AFAIK, none of the programs playing regularly on servers are using more than 8 cores (maybe 4). When playing the pro, Mogo was running on a substantial cluster, and it's well known that Mogo scales reasonably well on clusters. I think it's fair to say that the hardware and software config that Mogo ran in those games could maintain a 1d rating in even games against amateurs. Obviously that hasn't been proven, but I think that speaks more to budget than the strength of the software.
I don't think we've seen the end of the MC-derived improvements, btw. My limited following of the current state of computer Go suggests that the field is less stagnant now than it was shortly before MC appeared -- MC is still being tweaked, and people are exploring a variety of ways to incorporate more knowledge into MC. I'd bet heavily that there's a lot of room to improve the current software before another breakthrough on the scale of MC is needed.
Re:It's called "Controlled flight into terrain"
on
Fossett's Plane Found
·
· Score: 1
For an even more dramatic example, see Air NZ Flight 901. The plane managed to crash into Mount Erebus -- one of only two mountains even remotely in the area.
That's the public statement, quite possibly through a publicist / lawyer. It's entirely possible she's highly emotional, but saw no reason to tell the public that.
First, the flight may be two hours, but the weightless period isn't -- it's under ten minutes, maybe more like 5 (I haven't looked at their numbers recently). Also note that it's $200k on an 8-seat (6 passengers) craft -- so the normal fee for the whole craft would be $1.2M. He's offered less than the nominal price, for what is certainly a lot of extra work by Virgin and may have adverse effects on their publicity (or maybe positive, but I'm not the one making that judgement).
Also, we don't yet know whether they'll be requiring pressure suits. The craft has a double pressure hull, but that still means there are common mode failures possible. Originally Rutan said the double hull meant no pressure suits, but that was at a time when it wasn't clear that affordable pressure suits existed. As companies like Orbital Outfitters have begun to show that they can supply rental suits at reasonable prices (a few $k per person per flight -- custom tailoring included), Rutan has talked about maybe using pressure suits. Last I heard, the issue wasn't fully decided yet. If they do use pressure suits, they may be reluctant to allow unsuited passengers even at a price premium. (Note that the suit would be worn unpressurized with the visor up as long as cabin pressure held. I've seen the suits, and while they're not as lightweight as a t-shirt, they aren't bad either. We're not talking about Apollo-type space suits or anything.)
Then there's the regulatory headache. The craft will be an experimental aircraft, not a certificated one, and the tourists will be spaceflight participants, not passengers. The distinction may be semantic, but it's a very important one. Flying for commercial purposes rather than tourism may make it more difficult to get FAA/AST approval for the flight. If so, that would be a deal breaker regardless of any other concerns.
I've interned with XCOR Aerospace (a competitor of Scaled's); while none of this should be taken as official XCOR policy, I would be surprised if Scaled, XCOR, or anyone else was willing to do this any time soon. The headaches in safety, regulation, PR, and logistics are just too large, especially with no financial incentive. (Note that this would be difficult in XCOR's Lynx, as there's only one passenger and they don't get to remove their seatbelt.)
All of that said... I think it's wonderful to see this much interest in commercial spaceflight. I'd also love to see some space porn, if only to laugh my ass off at the awkwardness. I'm sure they'll find a way to do it eventually, and I hope it's sooner rather than later.
Generally, the safest speed to be going is more closely related to what other drivers are doing and what they expect you to be doing than it is to the number on the sign. In most of the US, the norm is to go at or slightly over the speed limit. Whether this is silly or not (I think it is) is entirely beside the point -- if everyone expects you to be going 60 in a 55 zone, and they're all going 60, it's probably safest to be going at about 60. Obviously things like curves, weather, traffic, etc can be more important concerns when deciding what the safest speed to drive is.
What's more, it sounds like this device is low power and reasonably sized -- both highly important in a space setting.
There's no need to look for a way to convert the CO2 to something else. In any near-term application, it would be fine to just vent the CO2 (and import fresh O2 and food etc). In any situation where you want to recycle the carbon, you're probably feeding the CO2 to plants. Failing that, it's not all that hard to turn CO2 into methane or longer chain organics, which are likely more useful than elemental carbon anyway -- though obviously there are energy requirements.
The interesting question is how well this scales down.
Even better, put them near wind farms and run them when you have excess power -- it's not uncommon to see windfarms with half the windmills stopped because the winds are high and there's nowhere for the power to go because local load is low. That power could be had almost for free.
The spec is a little odd in this regard. It says that GETs should be idempotent -- repeating the request shouldn't change anything. That is not the same as saying that performing the request the first time shouldn't change anything. For example, clicking a "remove this from my shopping cart" link twice would have the same result as only doing it once -- the item is gone. But the request is still idempotent. That doesn't mean that you should do that, but it does conform to spec.
Normally the relative greenhouse strength is corrected for a 100-year period (ie the shorter half life is already accounted for in the 27x number; I haven't checked the number, though).
