You download a browser plugin, you install it, it asks you if you want to install a Firefox extension. Where's the bloody "stealth" in that? You're just determined to be pissed off about something, I guess.
My mailbox doesn't have a "scam" API, it's got a "send me mail" API. It's normal and expected that people will send me mail. I get mail from my boss, and my brother, and from websites I register on, and that's normal, expected, and desirable.
Firefox doesn't have an "install malware" API, it's got an API for applications on your computer to install plugins and extensions, and register as helper applications. It's normal, expected, and desirable that they do so, and has been for the decade and a bit that browsers have been a normal part of a desktop environment.
If Sun was installing malware or trojan horses, with or without approval, then you'd have a point, but since it's just installing a normal and expected plugin that Sun has been installing when you install Java (and for most people, this plugin is WHY they install Java) since Java was invented, comparing it to email spam and scams is ludicrous.
I have a good dozen apps on my Palm that I use on a regular basis. But then I didn't get it until January 2000, so I never had to put up with the sucky apps you hated back in 1999.
There's lots of software that installs browser addons automatically, without even asking you. That's been normal and expected behavior for a decade, it's long since past time to raise Caine over this one.
I think Sun should be accoladed for giving you the option to opt out.
Ever try to install Acrobat without getting the browser plugin? You have to rummage around in the Acrobat directory and remove the plugin component or else EVERY TIME you run Acrobat the plugin will be reinstalled.
The difference is that rocket engines and jet enginess are different categories, defined precisely by whether they carry their own oxidizer.
That's not the only difference between a rocket engine and a jet engine. There are engines that don't carry their own oxidizer, and look like a jet engine from the outside, but they're not jet engines. The "pump-jet" in a jet-boat is an example of that. The SABRE engine is designed as a rocket engine, with fuel and oxidizer alike effectively at rest with respect to the engine and combustion chamber. There's no jet engine in the world designed like that.
LACE, which SABRE is based on, is even more obviously an "air-breathing rocket".
The iPhone is closed hardware, the Pocket PC is open hardware. I compared the iPhone to my old T-Mobile Pocket PC, and the iPhone just wasn't interesting unless I was going to jailbreak it.
The problem is... I don't use my Pocket PC phone, either. It's not worth it. I've got a cheap Nokia that I just use as a phone. That way I'm more likely to HAVE a phone when I need it, instead of a lump of plastic with a dead battery. The whole "smart" phone market just isn't big enough to matter. And Microsoft and Palm killed the handheld computer between them: Palm, by trying to outdo Microsoft instead of playing to their strengths; and Microsoft, by crippling the Pocket PC lest it compete with the Tablet PC and their cash cow... "real" Windows.
I *DID* look up "rocket engine" in the dictionary, and that is the basis of my argument! You are arguing against yourself!
I'm arguing against the idea that a dictionary is authoritative. The dictionary is contradictory, it's not a technical document, it's a guide to common usage. Using it to define how to apply technical terms to a design that's completely outside the experience of the people who compiled the dictionary is about as useful as using the dictionary definition of "shell" and "quick" to argue that a "quicksort" is better than a "shell sort"... without looking at the algorithms or attempting to characterize the data you're sorting.
My mention of motor vs. engine was only an analogy.
OK, so the analogy between a hybrid car with two completely separate motors and this design with a single engine is still erroneous. Gotcha.
If Albert Einstein had called a photon an "albatross", that would have been WRONG, despite his awesome intellect. And fellow scientists would have laughed at him - despite his awesome intellect.
So Murray Gell-Mann calling the characteristics of quarks "color" and "flavor" was WRONG. Gotcha.
I had to try a couple of times to get the movie to come up.
It is a terrific design, I only wonder if they can get the same thrust out of 20% O2 (air) as they could out of 100% O2
The movie clip indicated they expect to get 50% more thrust on LOX.
It's also theoretical. It looks like they have some prototype cooler elements, and a 20% cutaway scale model, but I don't know if they have more than that.
