You can replace the tube with a wall; the debris is coming from a known direction. Doing that produces a wall roughly 125 feet by 60 feet by 6 inches. That's around 100,000 kg. The Shuttle can lift just shy of a quarter of that to low Earth orbit. Also, hypervelocity collisions don't behave like you think they do -- at the least you'd need a spall shield inside the ice shield; you probably need far more than that.
Sorry, the brute force approach to impact shielding just doesn't work when random bits of plumbing are moving at speeds comparable to or faster than kinetic anti-tank rounds. You need a more sophisticated approach like a Whipple shield, and for something the size of the Shuttle even that will be quite heavy.
It's an interesting idea. I think the problem is aiming it; it's essentially the same problem as anti-satellite or anti-missile weapons. Unless your sounding rocket debris cloud is unreasonably large, it's very hard to get it in just the right spot.
For those curious, the shielding in question is a Whipple shield. The idea is similar to gapped armor -- adding some space after the first impact gives the debris / projectile time to break up and spread out, making the next layer's job easier.
Last I checked, Linux let programs running under my account read personal data stored under my account and then send it to random computers on the internet.
Sure, it might have more trouble insinuating itself into the kernel and being nigh-undetectable, but if you don't have software that looks for it, there's plenty of damage it can do. My biggest worry is about data I have access to when logged in as my normal user account.
The physics and math of the navigation is (computationally) easy. The hard part is building the high performance, high reliability vehicle. There are many, many hard problems in rocket engineering, but most of the ones associated with the software aspects of guidance, navigation, and control are staightforward. Going to the Moon is hard; no doubt about it. That really says nothing about the computing required, though.
The easier way to deal with that? Just stop talking on the phone with the officer. They'll give up pretty quickly. If they don't, just tell them that on advice of your lawyer, you don't want to talk with them without an attorney present and then hang up. If you make it take work to talk to you, they'll do a little work to make sure the evidence looks plausible first. They're just being lazy -- if getting you to confess is easier than checking out the evidence, they'll try to do that. Once it becomes clear that won't be easy, they'll check out the evidence before harassing you again.
For most such things, half an hour with a lawyer who's worked with the GPL before will be more than sufficient. And it will cost less than a lot of commercial software out there. And if your lawyer is competent, said legal advice will be more reusable than the closed-source software it helped replace.
As usual, Digikey has them as well -- and a vastly superior web site. You can search on USB cables and select connector to raw cable, or I'm guessing you're looking for part number Q363-ND. (If you're actually looking for PC-mount sockets or something, they have those too...)
I'll give the LED as light sensor some thought, but I imagine you'd just wire it as a photodiode (it should act like any other photodiode, though less efficiently) with an op amp, possibly log scale it to get good response across ambient light conditions, and AC couple it. If you were willing to use a phototransistor you'd get a simpler circuit, I think. Blinking stuff is then done with either a 555 (or similar) or a microcontroller.
As mentioned above, I also built one (scroll down a bit, it's in the comments). Mine's simpler than that one, and entirely analog (which has both pluses and minuses). I don't have a handy schematic, but I'll get one drawn up and post a more informative link in a day or three when everyone has forgotten about the/. story.
Soldering isn't hard. Learn what a cold solder joint is and how not to make them (short version: heat the joint, then let the solder melt on, don't "paint" it on). Use leaded solder (far easier to work with than the lead-free stuff). More doesn't help; it just gets in the way. Don't overdo it. Tin your tip properly when you first get it, and keep it clean with a wet sponge. Oh, and practice a bit on pieces of wire instead of pricey components:)
The only schematics that were created on that project were napkin sketches and annotations on the datasheet printouts. I'll draw something up, but not before this weekend. I'll post another reply when I do.
My brother and I built one of those. Scroll down to the comments, there are pictures and a description of the circuit. It's not as sophisticated as the MIT one, but it definitely works.
That, or an implanted magnet to sense EM fields, constitute a "6th sense" imo. Not this.
(If there's interest, I could be convinced to create a digital version of the schematic and a more complete circuit description with parts list, etc.)
Yeah, it's almost like there are different people with different opinions here. In fact, it's like different subsets comment on different stories, and most people only comment when they want to complain rather than agree. Yeah, such hypocrisy for some users to complain about caps while others think they're a good thing. Glad you pointed that out to us, I'm sure we'll stop disagreeing now.
Balancing the right to privacy against the right to free speech and intellectual property is anything but simple. Most people who think about it a bit will decide that the question is full of gray areas, and that there is, in fact, a difference between my dna and my published works.
Assuming the issue is so simple that you can make such black and white statements helps no one.