It sounds like methane does have a feedback loop -- methane causes warming releases more methane. Sure, there's a limited amount down there, but it's a rather large amount. We'd really rather it stay put.
Not saying the CO2 isn't bad... but there's no shortage of other effects to go with it.
What society thinks of a crime has no legal bearing on whether accusing someone of it is libel. If the principle wished to accuse the student of libel, there are courts available to heard that accusation -- the fact that the principle could possibly have brought a libel case does not give them the right to act as a vigilante.
The courts have long held that school is different from work, and that you do not give up your rights merely by being a student. Partly this is because school is not a voluntary thing on the part of the student. Also, the school district is acting on behalf of the government, which is distinct from a private employer. The fact that she has the ability to continue publishing, but be punished for it, does not mean that the punishment isn't an infringement of her right to free speech.
Generally agreed, but what's iffy about fiber to the barge? Undersea fiber is a well understood technology. You need a little bit of flex in the line for normal motion of the ship, but I doubt that's likely to be a problem.
Why restrict it to the defense? The police and the justice system ostensibly serve the public; there's no reason the public shouldn't be allowed to see the source code. The code could remain copyrighted; there's no need for it to be free for anyone to use, merely avaiable for anyone to inspect. I see no reason these companies need to keep the code secret as well -- it certainly doesn't serve the public interest.
Skype *audio* doesn't work here (Debian, skype 2). Not to mention that it seems to use a brain-dead chat protocol the loses messages into the aether for extended periods (hours, sometimes, and I've seen longer). I can fully understand the OP's reluctance to use it.
That just changes the energy required from the launcher a little bit. Lunar escape velocity is 2.38 km/s. Add the energy for another 1 km/s and you need to launch at 2.59 km/s instead of 2.38 km/s (sqrt(2.38^2+1.024^2)). The impact speed is unchanged. The corrections for things like the Earth's rotational velocity at the impact point are even smaller.
Actually, that energy is precisely what I'm counting. The energy from the launcher is mostly expended getting the rock away from the Moon. See my other post for details, and note that I missed a decimal point (it's 70MJ/kg, not 7).
Slashdot Mirror
So, can I buy it? Where? What does it cost?
AFAIK, none of the programs playing regularly on servers are using more than 8 cores (maybe 4). When playing the pro, Mogo was running on a substantial cluster, and it's well known that Mogo scales reasonably well on clusters. I think it's fair to say that the hardware and software config that Mogo ran in those games could maintain a 1d rating in even games against amateurs. Obviously that hasn't been proven, but I think that speaks more to budget than the strength of the software.
I don't think we've seen the end of the MC-derived improvements, btw. My limited following of the current state of computer Go suggests that the field is less stagnant now than it was shortly before MC appeared -- MC is still being tweaked, and people are exploring a variety of ways to incorporate more knowledge into MC. I'd bet heavily that there's a lot of room to improve the current software before another breakthrough on the scale of MC is needed.
For an even more dramatic example, see Air NZ Flight 901. The plane managed to crash into Mount Erebus -- one of only two mountains even remotely in the area.
That's the public statement, quite possibly through a publicist / lawyer. It's entirely possible she's highly emotional, but saw no reason to tell the public that.
First, the flight may be two hours, but the weightless period isn't -- it's under ten minutes, maybe more like 5 (I haven't looked at their numbers recently). Also note that it's $200k on an 8-seat (6 passengers) craft -- so the normal fee for the whole craft would be $1.2M. He's offered less than the nominal price, for what is certainly a lot of extra work by Virgin and may have adverse effects on their publicity (or maybe positive, but I'm not the one making that judgement).
Also, we don't yet know whether they'll be requiring pressure suits. The craft has a double pressure hull, but that still means there are common mode failures possible. Originally Rutan said the double hull meant no pressure suits, but that was at a time when it wasn't clear that affordable pressure suits existed. As companies like Orbital Outfitters have begun to show that they can supply rental suits at reasonable prices (a few $k per person per flight -- custom tailoring included), Rutan has talked about maybe using pressure suits. Last I heard, the issue wasn't fully decided yet. If they do use pressure suits, they may be reluctant to allow unsuited passengers even at a price premium. (Note that the suit would be worn unpressurized with the visor up as long as cabin pressure held. I've seen the suits, and while they're not as lightweight as a t-shirt, they aren't bad either. We're not talking about Apollo-type space suits or anything.)
Then there's the regulatory headache. The craft will be an experimental aircraft, not a certificated one, and the tourists will be spaceflight participants, not passengers. The distinction may be semantic, but it's a very important one. Flying for commercial purposes rather than tourism may make it more difficult to get FAA/AST approval for the flight. If so, that would be a deal breaker regardless of any other concerns.
I've interned with XCOR Aerospace (a competitor of Scaled's); while none of this should be taken as official XCOR policy, I would be surprised if Scaled, XCOR, or anyone else was willing to do this any time soon. The headaches in safety, regulation, PR, and logistics are just too large, especially with no financial incentive. (Note that this would be difficult in XCOR's Lynx, as there's only one passenger and they don't get to remove their seatbelt.)