That little blue line goes to the same places whether they're running from LOX or from the intake. When they cut over they close the intake and turn on the LOX pump, but it's still feeding the same conventional rocket engine.
They do have something like a conventional ramjet engine in there, but it's a bypass used when intake pressure is at max, it's got a separate set of combustion chambers, it's not on that diagram (it bypasses the cooler completely) and it's not where the majority of the thrust comes from at any point.
Is there any difference between a person "becoming entangled with" a system and "collapsing" the system? Isn't that the whole point of the EWG interpretation of QM?
Actually, it would be the water going *into* a jet boat that would have to be an oxidizer.
My point is that every kind of jet engine I know of involves feeding the compressed gas from the intake into the combustion chamber. This may be done by the pressure of forward motion (a ramjet or scramjet), or by a turbine, but the compression stage is in-line with the combustion stage.
The design of Sabre evolved from liquid-air cycle engines (LACE) which have a single rocket combustion chamber with associated pumps, preburner and nozzle which are utilised in both modes. LACE engines employ the cooling capacity of the cryogenic liquid hydrogen fuel to liquefy incoming air prior to pumping. Unfortunately, this type of cycle necessitates very high fuel flow.
These faults are avoided in the Sabre engine, which only cools down the air to the vapour boundary and avoids liquefaction. This allows the use of a relatively conventional turbocompressor and avoids the requirement for an air condenser.
The Sabre engine is essentially a closed cycle rocket engine with an additional precooled turbo-compressor to provide a high pressure air supply to the combustion chamber. This allows operation from zero forward speed on the runway and up to Mach 5.5 in air breathing mode during ascent. As the air density falls with altitude the engine eventually switches to a pure rocket propelling Skylon to orbital velocity (around Mach 25).
The SABRE engine has a rocket engine's combustion chamber using cryogenic fuel. Compare the diagrams on http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/sabre.html with any jet engine. Yes, it's got an air intake, but what happens to that air once it enters the engine is completely different.
LH: "The server was RAID. Its disk was RAID, so that's one of the things we're looking at. But it was a software RAID, so if it's a filesystem problem then... that's not gonna do any good because the the errors were RAIDed as well."
Since the file system and database were corrupted, it wouldn't matter if it was hardware RAID or software RAID. That's not the problem at all, the problem is there was no archival backup, and their only backup was a file sync... that replicated the database errors on the backup.
To backup a database, you dump it in a serialized form, or maintain a serialized form of the data in parallel with the database.
And by the way: no, a common hybrid automobile does not have two engines. It has one engine, and an electric motor.
And you say I'm nitpicking?
The point is that the automobile engine that burns fuel is a separate "source of motive force thingy that might be called an engine or a motor depending on whether it burns fuel or not" than the electric motor powered by the battery. It is not a single "source of motive force thingy that might be called an engine or a motor depending on whether it burns fuel or not". If you want to try and devise something analogous to this device in the automotive field, you'd have to come up with something like a hydrogen burning hybrid that used electrolysis to generate hydrogen from the stored electricity.
BTW, while you've got the dictionary open, look up "motor car".
No. The definition is simple. A rocket uses stored oxidizer. A jet uses air. Period.
That means a prop is a jet engine. Or does that only apply to ducted engines? Is a ducted fan a jet engine? Does a jet-boat actually have a jet engine in it? If you build a closed-intake jet-boat that carried its own oxidizer, would that turn it into a rocket-boat?
Saying it is an "air-breathing rocket" is (as I mentioned elsewhere) like saying a hybrid automobile is an "electricity-eating gasoline engine".
The article is light on details, but it sure sounds like it's using a rocket style combustion chamber even when it's pulling the oxidizer in from the atmosphere: I don't know any jet engine that requires you to liquefy the incoming air... not even a scramjet. High speed jet engines are generally all about simplifying the intake.
Slashdot Mirror
What bloody "stealth install"?
