And yet the most recent bit of information on Samsung's own website is this release which is the one quoted in the previous story. Their investor relations site doesn't contain any references to a permanent end of production either.
So are these stories reporting new facts and Samsung just hasn't updated its websites yet, or are they misunderstanding the earlier release, inferring the word "permanent" when it wasn't in the original information?
There's about 0 overlap between civilian nuclear reactors and submarine powerplants. The UK might as well hide the SSBN budget inside the NHS. The cost for a new nuclear submarine powerplant has been openly discussed already, making it unlikely they'd try to hide that cost now.
Then again, it's an mdsolar submission, so par for the course.
Except Source Code Pro only contains English glyphs, so it's useless for e.g. debugging exotic-language XML files. I keep switching between Source Code Pro and Arial Unicode MS, which has pretty good language support.
Note that this new font doesn't fix the 'Han unification' problem. It just provides 3 versions of the font, one for C, one for J and one for K. This sidesteps the clusterfuck (and forces you to select a different font for each language), but does not fix it.
Have you looked at electric bikes lately? You can buy a bike that will give pedaling assistance up to a speed of 45 km/h and has a range of 200 km. They call it 'assistance' but the electric motor provides up to 80% of the motive power. For people who really don't want to pedal, it'd be easy enough to scale this up to 100%. Electric scooters are a solved problem.
One of the reasons the Hebrew text was stable was because they used checksums when copying. Each letter in the Hebrew alphabet is also used as a number. That made it easy to calculate checksums for each line of text.
They had a photo with an obscured face and the same photo with unobscured face in their training set. It seems obvious a computer can match those two. The solution would be to use unique photos, not uploaded anywhere, as the source for obscuration and only publish the obscured version.
If there was a failure, it wasn't a failure of mission control. Nothing they could have done would have changed the outcome.
The landing had a combination of problems. Harpoons and thrusters not firing (design flaws), and the landing zone having different geology than had been assumed (nobody had landed on a comet before, so no definitive data to go by).
Despite the problems, the mission gathered most of the data they wanted. Not an overwhelming fail by any stretch of the imagination.
The lander had batteries sized to provide enough power for the primary science objectives. What was lost was maybe 20% of the planned objectives, not "the majority".
An RTG would have been cool, but it'd have doubled the cost of the mission.
Rockets exploding while they're being prepared for a static test fire (or during any fueling operation) are very rare though. The last case was in the 1960s, I believe. So they might be making mistakes everyone else has known to avoid for 50 years.
Meanwhile, one of the stages that landed successfully has seen 5 full-duration test firings since the landing. Maybe they actually designed the rocket for those loads instead of just winging it.
Those reports are incorrect. In this video you can see (a few minutes after the initial explosion) only the tower is left standing. First explosion is the second stage. The first stage explodes right after that. A few seconds later you can see the payload fairing fall (it was held in place by the arms at the top of the tower), followed by the satellite exploding.
The cost of the propellant is irrelevant. The goal is reusability. This is difficult because of the propellant mass fraction a rocket needs (i.e. the fraction of its launch mass dedicated to propellants). For a pure rocket this is in the region of 95%, so the entire rocket structure and payload must be crammed into the remaining 5%. This makes it difficult to do reusability, because heat shielding etc. eat into your already-tiny payload fraction. When you can use atmospheric oxygen, the propellant mass fraction goes down, i.e. more of your launch weight can reach orbit. This makes it feasible to build a heavier structure that includes reusability features.
A flyby is acceptable for a first mission. The science data from Voyager answered some questions, but also raised lots of new questions. To answer these, we went for orbiting missions that would spend far longer at the planet, using better instruments, and new instruments inspired by the Voyager science return.
Flybys have big drawbacks: you only get a few hours of observation time, so you can't study patterns that occur over long periods (seasonal changes, for example). You can't even see the entire surface of the planet (unless you get lucky and the planet rotates really quickly).
For Jupiter and Saturn, we've had several orbiters now (e.g. Galileo, Ulysses, Cassini, Juno) and we've amassed far more knowledge than flybys could ever give us.
Uranus and Neptune haven't had dedicated missions yet, but that might change soon.
Voyager 3 and 4 were planned initially, by the way (identical to Voyager 1 and 2, with mission plans that included Pluto). They fell to budget cuts (early '70s, NASA was elbow-deep in expensive Apollo missions).
Combat drone operators are the group most likely to use simulators for training, and also the furthest removed from combat itself (except for ICBM personnel). So you'd think they'd have no qualms about shooting what they're told. Guess what: experience shows they have as much trouble doing that as infantry in WW2.
For people to not care about killing others, your whole society has to be set up that way. Think Stalin's armies in WW2. Training using simulators is not going to achieve this.
Slashdot Mirror
"not that far" is several hundred km. Curiosity has covered 14 km in 4 years.
And yet the most recent bit of information on Samsung's own website is this release which is the one quoted in the previous story. Their investor relations site doesn't contain any references to a permanent end of production either.
So are these stories reporting new facts and Samsung just hasn't updated its websites yet, or are they misunderstanding the earlier release, inferring the word "permanent" when it wasn't in the original information?
