But even Daniels was stunned when he tabulated the actual number.
Zero."
Which has actually jack squat explanation as to why the pilots died.
For all the details we are given the dead pilots could have been flying bespoke aircraft with hand crafted cockpits that matched there personal ergonomics, but were flying against enemies with aircraft that were 10 times superior in flight ability, but were mass produced.
Without any further details, the idea that ergonomics killed those pilots is pure assumption.
We're going to QA the shit out of the site on every device and browser imaginable and get these issues addressed.
Maybe you could somehow harness the power of the unwashed masses here to do some of that QA given that your audience probably has access to every device under the sun (and probably a few Sun or Apollo workstations as well).
Perhaps make a root level QA topic with permanent stories for reporting bugs for different devices?
It like his postings are a Ford that he drives and wants the ability to attach a sticker to the back window of Calvin pissing on the Chevy posts that everyone else is making
In terms of the front page, what if we showed some stories by default that had reached a certain level of popularity in the firehose?
I always thought that was the whole point of the firehose. But I don't think it has to be an automatic promotion, as some of those submissions can be improved with editing (as long as it is actually editing and not changing things around for the sake of it)
There have been in the past (can't really speak for now yet) a lot of articles that made the front page and seemed to have bypassed the firehose. Those articles tended to be crap, and had submitters that always posted links to particular websites. The submitters and said stories were universally derided but they still kept coming. Nerval was a prime example, but there were others EG The Hackaday guy and people like Bennet Hasselton. It was things like that that gave us all a bad feeling about/.
(Now that I think about it, the bypassing the firehose wasn't the problem - it was the low quality of story)
If you are cleaning up your act as you say (and I really believe that based on your engagement) then all you need to do is correlate individuals with high submission rates against the domains that their stories come from, and ask is this reasonable?
Its not just Nerval. There are other frequent posters who only link to particular sites, and who never actually commented on anything. Nerval was one, the Hackaday guy was another. Just do a scan of the prolific story posters and look for patterns
* Fix the mobile interface or get rid of it. As an example of busted - the "top commented" story does not display on my iPad4. I literally cannot see the most active content on the site when I visit using it (it's up to date and using Chrome).
One thing I only found out last week was that if you are on an iPad and scroll to the bottom of the Mobile site there is actually a link back to the desktop site - which really works well in safari. I totally avoided/. on my iPad because of that fucked up Mobile site until I saw someone else on here mention that link.
I don't have a problem with either moderating or posting in a story, but there are times that I don't want to post but where I would love to moderate. But the moderation gods only seems to come my way ever so often. So I would love to be allowed to make my own choice between posting and moderation.
However perhaps limit that choice to high karma individuals?
Polls belong on the sidebar. But don't believe just me. Go back and look at all the prior discussions about it.
Actually just go back and look at/. history. Whenever the old management did something contentious there was always a lot of vocal and well reasoned arguments as to why what they did was BS. The trouble was that nobody at/. actually listened.
Given that Clinton did win all six flips, the odds that the flips were fair is... hmm?
So are you are implying that:
1) Hillary rigged the coin toss in 6 physically disparate locations in which the need for the coin toss could not have been predicted before hand?
Or
2) HIllary rigged the coin toss in all precincts prior to the caucus on the off chance that she and Bernie would poll as a dead heat?
And by Hillary I don't mean her personally, but people in her campaign or associated with her campaign that wanted to see her win. Hell it could even had been Trump supporters for all the sense that rigging a coin toss makes.
Batteries would be much more efficient for capturing this energy and they could be easily charged at the gate. Battery round trip efficiency is about 90%, hydrogen fuel cell about 20%.
You should know from your car analogies that the energy density of a battery is much less than that of gasoline. So adding batteries is going to be a net loss to efficiency.
I was doing similar calculations for an A-380 but I doubted my results as they pointed to rate of energy recovery being in the order of a small power station for 10 seconds.
Not to mention that you can't start a gas turbine and immediately subject it to full load. It needs several minutes to heat up, bring the oil to operating temperature, and get any temporary "bow" out of the turbine rotor.
I'm no expert in gas turbines but I appreciate the need to warm them up. With that said, can there be fuel savings made between leaving the gate and bringing the engine to an operational status just prior to reaching the end of the runway? Or is taxi-ing a part of the warm up profile of the engine?
