I would guess, Cape Canaveral was constructed with logistics in mind. Remember, the base was built at a time when jet planes were fairly new, and that time, the fastest route to deliver large rocket components (eg; tanks, primary stages, etc) was by road or rail.
Ah, finally someone provides an answer! Just had my ass flamed off, because early after the launch, I asked why nobody has provided proof that the launch took place. Sheesh folks, instead of starting a flamewar for a legitimate question, just say "It's overhead right now, dumbass" and leave it at that.
Asking for proof is neither paranoia or conspiracy related. It's a legitimate (but thanks to the replies, now has been modded into obscurity) inquiry as to whether or not the launch was verified. Ground stations could verify these things right off the bat, and yet nobody has done so.
So why is everyone so defensive of the Chinese, and so desperate to avoid the issue, lowering themselves to flaming and personal attacks, rather than *gasp* saying something as simple as "I don't know"?
Stop with the conspiracy kook line. I believe we made it to the moon. However, it wouldn't take much for any agency to state that there WAS a capsule in orbit.
Remember Sputnik? When that was launched, the US and European agencies verified the launch within hours, and broadcast it over the news media shortly afterwards. So what's keeping them from doing so now, in an age when a news report can be issued seconds after verification?
THAT is what I'm asking. And honestly, you should be ashamed for deciding to flame rather than at least ask the same question.
Until the Chinese release footage, or anyone with a telescope or radio reciever can verify there's a capsule in orbit, the publicity photos released by the Chinese will remain just that. Publicity photos.
Ooh, someone decided to gang up on me too, by getting his buddies to mod down my original question "Has anyone verified this?", and then, when I respond to the personal attack, the previous posting gets modded to flamebait. Did anyone modding this actually read the thread in question?
In case you haven't noticed, water vapor can condense in high humidity/high temperature areas as well, kiddo. Basic gradeschool physics back atcha. Ever hear of a thing called dew point?
But hey, lets see the proof, you know, from the people who claimed to launch the vehicle? As many people out there who can photoshop a picture as there are, all we have to go by is AP's pictures, supplied to them BY the Chinese. In other words, FAR from anything resembling an impartial source.
In other words, NOT PROOF.
Something you have failed immensely to provide, and guaging from your replies, something one would expect from a 13 year old, what could hardly be considered as an expert on the subject, let alone someone who grew up observing studying and the space programs their entire life.
"take your conspiracy theories elsewhere, and your tinfoil hat too."
Oooh, a false argument AND a flame in one posting, you must be very proud of yourself. Are you sure you aren't working for the Chinese state run media? You seem awfully keen to defend China for not providing significant proof.
The Atlas rockets used in the Mercury and Gemini launches, along with the Saturn V used for Apollo/Skylab launches were all chemical rockets. And *dramatic chord* ALL of them had shown contrails from the moment they launched. And do we know why, kids?
They ran on the chemical reaction of oxygen and hydrogen to form large clouds of *tadah* WATER VAPOR! And this is in the very humid state of Florida. And despite the Chinese launch taking place in a desert, that water vapor would be considerably more evident in an explosive reaction between propellant and oxidizer of any type.
So why, then, doesn't the Chinese rocket show such a reaction, and in fact look more like a crappy photoshop job the more I look at it, eh?
Just wondering if anyone's presented snapshots and/or audio recordings of the craft in orbit.
The pictures released by the Chinese media appear to be forged (I'm no rocket scientist, no pun intended), don't rockets typically have some form of a visable exhaust cloud/contrail?
Additionally, the rocket plume looks a little *too* ordered, and the launch vehicle itself looks a little *too* sharp around the edges, as if they knew exactly what focal length they set the cameras for (kind of like a cheap model)
Maybe with luck the Chinese will release actual footage of the launch?
Don't get me wrong, if they did it, cool beans. But between the first capsule tests and first manned launch, seems to be just a little too error free, and a little too quick in the achievements department to be real. Considering the craft is a knockoff of the Soyuz capsules, it still takes a while to get the engineering just right.
Or you COULD always just make one available for people who actually want to FIGHT the RIAA, instead of buggering up hundreds of thousands of innocent users' systems.
If I recall correctly, air conditioners put out a large amount of exhaust heat, which can raise ambient outdoor temperatures by up to 5 degrees on average.
During weekdays, most of these home air conditioners are at work. Since they don't really want to pay an extra $20-$30 in electric costs, they turn them off, which gives a two fold effect. Less pollution from power plants, and less "heat pollution" in the overall areas.
