The flight manual is online at sr-71.org, and has a chart showing what speed at what external air temperature stays within the design limit for compressor inlet temperature. (At least that's where I think I saw the chart). To keep the CIT below 427 Celsius, you'd better have a really cold day in the stratosphere to go much over Mach 3.2. The manual doesn't permit going over 3.3.
If the air going into the compressor is over 427 C, by the time you burn fuel in it you're hitting the design limits of the turbine blades.
It's possible that nobody ever found out what the top speed was. After McNamara ordered the tooling destroyed, the planes were irreplaceable.
If we were talking about shallow geothermal fields, as opposed to supervolcano magma reservoirs, then it's a real concern. Geologist PÃll Stefansson in Iceland has been trying to get across to people that a typical geothermal area in Iceland might only last on the order of 50 years and would not re-warm on a human timescale.
It's jammable, and has the bandwidth of a capillary. My friends who live on an oceangoing sailboat get their email over HF and data rates are so skimpy that they have to ask their friends not to quote them on replies.
You can run a perfectly valid Newtonian clock-syncing algorithm when all parties are moving relative to each other at much less than the speed of light. That's the case here.
For any speed less than c, you preserve the order of events, and as soon as you say what the distance is, you're committed to talking about a fixed elapsed time because the speed of light is invariant.
The statements "Betelgeuse is 600 light years away" and "We're seeing it as it was 600 years ago" are equally valid. They're both approximately true for anyone who's moving slowly relative to us and Betelgeuse.
Someone in a relativistic starship who's racing the light from the supernova will report a shorter time, because she's just behind the light, and will truthfully report a shorter distance, equal to the (invariant) speed of light times the (her frame) measured time.
>not very effective (PDF) even in their intended role
You're implicitly buying in to the claim that their intended role has something to do with safety.
The purpose of a system is what it does. The ~$200,000 scanner purchases funnel tax money to a company which made payments to the former director of Homeland Security. They condition people to being treated like prisoners. The first was deliberate.
The New York Times, after publishing the Pentagon Papers, did not have its bank accounts frozen. Their legal defense was able to proceed without losing their defense fund.
The scary part is this sentence: "Other formulas widely applied by researchers under- or overestimated total area under a metabolic curve by a great margin".
The consumer market is plenty big enough for Google to thrive and prosper.
What's really interesting is to note how consumer technology has been inviting itself into the enterprise space since the first personal computers. Are there any examples of technology moving in the opposite direction?
Why was all this information in one place where a disgruntled person could get at it?
Who disgruntled that person?
This was not a technological problem. Trying to hold it back with technological measures would be like trying to hold back the tide. (Well, maybe some kind of virtual desktop where the user is never in the same room as the hard disk and no Internet connection. But I'd bet someone on this site of all places will post a way to leak information from that kind of setup, withing minutes of my hitting Submit).
My most fun billable hours are spent dealing with technology, but every time I do a risk assessment something else turns out to be more important.
As usual, The Mythical Man-Month cuts to the heart of the matter.
Brooks points out that there is always a specification, unless the project is so inchoate that it's doomed. It may be exclusively in the head of one person in the team, it may be in conflicting versions in the heads of multiple people, but it's there nonetheless.
Some specifications are better than others. A consistent specification is better than a self-contradictory one. A testable specification is better than a vague one. A specification where you can map items to their corresponding tests helps with getting all the bases covered without wasted effort.
If you're free to do so, call the revision control system that holds your tests the "specification tool".
Slashdot Mirror
The flight manual is online at sr-71.org, and has a chart showing what speed at what external air temperature stays within the design limit for compressor inlet temperature. (At least that's where I think I saw the chart). To keep the CIT below 427 Celsius, you'd better have a really cold day in the stratosphere to go much over Mach 3.2. The manual doesn't permit going over 3.3.
If the air going into the compressor is over 427 C, by the time you burn fuel in it you're hitting the design limits of the turbine blades.
It's possible that nobody ever found out what the top speed was. After McNamara ordered the tooling destroyed, the planes were irreplaceable.
Reply All to 13,000 people
If we were talking about shallow geothermal fields, as opposed to supervolcano magma reservoirs, then it's a real concern. Geologist PÃll Stefansson in Iceland has been trying to get across to people that a typical geothermal area in Iceland might only last on the order of 50 years and would not re-warm on a human timescale.