The system will involve embedding a hydrogen fuel cell on board the aeroplanes, with the energy captured from the brakes on landing able to power the jet on the ground. This technique is similar to the high-end kinetic energy recovery systems (KERS) used in Formula One cars, which store recovered energy to later use for acceleration.
TFA mentions harvesting the braking energy as being similar to KERS used in Formula 1. But no mention is made of the additional mass or equipment (unsprung at that) that would be needed to be added to the landing gear in order to harvest that energy. Such equipment needing to be robust and large enough to capture a worthwhile amount of energy in the 10 seconds of braking that a plane experiences when landing. For the rest of the 99.9999% of the flight this is dead weight that the plane has to burn fuel in order to carry it around.
So color me surprised if anyone really thinks that is practical. (let alone the bizarre notion that the recovered energy could somehow be funneled into a hydrogen based fuel cell - super cap yes! fuel cell ? are you kidding me?)
It would probably make more sense to assign a tractor to drag each aircraft from the gate to the start of the runway rather than use the planes fuel to taxi around.
According to Infowars, which was alerted to the zine's existence by AnonSec, the hackers' main purpose in hacking Nasa was to highlight the fact that the US government is using climate engineering methods such as cloud seeding and geo-engineering to manipulate the climate and cause more rain to fall in order to combat the effects of carbon emissions.
Slashdot Mirror
Non paywalled version
Not only that the story seems to have bypassed the firehose. Didn't we already chat about this yesterday whipslash?
Once you get the right cable you won't have to worry about your camera issues anymore!
But even Daniels was stunned when he tabulated the actual number.
Zero."
Which has actually jack squat explanation as to why the pilots died.
For all the details we are given the dead pilots could have been flying bespoke aircraft with hand crafted cockpits that matched there personal ergonomics, but were flying against enemies with aircraft that were 10 times superior in flight ability, but were mass produced.
Without any further details, the idea that ergonomics killed those pilots is pure assumption.
It is hard to believe that Yahoo used to be one of the top search engines with a nice bright future.
And I remember Alta Vista now get off my lawn
We're going to QA the shit out of the site on every device and browser imaginable and get these issues addressed.
Maybe you could somehow harness the power of the unwashed masses here to do some of that QA given that your audience probably has access to every device under the sun (and probably a few Sun or Apollo workstations as well).
Perhaps make a root level QA topic with permanent stories for reporting bugs for different devices?
I don't follow, could you use a car analogy?
It like his postings are a Ford that he drives and wants the ability to attach a sticker to the back window of Calvin pissing on the Chevy posts that everyone else is making
In terms of the front page, what if we showed some stories by default that had reached a certain level of popularity in the firehose?
I always thought that was the whole point of the firehose. But I don't think it has to be an automatic promotion, as some of those submissions can be improved with editing (as long as it is actually editing and not changing things around for the sake of it)
There was a comment way up the top where Whiplash mentioned already reaching out to him
Good idea. Well we're listening that's for sure
And we really appreciate it.
But stop with the lying. At a comment way up there you said you were off to get a low UID. But here you are still using the same UID!
There have been in the past (can't really speak for now yet) a lot of articles that made the front page and seemed to have bypassed the firehose. Those articles tended to be crap, and had submitters that always posted links to particular websites. The submitters and said stories were universally derided but they still kept coming. Nerval was a prime example, but there were others EG The Hackaday guy and people like Bennet Hasselton. It was things like that that gave us all a bad feeling about /.
(Now that I think about it, the bypassing the firehose wasn't the problem - it was the low quality of story)
If you are cleaning up your act as you say (and I really believe that based on your engagement) then all you need to do is correlate individuals with high submission rates against the domains that their stories come from, and ask is this reasonable?
A 7 digit UID is now a loyal old fart? This site has changed. (Do we still do my UID is lower than your's any more?)
You betcha we still do. Mind you I'm scared of waking up the really low UIDs
Its not just Nerval. There are other frequent posters who only link to particular sites, and who never actually commented on anything. Nerval was one, the Hackaday guy was another. Just do a scan of the prolific story posters and look for patterns
* Fix the mobile interface or get rid of it. As an example of busted - the "top commented" story does not display on my iPad4. I literally cannot see the most active content on the site when I visit using it (it's up to date and using Chrome).