In the winter, you get much the same effect (poorly insulated buildings dump heat into the environment almost as badly as air conditioner heat coils), along with the energy consumption of keeping their homes warm.
The office buildings and businesses they're working at have air conditioning too, but it's more localized (eg; restricted to one specific densely occupied area), and as businesses are even more anal regarding expenses, the air conditioners used tend to be perhaps just a bit more efficient.
So essentially, you have less energy consumption in residential areas during weekdays, along with reduced heat pollution to screw up minor things like air currents, which in turn modifies how clouds form, and possibly on a larger scale, how the jetstream travels.
The user in question was fingered due to her IP. The thing about Comcast, is that they use dynamic IPs.
Essentially, the IP that was the "transgressor's" at the time the RIAA logged it, eventually was rotated so that the innocent party was fingered.
It's nice that the article's writer at least got the IP point right, but it's a little surprising that NOBODY, neither Comcast, the RIAA, or law enforcement for that matter, has pointed out the fact that DynIP makes persecution almost impossible without continuous logging of IP numbers and addressed clients.
(CRIKEY! Here's a 1100 node cluster of Athlon 2200s running Linux! Be warned though, it's bluetooth is razor sharp and the combined heat output can cook 'er arm clean off! Danger danger danger!)
"Flash is a bane. With Mozilla I can block image and pop-up ads but the Flash plugin is an open wound for infection with annoying ads."
Really? Gee, I can block it just fine with Avant Browser (a clone of Opera that runs using *dramatic pause* the IE engine).
Maybe you should look into it. Considering with Netscape and IE, you're choosing between AOL/T/W and Microsoft, two great evils, you should choose the greater evil that does the most good. Or something.
The RIAA already charges a tax on blank tape and CD media, along with the hardware it takes to make them, even though there's no real guarantee that people would buy tapes or CD-R/W media every single month. But what every song downloader DOES do, however, is pay (either directly or indirectly) an ISP fee.
So why not charge a simple $2-$5 fee for every customer of any given ISP, or bulk rates for network clients based on the number of users connected? That way the RIAA can make millions of dollars a month without doing a single thing, other than signing the checks?
That way everyone sort of wins, and they can move beyond heavyhanded tactics like suing everyone in existance.
The Obey Giant trend actually started in the late 1980s (I remember seeing the original "Andre the Giant Has a Posse" posters when visiting NYC in January 1990).
"The above. The "are you sure you want to view these system folders" screen. The crippled search option until you change folder options to show "hidden" and system files. The hiding of tray icons, some of the 'inactive' ones are pretty important."
So you're complaining because the system is geared for newbies who may turn that feature off and trash their system, whereas all it does for you is bug you once for a mouse click, which you're never bugged for again?
Of course, I do have complaints of my own regarding Windows Explorer (which make the above pale in comparison), like how it spontaneously forgets its folder views (for example, when you set it to show the detailed view in all folders, but you come back later and find it dragging things out by showing thumbnails). The only solution is right click, select the view of choice, go to the tools/options and set all folders to look like the directory I just adjusted the view on, hoping it stays the same this time around. THAT is a pain.
Another annoyance, is when you're saving graphics to disk from IE, it also insists on showing thumbnails every single time. Even though that helps some folks to avoid redundant files, it's still a nuisance. This occurs even if you turn off thumbnail caching in XP.
While putting aside the bugs, it's always odd when MS works on a new OS:
Slashdotters will always laugh/complain about delays in releasing it, even though they constantly preach on the values of Linux and OSS, whereas Windows should technically hold no interest for them.
When MS (mainly to keep their bottom line) rushes out a product (such as Windows ME, and allow a raft of flaws/bugs to make it into the release, Slashdotters will laugh/complain about them releasing it to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
Watch out, someone will accuse you of being a conspiracy nut, and others will tell you to put on a tinfoil hat.
And knowing is half the babble!
I would guess, Cape Canaveral was constructed with logistics in mind. Remember, the base was built at a time when jet planes were fairly new, and that time, the fastest route to deliver large rocket components (eg; tanks, primary stages, etc) was by road or rail.
Ah, finally someone provides an answer! Just had my ass flamed off, because early after the launch, I asked why nobody has provided proof that the launch took place. Sheesh folks, instead of starting a flamewar for a legitimate question, just say "It's overhead right now, dumbass" and leave it at that.