Yes, because the first thing I'd do on seeing a vaguely interesting paper is call up half a dozen random researchers, wait until they weren't busy in the lab to get a comment back, and then eventually have some clue what the consensus among those more directly involved in the field than myself is several hours later. Why not just have them publish their opinions? Then they don't have to answer the same questions repeatedly.
The question isn't "why should we include the hashes?" but more properly "Is there any reason not to use a properly designed digital signature?" The fact that I trust someone is a poor reason to deliberately design a weakness into the review system when it's so easy to avoid. What's that, you need a benefit as well? How about drafts of papers -- using hashes makes it easy to get someone to review the preprint of the paper, and make comments. A later draft could address those comments. Their signature should then only be applied to the first one, not the second, until they review it as well. Revision tracking is a useful feature.
As a third party, there is no way I have the time to follow the chain of logic that results in a modern scientific paper from first principles. At some point, I have to accept some of the preconditions of the paper without verifying them, because doing otherwise implies that I am an expert in the particular field the paper is relevant to. And there are plenty of cases where I want to make use of a result from a field that is related to my work but in which I am not an expert.
Appeal to authority is the fundamental reasoning technique I apply in such cases. A respected expert says it is so, and so I will trust them until I have reason to believe otherwise. That trust should not be blind -- if I am presented with reason to, I will happily re-evaluate that trust. Perhaps the expert is mistaken. But, in the interest of actually getting something done myself, I will accept as a default position that the experts know what they're talking about.
Not listed (yet, I'm about to add it) is the PokerStars client. It's a bit buried, but they do list it as supported in the faq and they offer support for it. That's the closest you'll get to a real-money poker option for Linux.
And if you DON'T have the files already on your computer, then you dont need to be worrying about uploading them to anywhere:}
Unless, of course, I'm using my GDrive from a library computer. Or a friend's computer. Or...
Of course I agree with you; backups will be trivial and are the user's job. But I can certainly think of cases where I'd have to spend effort doing so (OK, not a lot of effort, but more than zero).
Would you be willing to offer a contract to someone else with reliability better than Google is, using your water-damaged ancient hardware? The SLA isn't about what they think they are likely to deliver, but what they think they can *guarantee*. There is some safety margin in there.
Slashdot Mirror
You can replace the tube with a wall; the debris is coming from a known direction. Doing that produces a wall roughly 125 feet by 60 feet by 6 inches. That's around 100,000 kg. The Shuttle can lift just shy of a quarter of that to low Earth orbit. Also, hypervelocity collisions don't behave like you think they do -- at the least you'd need a spall shield inside the ice shield; you probably need far more than that.
Sorry, the brute force approach to impact shielding just doesn't work when random bits of plumbing are moving at speeds comparable to or faster than kinetic anti-tank rounds. You need a more sophisticated approach like a Whipple shield, and for something the size of the Shuttle even that will be quite heavy.
It's an interesting idea. I think the problem is aiming it; it's essentially the same problem as anti-satellite or anti-missile weapons. Unless your sounding rocket debris cloud is unreasonably large, it's very hard to get it in just the right spot.
For those curious, the shielding in question is a Whipple shield. The idea is similar to gapped armor -- adding some space after the first impact gives the debris / projectile time to break up and spread out, making the next layer's job easier.
Not 240 watts; 240 watt-hours. With 24.6 hours per Martian day, that's about 9.75 watts average consumption.
Last I checked, Linux let programs running under my account read personal data stored under my account and then send it to random computers on the internet.
Sure, it might have more trouble insinuating itself into the kernel and being nigh-undetectable, but if you don't have software that looks for it, there's plenty of damage it can do. My biggest worry is about data I have access to when logged in as my normal user account.
According to TFA, the concern is primarily about court-mandated phone contact.
Unlike those kind-hearted hippy-type stoned cats?
Except that they appear to be claiming it's a copyright issue, not a contract dispute.
The physics and math of the navigation is (computationally) easy. The hard part is building the high performance, high reliability vehicle. There are many, many hard problems in rocket engineering, but most of the ones associated with the software aspects of guidance, navigation, and control are staightforward. Going to the Moon is hard; no doubt about it. That really says nothing about the computing required, though.
The easier way to deal with that? Just stop talking on the phone with the officer. They'll give up pretty quickly. If they don't, just tell them that on advice of your lawyer, you don't want to talk with them without an attorney present and then hang up. If you make it take work to talk to you, they'll do a little work to make sure the evidence looks plausible first. They're just being lazy -- if getting you to confess is easier than checking out the evidence, they'll try to do that. Once it becomes clear that won't be easy, they'll check out the evidence before harassing you again.
For most such things, half an hour with a lawyer who's worked with the GPL before will be more than sufficient. And it will cost less than a lot of commercial software out there. And if your lawyer is competent, said legal advice will be more reusable than the closed-source software it helped replace.
You're not being frugal, you're being lazy.