One thing I only found out last week was that if you are on an iPad and scroll to the bottom of the Mobile site there is actually a link back to the desktop site - which really works well in safari. I totally avoided /. on my iPad because of that fucked up Mobile site until I saw someone else on here mention that link.
I don't have a problem with either moderating or posting in a story, but there are times that I don't want to post but where I would love to moderate. But the moderation gods only seems to come my way ever so often. So I would love to be allowed to make my own choice between posting and moderation.
However perhaps limit that choice to high karma individuals?
Polls belong on the sidebar. But don't believe just me. Go back and look at all the prior discussions about it.
Actually just go back and look at /. history. Whenever the old management did something contentious there was always a lot of vocal and well reasoned arguments as to why what they did was BS. The trouble was that nobody at /. actually listened.
Given that Clinton did win all six flips, the odds that the flips were fair is ... hmm?
So are you are implying that:
1) Hillary rigged the coin toss in 6 physically disparate locations in which the need for the coin toss could not have been predicted before hand?
Or
2) HIllary rigged the coin toss in all precincts prior to the caucus on the off chance that she and Bernie would poll as a dead heat?
And by Hillary I don't mean her personally, but people in her campaign or associated with her campaign that wanted to see her win. Hell it could even had been Trump supporters for all the sense that rigging a coin toss makes.
Batteries would be much more efficient for capturing this energy and they could be easily charged at the gate. Battery round trip efficiency is about 90%, hydrogen fuel cell about 20%.
You should know from your car analogies that the energy density of a battery is much less than that of gasoline. So adding batteries is going to be a net loss to efficiency.
I was doing similar calculations for an A-380 but I doubted my results as they pointed to rate of energy recovery being in the order of a small power station for 10 seconds.
Not to mention that you can't start a gas turbine and immediately subject it to full load. It needs several minutes to heat up, bring the oil to operating temperature, and get any temporary "bow" out of the turbine rotor.
I'm no expert in gas turbines but I appreciate the need to warm them up. With that said, can there be fuel savings made between leaving the gate and bringing the engine to an operational status just prior to reaching the end of the runway? Or is taxi-ing a part of the warm up profile of the engine?
The system will involve embedding a hydrogen fuel cell on board the aeroplanes, with the energy captured from the brakes on landing able to power the jet on the ground. This technique is similar to the high-end kinetic energy recovery systems (KERS) used in Formula One cars, which store recovered energy to later use for acceleration.
TFA mentions harvesting the braking energy as being similar to KERS used in Formula 1. But no mention is made of the additional mass or equipment (unsprung at that) that would be needed to be added to the landing gear in order to harvest that energy. Such equipment needing to be robust and large enough to capture a worthwhile amount of energy in the 10 seconds of braking that a plane experiences when landing. For the rest of the 99.9999% of the flight this is dead weight that the plane has to burn fuel in order to carry it around.
So color me surprised if anyone really thinks that is practical. (let alone the bizarre notion that the recovered energy could somehow be funneled into a hydrogen based fuel cell - super cap yes! fuel cell ? are you kidding me?)
It would probably make more sense to assign a tractor to drag each aircraft from the gate to the start of the runway rather than use the planes fuel to taxi around.
Images show the lander, the rover and the surface of the earth.
The point of faking a moon landing is to hide the fact that you never made it there.
From TFA:
According to Infowars, which was alerted to the zine's existence by AnonSec, the hackers' main purpose in hacking Nasa was to highlight the fact that the US government is using climate engineering methods such as cloud seeding and geo-engineering to manipulate the climate and cause more rain to fall in order to combat the effects of carbon emissions.
Well...? Are they?
Given that Cloud seeding has been around for 70 years why would it it be a surprise or controversial that NASA was experimenting with it?
end of argument. get off my lawn.
But the poem itself refers to "chaise" and "chaises". So pedantically I am not going to get off your lawn.
I had a manager who was a big fan of Jack Welch
Ahhh. Neutron Jack. Brings a tear to my eye when I think back to him!
Slashdot has a style manual
Slashdot has a style manual? Next you'll be telling me that TIMMAY!! is an actual journalist.