Asking for proof is neither paranoia or conspiracy related. It's a legitimate (but thanks to the replies, now has been modded into obscurity) inquiry as to whether or not the launch was verified. Ground stations could verify these things right off the bat, and yet nobody has done so.
So why is everyone so defensive of the Chinese, and so desperate to avoid the issue, lowering themselves to flaming and personal attacks, rather than *gasp* saying something as simple as "I don't know"?
Stop with the conspiracy kook line. I believe we made it to the moon. However, it wouldn't take much for any agency to state that there WAS a capsule in orbit.
Remember Sputnik? When that was launched, the US and European agencies verified the launch within hours, and broadcast it over the news media shortly afterwards. So what's keeping them from doing so now, in an age when a news report can be issued seconds after verification?
THAT is what I'm asking. And honestly, you should be ashamed for deciding to flame rather than at least ask the same question.
Until the Chinese release footage, or anyone with a telescope or radio reciever can verify there's a capsule in orbit, the publicity photos released by the Chinese will remain just that. Publicity photos.
Ooh, someone decided to gang up on me too, by getting his buddies to mod down my original question "Has anyone verified this?", and then, when I respond to the personal attack, the previous posting gets modded to flamebait. Did anyone modding this actually read the thread in question?
Judging from both links giving a 404 error, I'd say there were none.
& ie =UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en
http://images.google.com/images?q=apollo+launch
On the other hand, has PLENTY.
Oh, and you failed to make any mention of my previous inquiry, showing you to be nothing more than a troll.
(1) We have no ground observatories reporting the capsule in orbit.
(2) We have no radio tracking services reporting communications from the capsule in orbit.
One would think they would notice either (1) or (2) if the launch was factual.
In case you haven't noticed, water vapor can condense in high humidity/high temperature areas as well, kiddo. Basic gradeschool physics back atcha. Ever hear of a thing called dew point?
But hey, lets see the proof, you know, from the people who claimed to launch the vehicle? As many people out there who can photoshop a picture as there are, all we have to go by is AP's pictures, supplied to them BY the Chinese. In other words, FAR from anything resembling an impartial source.
In other words, NOT PROOF.
Something you have failed immensely to provide, and guaging from your replies, something one would expect from a 13 year old, what could hardly be considered as an expert on the subject, let alone someone who grew up observing studying and the space programs their entire life.
Go back to school little one.
"take your conspiracy theories elsewhere, and your tinfoil hat too."
Oooh, a false argument AND a flame in one posting, you must be very proud of yourself. Are you sure you aren't working for the Chinese state run media? You seem awfully keen to defend China for not providing significant proof.
The Atlas rockets used in the Mercury and Gemini launches, along with the Saturn V used for Apollo/Skylab launches were all chemical rockets. And *dramatic chord* ALL of them had shown contrails from the moment they launched. And do we know why, kids?
They ran on the chemical reaction of oxygen and hydrogen to form large clouds of *tadah* WATER VAPOR! And this is in the very humid state of Florida. And despite the Chinese launch taking place in a desert, that water vapor would be considerably more evident in an explosive reaction between propellant and oxidizer of any type.
So why, then, doesn't the Chinese rocket show such a reaction, and in fact look more like a crappy photoshop job the more I look at it, eh?
Just wondering if anyone's presented snapshots and/or audio recordings of the craft in orbit.
The pictures released by the Chinese media appear to be forged (I'm no rocket scientist, no pun intended), don't rockets typically have some form of a visable exhaust cloud/contrail?
Additionally, the rocket plume looks a little *too* ordered, and the launch vehicle itself looks a little *too* sharp around the edges, as if they knew exactly what focal length they set the cameras for (kind of like a cheap model)
Maybe with luck the Chinese will release actual footage of the launch?
Don't get me wrong, if they did it, cool beans. But between the first capsule tests and first manned launch, seems to be just a little too error free, and a little too quick in the achievements department to be real. Considering the craft is a knockoff of the Soyuz capsules, it still takes a while to get the engineering just right.
After all, the autoplay disable feature used in Windows since 1995 (or earlier) retroactively breaks the copy protection scheme.
All they have is billions of dollars and 800 lb gorilla lawyers and...
Oh... Right.
Or you COULD always just make one available for people who actually want to FIGHT the RIAA, instead of buggering up hundreds of thousands of innocent users' systems.
If I recall correctly, air conditioners put out a large amount of exhaust heat, which can raise ambient outdoor temperatures by up to 5 degrees on average.