The Wikipedia article about income inequality doesn't have data for Libya, but there are some really interesting comparisons you can make among other countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
It's jammable, and has the bandwidth of a capillary. My friends who live on an oceangoing sailboat get their email over HF and data rates are so skimpy that they have to ask their friends not to quote them on replies.
"...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
Or would they prosecute you for practicing law without a license?
Range voting is easier to understand for non-geek voters, and does a good job minimizing the regret metric.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Gaming-the-Vote/William-Poundstone/e/9780809048922/?itm=2&USRI=gaming+the+vote
Sacrificing civil liberties does not prevent terrorism.
You can run a perfectly valid Newtonian clock-syncing algorithm when all parties are moving relative to each other at much less than the speed of light. That's the case here.
For any speed less than c, you preserve the order of events, and as soon as you say what the distance is, you're committed to talking about a fixed elapsed time because the speed of light is invariant.
The statements "Betelgeuse is 600 light years away" and "We're seeing it as it was 600 years ago" are equally valid. They're both approximately true for anyone who's moving slowly relative to us and Betelgeuse.
Someone in a relativistic starship who's racing the light from the supernova will report a shorter time, because she's just behind the light, and will truthfully report a shorter distance, equal to the (invariant) speed of light times the (her frame) measured time.
Davið Oddson is, to put it objectively, a colorful and polarizing figure. If Iceland had a Fox News, he'd probably be employed there.
The US has a law on the subject, forbidding insurers to take your genetic information into account:
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/gina.cfm
Exactly. Of all America's sources of power, the only one that saved any lives on 9/11 was passengers. Passengers stopped the shoe bomber.
That would make a kick-ass title for something, I don't know what.
>not very effective (PDF) even in their intended role
You're implicitly buying in to the claim that their intended role has something to do with safety.
The purpose of a system is what it does. The ~$200,000 scanner purchases funnel tax money to a company which made payments to the former director of Homeland Security. They condition people to being treated like prisoners. The first was deliberate.
They're working perfectly.
The Constitution requires a speedy *and public* trial.
Even government classified information is not exempt.
The New York Times, after publishing the Pentagon Papers, did not have its bank accounts frozen. Their legal defense was able to proceed without losing their defense fund.
The scary part is this sentence:
"Other formulas widely applied by researchers under- or overestimated total area under a metabolic curve by a great margin".
The consumer market is plenty big enough for Google to thrive and prosper.
What's really interesting is to note how consumer technology has been inviting itself into the enterprise space since the first personal computers. Are there any examples of technology moving in the opposite direction?
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwightdeisenhowerfarewell.html
I can't find a cite offhand for "We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security".
Why was all this information in one place where a disgruntled person could get at it?
Who disgruntled that person?
This was not a technological problem. Trying to hold it back with technological measures would be like trying to hold back the tide. (Well, maybe some kind of virtual desktop where the user is never in the same room as the hard disk and no Internet connection. But I'd bet someone on this site of all places will post a way to leak information from that kind of setup, withing minutes of my hitting Submit).
My most fun billable hours are spent dealing with technology, but every time I do a risk assessment something else turns out to be more important.
Says the man who has a whole type of screwdriver named after him.
As usual, The Mythical Man-Month cuts to the heart of the matter.
Brooks points out that there is always a specification, unless the project is so inchoate that it's doomed. It may be exclusively in the head of one person in the team, it may be in conflicting versions in the heads of multiple people, but it's there nonetheless.
Some specifications are better than others. A consistent specification is better than a self-contradictory one. A testable specification is better than a vague one. A specification where you can map items to their corresponding tests helps with getting all the bases covered without wasted effort.
If you're free to do so, call the revision control system that holds your tests the "specification tool".
One neighbor of mine watched a coyote carry off her miniature dog, and when coyotes start being sighted, the Missing Cat posters start appearing.
People with joint replacements set off metal detectors.
People who set off metal detectors get the "enhanced patdown".
So, people are subjected to unwanted touches on parts of the body normally covered by underwear because they have been through a medical procedure.
I wonder if there's potential for a lawsuit there.
Citation for that accusation:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123102821.html