good old transistor. The transistor can be operated like a switch, but it is still a bunch of electrons flowing through a semiconductor bound by the laws of physics and quantum mechanics.
You're not running Vista!
You might be able to help out a few but the many would still be suffering.
The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
Since time and space shifting have been shown to be fair use, then it stands to reason that downloading a song that is freely available on the air is fair use. One is simply shifting the space from a radio to a MP3 player and the time from the program schedule to on-demand.
So you only download once or twice a year?
There are quite a few complaints about the M4 and they are working on a hybrid that incorporates the AK gas system to reduce fouling. Also, the 5.56 NATO is regarded as inferior because with the shorter barrel of the M4 (14 inches vs 20 inches for the M-16) the round loses a lot of energy. They are also looking at the 6.8mm SPC cartridge to give a heavier bullet with more "stopping power". I would not be suprised to see a new service rifle come out of all this in the near future.
As I understand the main purpose of buying ATI is to develop an architecture where you can have an arbitrary number of cores for arbitrary functions. Intel's solution hangs coprocessors out on a peripheral bus (graphics cards). AMDs idea is to make coprocessors peers on the same processor connection fabric. So core 1 of the main processor can talk just as easily to the second core as it can talk to the graphics chip and physics chip (or whatever other specialized core you envision).
Consider your example of the $400 chip being obsolete with the next generation of chips. In Intel's world, you remove or disable the old one an use the new one. In AMD's world, you use them both. With both chips having the same access to the CPU, both can perform their functions. This opens up tremendous opportunities for software developers and breaks away from the traditional architecture.
AMD didn't buy ATI to compete better on the intel platform. They want to make their own better platform and move computing away from the CPUPeripheral architecture.
It is not parody because they are selling a product. However, I think the prominent "Ann Summers" in the ad is enough to keep them out of trouble.