During weekdays, most of these home air conditioners are at work. Since they don't really want to pay an extra $20-$30 in electric costs, they turn them off, which gives a two fold effect. Less pollution from power plants, and less "heat pollution" in the overall areas.
In the winter, you get much the same effect (poorly insulated buildings dump heat into the environment almost as badly as air conditioner heat coils), along with the energy consumption of keeping their homes warm.
The office buildings and businesses they're working at have air conditioning too, but it's more localized (eg; restricted to one specific densely occupied area), and as businesses are even more anal regarding expenses, the air conditioners used tend to be perhaps just a bit more efficient.
So essentially, you have less energy consumption in residential areas during weekdays, along with reduced heat pollution to screw up minor things like air currents, which in turn modifies how clouds form, and possibly on a larger scale, how the jetstream travels.
The user in question was fingered due to her IP. The thing about Comcast, is that they use dynamic IPs.
Essentially, the IP that was the "transgressor's" at the time the RIAA logged it, eventually was rotated so that the innocent party was fingered.
It's nice that the article's writer at least got the IP point right, but it's a little surprising that NOBODY, neither Comcast, the RIAA, or law enforcement for that matter, has pointed out the fact that DynIP makes persecution almost impossible without continuous logging of IP numbers and addressed clients.
How about letting me reprogram it for you? It'll only cost you $15,000. Small unmarked bills only.
Beowulf Hunter!
(CRIKEY! Here's a 1100 node cluster of Athlon 2200s running Linux! Be warned though, it's bluetooth is razor sharp and the combined heat output can cook 'er arm clean off! Danger danger danger!)
I see a whole TV cartoon series! Yes! Star Wars Babies!
"Wuke, I'm your fawther!"
"Nooooooo! That's impossible!"
"No kidding, I'm stiw twying to figuwe it out mysewf!"
Your tuition dollars at work: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/stu/putty/index.cf m
"Flash is a bane. With Mozilla I can block image and pop-up ads but the Flash plugin is an open wound for infection with annoying ads."
Really? Gee, I can block it just fine with Avant Browser (a clone of Opera that runs using *dramatic pause* the IE engine).
Maybe you should look into it. Considering with Netscape and IE, you're choosing between AOL/T/W and Microsoft, two great evils, you should choose the greater evil that does the most good. Or something.
The RIAA already charges a tax on blank tape and CD media, along with the hardware it takes to make them, even though there's no real guarantee that people would buy tapes or CD-R/W media every single month. But what every song downloader DOES do, however, is pay (either directly or indirectly) an ISP fee.
So why not charge a simple $2-$5 fee for every customer of any given ISP, or bulk rates for network clients based on the number of users connected? That way the RIAA can make millions of dollars a month without doing a single thing, other than signing the checks?
That way everyone sort of wins, and they can move beyond heavyhanded tactics like suing everyone in existance.
The Obey Giant trend actually started in the late 1980s (I remember seeing the original "Andre the Giant Has a Posse" posters when visiting NYC in January 1990).
By joining forces with the MPAA in their attempts to shut down KaZaA, et al, since that video's the easiest one to get using P2P.
"The above. The "are you sure you want to view these system folders" screen. The crippled search option until you change folder options to show "hidden" and system files. The hiding of tray icons, some of the 'inactive' ones are pretty important."
So you're complaining because the system is geared for newbies who may turn that feature off and trash their system, whereas all it does for you is bug you once for a mouse click, which you're never bugged for again?
Of course, I do have complaints of my own regarding Windows Explorer (which make the above pale in comparison), like how it spontaneously forgets its folder views (for example, when you set it to show the detailed view in all folders, but you come back later and find it dragging things out by showing thumbnails). The only solution is right click, select the view of choice, go to the tools/options and set all folders to look like the directory I just adjusted the view on, hoping it stays the same this time around. THAT is a pain.
Another annoyance, is when you're saving graphics to disk from IE, it also insists on showing thumbnails every single time. Even though that helps some folks to avoid redundant files, it's still a nuisance. This occurs even if you turn off thumbnail caching in XP.
While putting aside the bugs, it's always odd when MS works on a new OS:
Slashdotters will always laugh/complain about delays in releasing it, even though they constantly preach on the values of Linux and OSS, whereas Windows should technically hold no interest for them.
When MS (mainly to keep their bottom line) rushes out a product (such as Windows ME, and allow a raft of flaws/bugs to make it into the release, Slashdotters will laugh/complain about them releasing it to begin with.