As usual, Digikey has them as well -- and a vastly superior web site. You can search on USB cables and select connector to raw cable, or I'm guessing you're looking for part number Q363-ND. (If you're actually looking for PC-mount sockets or something, they have those too...)
I'll give the LED as light sensor some thought, but I imagine you'd just wire it as a photodiode (it should act like any other photodiode, though less efficiently) with an op amp, possibly log scale it to get good response across ambient light conditions, and AC couple it. If you were willing to use a phototransistor you'd get a simpler circuit, I think. Blinking stuff is then done with either a 555 (or similar) or a microcontroller.
As mentioned above, I also built one (scroll down a bit, it's in the comments). Mine's simpler than that one, and entirely analog (which has both pluses and minuses). I don't have a handy schematic, but I'll get one drawn up and post a more informative link in a day or three when everyone has forgotten about the /. story.
Several people have done it. Ring finger is normal, I think, since it's the least used in gripping and such. Quinn Norton got an implant, for instance.
Soldering isn't hard. Learn what a cold solder joint is and how not to make them (short version: heat the joint, then let the solder melt on, don't "paint" it on). Use leaded solder (far easier to work with than the lead-free stuff). More doesn't help; it just gets in the way. Don't overdo it. Tin your tip properly when you first get it, and keep it clean with a wet sponge. Oh, and practice a bit on pieces of wire instead of pricey components :)
The only schematics that were created on that project were napkin sketches and annotations on the datasheet printouts. I'll draw something up, but not before this weekend. I'll post another reply when I do.
My brother and I built one of those. Scroll down to the comments, there are pictures and a description of the circuit. It's not as sophisticated as the MIT one, but it definitely works.
That, or an implanted magnet to sense EM fields, constitute a "6th sense" imo. Not this.
(If there's interest, I could be convinced to create a digital version of the schematic and a more complete circuit description with parts list, etc.)
Yeah, it's almost like there are different people with different opinions here. In fact, it's like different subsets comment on different stories, and most people only comment when they want to complain rather than agree. Yeah, such hypocrisy for some users to complain about caps while others think they're a good thing. Glad you pointed that out to us, I'm sure we'll stop disagreeing now.
Balancing the right to privacy against the right to free speech and intellectual property is anything but simple. Most people who think about it a bit will decide that the question is full of gray areas, and that there is, in fact, a difference between my dna and my published works.
Assuming the issue is so simple that you can make such black and white statements helps no one.
Yes, because the first thing I'd do on seeing a vaguely interesting paper is call up half a dozen random researchers, wait until they weren't busy in the lab to get a comment back, and then eventually have some clue what the consensus among those more directly involved in the field than myself is several hours later. Why not just have them publish their opinions? Then they don't have to answer the same questions repeatedly.
The question isn't "why should we include the hashes?" but more properly "Is there any reason not to use a properly designed digital signature?" The fact that I trust someone is a poor reason to deliberately design a weakness into the review system when it's so easy to avoid. What's that, you need a benefit as well? How about drafts of papers -- using hashes makes it easy to get someone to review the preprint of the paper, and make comments. A later draft could address those comments. Their signature should then only be applied to the first one, not the second, until they review it as well. Revision tracking is a useful feature.
As a third party, there is no way I have the time to follow the chain of logic that results in a modern scientific paper from first principles. At some point, I have to accept some of the preconditions of the paper without verifying them, because doing otherwise implies that I am an expert in the particular field the paper is relevant to. And there are plenty of cases where I want to make use of a result from a field that is related to my work but in which I am not an expert.
Appeal to authority is the fundamental reasoning technique I apply in such cases. A respected expert says it is so, and so I will trust them until I have reason to believe otherwise. That trust should not be blind -- if I am presented with reason to, I will happily re-evaluate that trust. Perhaps the expert is mistaken. But, in the interest of actually getting something done myself, I will accept as a default position that the experts know what they're talking about.
Not listed (yet, I'm about to add it) is the PokerStars client. It's a bit buried, but they do list it as supported in the faq and they offer support for it. That's the closest you'll get to a real-money poker option for Linux.
And if you DON'T have the files already on your computer, then you dont need to be worrying about uploading them to anywhere :}
Unless, of course, I'm using my GDrive from a library computer. Or a friend's computer. Or...
Of course I agree with you; backups will be trivial and are the user's job. But I can certainly think of cases where I'd have to spend effort doing so (OK, not a lot of effort, but more than zero).
Would you be willing to offer a contract to someone else with reliability better than Google is, using your water-damaged ancient hardware? The SLA isn't about what they think they are likely to deliver, but what they think they can *guarantee*. There is some safety margin in there.
[[citation needed]]
Quick, someone tell the physicits! I'm sure they forgot all about this. Good thing we have /. to check their work.