All of that said... I think it's wonderful to see this much interest in commercial spaceflight. I'd also love to see some space porn, if only to laugh my ass off at the awkwardness. I'm sure they'll find a way to do it eventually, and I hope it's sooner rather than later.
Generally, the safest speed to be going is more closely related to what other drivers are doing and what they expect you to be doing than it is to the number on the sign. In most of the US, the norm is to go at or slightly over the speed limit. Whether this is silly or not (I think it is) is entirely beside the point -- if everyone expects you to be going 60 in a 55 zone, and they're all going 60, it's probably safest to be going at about 60. Obviously things like curves, weather, traffic, etc can be more important concerns when deciding what the safest speed to drive is.
What's more, it sounds like this device is low power and reasonably sized -- both highly important in a space setting.
There's no need to look for a way to convert the CO2 to something else. In any near-term application, it would be fine to just vent the CO2 (and import fresh O2 and food etc). In any situation where you want to recycle the carbon, you're probably feeding the CO2 to plants. Failing that, it's not all that hard to turn CO2 into methane or longer chain organics, which are likely more useful than elemental carbon anyway -- though obviously there are energy requirements.
The interesting question is how well this scales down.
Even better, put them near wind farms and run them when you have excess power -- it's not uncommon to see windfarms with half the windmills stopped because the winds are high and there's nowhere for the power to go because local load is low. That power could be had almost for free.
The spec is a little odd in this regard. It says that GETs should be idempotent -- repeating the request shouldn't change anything. That is not the same as saying that performing the request the first time shouldn't change anything. For example, clicking a "remove this from my shopping cart" link twice would have the same result as only doing it once -- the item is gone. But the request is still idempotent. That doesn't mean that you should do that, but it does conform to spec.
Normally the relative greenhouse strength is corrected for a 100-year period (ie the shorter half life is already accounted for in the 27x number; I haven't checked the number, though).
It sounds like methane does have a feedback loop -- methane causes warming releases more methane. Sure, there's a limited amount down there, but it's a rather large amount. We'd really rather it stay put.
Not saying the CO2 isn't bad... but there's no shortage of other effects to go with it.
Here is the spot in the screenshot. No smiley, though.
Whether or not the speach is libel has not been decided. Vigilante justice is bad, two wrongs don't make a right, and all those other cliches.
What society thinks of a crime has no legal bearing on whether accusing someone of it is libel. If the principle wished to accuse the student of libel, there are courts available to heard that accusation -- the fact that the principle could possibly have brought a libel case does not give them the right to act as a vigilante.
The courts have long held that school is different from work, and that you do not give up your rights merely by being a student. Partly this is because school is not a voluntary thing on the part of the student. Also, the school district is acting on behalf of the government, which is distinct from a private employer. The fact that she has the ability to continue publishing, but be punished for it, does not mean that the punishment isn't an infringement of her right to free speech.
You know, this is slashdot. The least you could do is provide a link.
Yep. The graphite dust and pencil shavings from sharpening are bad too. Oh, and the research wasn't funded by the government anyway.
Generally agreed, but what's iffy about fiber to the barge? Undersea fiber is a well understood technology. You need a little bit of flex in the line for normal motion of the ship, but I doubt that's likely to be a problem.
Why restrict it to the defense? The police and the justice system ostensibly serve the public; there's no reason the public shouldn't be allowed to see the source code. The code could remain copyrighted; there's no need for it to be free for anyone to use, merely avaiable for anyone to inspect. I see no reason these companies need to keep the code secret as well -- it certainly doesn't serve the public interest.
Hey, tell ya what. I'll pay you a $100 if you play Russian roulette and win.
Skype *audio* doesn't work here (Debian, skype 2). Not to mention that it seems to use a brain-dead chat protocol the loses messages into the aether for extended periods (hours, sometimes, and I've seen longer). I can fully understand the OP's reluctance to use it.
I don't have the ebook handy, but unless I'm mistaken he also talks about destroying Cheyenne Mountain...
(1000 m/s, not km/s, as you noted)
That just changes the energy required from the launcher a little bit. Lunar escape velocity is 2.38 km/s. Add the energy for another 1 km/s and you need to launch at 2.59 km/s instead of 2.38 km/s (sqrt(2.38^2+1.024^2)). The impact speed is unchanged. The corrections for things like the Earth's rotational velocity at the impact point are even smaller.
Actually, that energy is precisely what I'm counting. The energy from the launcher is mostly expended getting the rock away from the Moon. See my other post for details, and note that I missed a decimal point (it's 70MJ/kg, not 7).
As another poster pointed out, I dropped a decimal point. You missed the 1/2 in 1/2*m*v^2; it's about 15x.
Apparently I didn't get enough sleep last night. Still, a far cry from the nukes Heinlein makes them out to be.