You download a browser plugin, you install it, it asks you if you want to install a Firefox extension. Where's the bloody "stealth" in that? You're just determined to be pissed off about something, I guess.
My mailbox doesn't have a "scam" API, it's got a "send me mail" API. It's normal and expected that people will send me mail. I get mail from my boss, and my brother, and from websites I register on, and that's normal, expected, and desirable.
Firefox doesn't have an "install malware" API, it's got an API for applications on your computer to install plugins and extensions, and register as helper applications. It's normal, expected, and desirable that they do so, and has been for the decade and a bit that browsers have been a normal part of a desktop environment.
If Sun was installing malware or trojan horses, with or without approval, then you'd have a point, but since it's just installing a normal and expected plugin that Sun has been installing when you install Java (and for most people, this plugin is WHY they install Java) since Java was invented, comparing it to email spam and scams is ludicrous.
I replaced it with a reconditioned Clie SJ22 a few years ago, and I'm still using that.
Well, let's see, there's Google Earth, and Windows Media Player, and Realplayer, and Quicktime Player, and that's just off the top of my head.
I have a good dozen apps on my Palm that I use on a regular basis. But then I didn't get it until January 2000, so I never had to put up with the sucky apps you hated back in 1999.
There's lots of software that installs browser addons automatically, without even asking you. That's been normal and expected behavior for a decade, it's long since past time to raise Caine over this one.
I think Sun should be accoladed for giving you the option to opt out.
Ever try to install Acrobat without getting the browser plugin? You have to rummage around in the Acrobat directory and remove the plugin component or else EVERY TIME you run Acrobat the plugin will be reinstalled.
The difference is that rocket engines and jet enginess are different categories, defined precisely by whether they carry their own oxidizer.
That's not the only difference between a rocket engine and a jet engine. There are engines that don't carry their own oxidizer, and look like a jet engine from the outside, but they're not jet engines. The "pump-jet" in a jet-boat is an example of that. The SABRE engine is designed as a rocket engine, with fuel and oxidizer alike effectively at rest with respect to the engine and combustion chamber. There's no jet engine in the world designed like that.
LACE, which SABRE is based on, is even more obviously an "air-breathing rocket".
The iPhone is closed hardware, the Pocket PC is open hardware. I compared the iPhone to my old T-Mobile Pocket PC, and the iPhone just wasn't interesting unless I was going to jailbreak it.
The problem is... I don't use my Pocket PC phone, either. It's not worth it. I've got a cheap Nokia that I just use as a phone. That way I'm more likely to HAVE a phone when I need it, instead of a lump of plastic with a dead battery. The whole "smart" phone market just isn't big enough to matter. And Microsoft and Palm killed the handheld computer between them: Palm, by trying to outdo Microsoft instead of playing to their strengths; and Microsoft, by crippling the Pocket PC lest it compete with the Tablet PC and their cash cow... "real" Windows.
It's particularly bad in the Mac world, because the leading desktop-level "backup" tools just do disk mirroring.
I *DID* look up "rocket engine" in the dictionary, and that is the basis of my argument! You are arguing against yourself!
I'm arguing against the idea that a dictionary is authoritative. The dictionary is contradictory, it's not a technical document, it's a guide to common usage. Using it to define how to apply technical terms to a design that's completely outside the experience of the people who compiled the dictionary is about as useful as using the dictionary definition of "shell" and "quick" to argue that a "quicksort" is better than a "shell sort"... without looking at the algorithms or attempting to characterize the data you're sorting.
My mention of motor vs. engine was only an analogy.
OK, so the analogy between a hybrid car with two completely separate motors and this design with a single engine is still erroneous. Gotcha.
If Albert Einstein had called a photon an "albatross", that would have been WRONG, despite his awesome intellect. And fellow scientists would have laughed at him - despite his awesome intellect.
So Murray Gell-Mann calling the characteristics of quarks "color" and "flavor" was WRONG. Gotcha.
I had to try a couple of times to get the movie to come up.