The previous story is still on the front page, posted a mere 9 hours ago.
There's about 0 overlap between civilian nuclear reactors and submarine powerplants. The UK might as well hide the SSBN budget inside the NHS.
The cost for a new nuclear submarine powerplant has been openly discussed already, making it unlikely they'd try to hide that cost now.
Then again, it's an mdsolar submission, so par for the course.
Except Source Code Pro only contains English glyphs, so it's useless for e.g. debugging exotic-language XML files. I keep switching between Source Code Pro and Arial Unicode MS, which has pretty good language support.
Note that this new font doesn't fix the 'Han unification' problem. It just provides 3 versions of the font, one for C, one for J and one for K. This sidesteps the clusterfuck (and forces you to select a different font for each language), but does not fix it.
In soviet India, meme criminalizes you!
Have you tried using an extension to set the user-agent string to that of a recent Firefox version?
Have you looked at electric bikes lately? You can buy a bike that will give pedaling assistance up to a speed of 45 km/h and has a range of 200 km. They call it 'assistance' but the electric motor provides up to 80% of the motive power. For people who really don't want to pedal, it'd be easy enough to scale this up to 100%. Electric scooters are a solved problem.
Hang on. How can a ship displace 250 tons but weigh 400 tons? Or is 250 t the displacement when empty, and 400 t the loaded weight?
One of the reasons the Hebrew text was stable was because they used checksums when copying. Each letter in the Hebrew alphabet is also used as a number. That made it easy to calculate checksums for each line of text.
They had a photo with an obscured face and the same photo with unobscured face in their training set. It seems obvious a computer can match those two. The solution would be to use unique photos, not uploaded anywhere, as the source for obscuration and only publish the obscured version.
At the same time, Twitter forces everything to be reduced to a soundbite. Something we could use less of.
Granted for the thrusters, but the problems with the harpoons didn't surface until the conclusion of a 9-year-long test of the flight spare in a vacuum. Should they have postponed the launch by 9 years?
If there was a failure, it wasn't a failure of mission control. Nothing they could have done would have changed the outcome.
The landing had a combination of problems. Harpoons and thrusters not firing (design flaws), and the landing zone having different geology than had been assumed (nobody had landed on a comet before, so no definitive data to go by).
Despite the problems, the mission gathered most of the data they wanted. Not an overwhelming fail by any stretch of the imagination.
The lander had batteries sized to provide enough power for the primary science objectives. What was lost was maybe 20% of the planned objectives, not "the majority".
An RTG would have been cool, but it'd have doubled the cost of the mission.
Rockets exploding while they're being prepared for a static test fire (or during any fueling operation) are very rare though. The last case was in the 1960s, I believe. So they might be making mistakes everyone else has known to avoid for 50 years.
Some developer snuck in a HCF instruction...
Meanwhile, one of the stages that landed successfully has seen 5 full-duration test firings since the landing. Maybe they actually designed the rocket for those loads instead of just winging it.
Those reports are incorrect. In this video you can see (a few minutes after the initial explosion) only the tower is left standing.
First explosion is the second stage. The first stage explodes right after that. A few seconds later you can see the payload fairing fall (it was held in place by the arms at the top of the tower), followed by the satellite exploding.
Depends on your method of ingestion of said cheese. Inhalation through the nose is a red flag.
The cost of the propellant is irrelevant. The goal is reusability. This is difficult because of the propellant mass fraction a rocket needs (i.e. the fraction of its launch mass dedicated to propellants). For a pure rocket this is in the region of 95%, so the entire rocket structure and payload must be crammed into the remaining 5%. This makes it difficult to do reusability, because heat shielding etc. eat into your already-tiny payload fraction.
When you can use atmospheric oxygen, the propellant mass fraction goes down, i.e. more of your launch weight can reach orbit. This makes it feasible to build a heavier structure that includes reusability features.
A flyby is acceptable for a first mission. The science data from Voyager answered some questions, but also raised lots of new questions. To answer these, we went for orbiting missions that would spend far longer at the planet, using better instruments, and new instruments inspired by the Voyager science return.
Flybys have big drawbacks: you only get a few hours of observation time, so you can't study patterns that occur over long periods (seasonal changes, for example). You can't even see the entire surface of the planet (unless you get lucky and the planet rotates really quickly).
For Jupiter and Saturn, we've had several orbiters now (e.g. Galileo, Ulysses, Cassini, Juno) and we've amassed far more knowledge than flybys could ever give us.
Uranus and Neptune haven't had dedicated missions yet, but that might change soon.
Voyager 3 and 4 were planned initially, by the way (identical to Voyager 1 and 2, with mission plans that included Pluto). They fell to budget cuts (early '70s, NASA was elbow-deep in expensive Apollo missions).
Combat drone operators are the group most likely to use simulators for training, and also the furthest removed from combat itself (except for ICBM personnel). So you'd think they'd have no qualms about shooting what they're told. Guess what: experience shows they have as much trouble doing that as infantry in WW2.
For people to not care about killing others, your whole society has to be set up that way. Think Stalin's armies in WW2. Training using simulators is not going to achieve this.
The Atom V8 does not conform to US legislation, but it is road-legal in other countries. So it is a production car.