It is a terrific design, I only wonder if they can get the same thrust out of 20% O2 (air) as they could out of 100% O2
The movie clip indicated they expect to get 50% more thrust on LOX.
It's also theoretical. It looks like they have some prototype cooler elements, and a 20% cutaway scale model, but I don't know if they have more than that.
I suspect it's curved because it looks cooler.
That little blue line goes to the same places whether they're running from LOX or from the intake. When they cut over they close the intake and turn on the LOX pump, but it's still feeding the same conventional rocket engine.
They do have something like a conventional ramjet engine in there, but it's a bypass used when intake pressure is at max, it's got a separate set of combustion chambers, it's not on that diagram (it bypasses the cooler completely) and it's not where the majority of the thrust comes from at any point.
So if I'd said "there are two motors in a hybrid" instead of "there are two engines in a hybrid" you'd have been happy?
Is there any difference between a person "becoming entangled with" a system and "collapsing" the system? Isn't that the whole point of the EWG interpretation of QM?
Actually, it would be the water going *into* a jet boat that would have to be an oxidizer.
My point is that every kind of jet engine I know of involves feeding the compressed gas from the intake into the combustion chamber. This may be done by the pressure of forward motion (a ramjet or scramjet), or by a turbine, but the compression stage is in-line with the combustion stage.
The SABRE engine has a rocket engine's combustion chamber using cryogenic fuel. Compare the diagrams on http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/sabre.html with any jet engine. Yes, it's got an air intake, but what happens to that air once it enters the engine is completely different.
I'm sorry, you are in fact trolling.
Not quite an ad-hominem attack, but close. It's certainly a genetic fallacy.
Since the file system and database were corrupted, it wouldn't matter if it was hardware RAID or software RAID. That's not the problem at all, the problem is there was no archival backup, and their only backup was a file sync... that replicated the database errors on the backup.
To backup a database, you dump it in a serialized form, or maintain a serialized form of the data in parallel with the database.
That still doesn't make the prop on the other end of the flywheel into a jet.
So a "jet boat" is actually not a jet boat. I can live with that, but don't say that in New Zealand.
What about a prop with a ducted fan and a supercharger?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile
The distinction between "engine" and "motor" is not so clear cut as anal-retentive-man claims... nor is it relevant to this thread.
And by the way: no, a common hybrid automobile does not have two engines. It has one engine, and an electric motor.
And you say I'm nitpicking?
The point is that the automobile engine that burns fuel is a separate "source of motive force thingy that might be called an engine or a motor depending on whether it burns fuel or not" than the electric motor powered by the battery. It is not a single "source of motive force thingy that might be called an engine or a motor depending on whether it burns fuel or not". If you want to try and devise something analogous to this device in the automotive field, you'd have to come up with something like a hydrogen burning hybrid that used electrolysis to generate hydrogen from the stored electricity.
BTW, while you've got the dictionary open, look up "motor car".
The dictionary is VERY clear on the subject.
The people who write dictionaries are extremely competent etymologists... but they aren't, in general, "rocket scientists".
The people who designed the engine that we're discussing, however, are.
I would tend to believe the "rocket scientists". :)
Why not take a look at: http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/sabre.html which may answer some of these questions?
Because it was slashdotted. :)
No. The definition is simple. A rocket uses stored oxidizer. A jet uses air. Period.
That means a prop is a jet engine. Or does that only apply to ducted engines? Is a ducted fan a jet engine? Does a jet-boat actually have a jet engine in it? If you build a closed-intake jet-boat that carried its own oxidizer, would that turn it into a rocket-boat?
Saying it is an "air-breathing rocket" is (as I mentioned elsewhere) like saying a hybrid automobile is an "electricity-eating gasoline engine".
A hybrid automobile has two engines.
The article is light on details, but it sure sounds like it's using a rocket style combustion chamber even when it's pulling the oxidizer in from the atmosphere: I don't know any jet engine that requires you to liquefy the incoming air... not even a scramjet. High speed jet engines are generally all about simplifying the intake.