No we don't. There's no way we can launch enough shielding to be effective, and a magnetic field of effective size also requires more mass and power than we can launch.
Lower weight and kinetic energy also means the car becomes more maneuverable, both in changing direction and in braking. This means you have a better chance of avoiding a collision.
Based on what? You're arguing that Gibson is wrong, but your reasoning amounts to saying "nuh-uh".
The attacker knows that there are 6 characters in a password. Or does he? I'd want a hashing algorithm that hides the password length by turning any password length into e.g. a 64-character hash. Even assuming he knows it's 6 chars, how can he know there are 5 lowercase + 1 uppercase? Assuming the hash doesn't give clues (which would be a weakness in the hash function) I see no way the attacker can infer 5 lowercase + 1 uppercase (and guess correctly at which position the uppercase will be). Therefore he has to assume a search space of lowercase+uppercase for all positions, which leads to 52^6.
Until now, the most efficient electric generators for home use I've seen are heat-power coupling devices: natural gas-powered engines that have their coolant loop linked to the house central heating system. They can reach a combined efficiency of near 100%, if you can use the heating. In the summer, they get expensive to use. 60% efficiency for electricity alone is pretty good.
in a previous thread I noted that back in the 60s the Russian Moon super-rocket N-1 had 30 engines. It failed, repeatedly.
I've been reading Boris Chertok's memoirs 'Rockets and people'. Chertok discusses the N-1 program at length, including the causes of the four failures. None of them had much to do with the large number of engines.
The two main factors were testing and testing: 1. the engines were single-use. If they were test-run, they couldn't be used for a launch. So they'd produce engines in batches of 8, test 4 and install the other 4 in the rocket. As it turns out, there were a few flaws in the engine design. One of the launches failed because an engine ingested a foreign object (probably a bolt). One failed because a sensor fitting blew out of a high-pressure line. One launch failed because the oxygen pump had too-tight tolerances, vibrations caused the impeller to strike the casing. 2. to save money, they didn't build a test stand for the complete first stage. This meant that problems like vibration modes weren't found out before the first complete launch.
By 1970, they were working on new engines that were multi-use, and they'd come a long way in fixing the bugs of the N-1. With the first American moon landing, the urgency went out of the N-1 program and it got cancelled prematurely.
In those units, the ultrasound is used to vibrate the dirt and shake it loose. The ones I know of (used in cleaning medical instruments) operate nowhere near the boiling point of the liquid.
I don't even begin to understand the mentality that views that acceptable. That bad things happen is something I accept but you have to then figure out what happened and take steps to avoid that situation in the future.
Everyone seems to be saying there is no way to stop this from happening.
You're assuming things not in evidence. I've seen no replies on this thread that indicate either of your statements. 1. There's going to be hell to pay in the USN and its contractors once the cause of this incident has been found. A full analysis may take months, so don't hold your breath waiting for it. But acceptable? Nobody will be viewing it that way. 2. Catastrophic fires on a sub are rare, and yes, impossible to prevent entirely. With millions of parts in confined spaces, it's impossible to fireproof everything.
There's plenty of oxygen on board that you don't want a fire to get to: emergency oxygen bottles, and the oxygen supply in torpedos, for instance. If you abandon ship, you risk major explosions before the fire goes out.
There's plenty of flammable stuff on board. Torpedo fuel, hydraulic and other oils, cooking oil, fabrics, paint, etc.
The hatches weren't just closed because you don't want to abandon a ship with a nuclear reactor and a bunch of torpedos on board (or any ship worth $900 M for that matter) unless there is absolutely no other choice.
Also, according to TFA there were people on board in the aft compartments.
Fire suppression on a sub is difficult because you can't just point a firehose at the fire: the extra weight of the water may end up sending the boat to the bottom. Using Halon or somesuch would force you to surface soon to prevent killing the crew. A sub is also a very dense structure. There are lots of nooks and crannies, so building an automatic suppression system that can reach everywhere (again, without flooding the boat) would be difficult. So yes, from what I've seen of submarines (mainly on Discovery Channel, I admit), yes, it's mostly handheld fire extinguishers.
The failure mode was almost always the heater element burning out.
Fun fact: this was what held back the adoption of tube-based logic circuits. Before WW2, Tommy Flowers at the UK Post Office research lab was working on a tube-based telephone exchange to replace the relay-based machines. He believed he could solve the burning-out problem by never switching the heating elements off. The phone exchange went nowhere because WW2 intervened, but Flowers applied his ideas to the Colossus computer, at the time the largest collection of vacuum tubes ever (by an order of magnitude, iirc). Colossus ran very reliably throughout the war, with tube replacements being relatively rare.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't claim exposure needs to be 0. I said 'effective', which for the purposes of initial Mars exploration can mean 'survivable'
Do you have any better data than this study?
We have effective to reduce radiation exposure.
No we don't. There's no way we can launch enough shielding to be effective, and a magnetic field of effective size also requires more mass and power than we can launch.
they only lack
No, there's much more missing than just the large screen and keyboard: Office applications, for one. A web browser is not enough.
And as we've just seen in the /. stories discussing Windows 8, a mobile UI is NOT a good idea for a laptop/desktop.
If you're willing to irradiate the crew all to hell, yes. Spending 2 years outside the Van Allen belts is no picknick.
From TFA:
We're not just trying to take pictures of stars and see them as disks -- which is something we can do
That was new to me, so I did some digging. The Hubble was the first telescope to do this, in 1996. It's quite incredible that we can now do this.
Annoyingly, searching Google for 'image disk star' gives loads of false positives (protoplanetary disks).
Lower weight and kinetic energy also means the car becomes more maneuverable, both in changing direction and in braking. This means you have a better chance of avoiding a collision.
HD Ready was SD with HDMI input...what a scam in itself
In Europe, HD Ready was standardized to mean 720p capability. From your words I gather that 480i/SD displays were sold as "HD Ready" in the US?
Based on what? You're arguing that Gibson is wrong, but your reasoning amounts to saying "nuh-uh".
The attacker knows that there are 6 characters in a password. Or does he? I'd want a hashing algorithm that hides the password length by turning any password length into e.g. a 64-character hash.
Even assuming he knows it's 6 chars, how can he know there are 5 lowercase + 1 uppercase? Assuming the hash doesn't give clues (which would be a weakness in the hash function) I see no way the attacker can infer 5 lowercase + 1 uppercase (and guess correctly at which position the uppercase will be).
Therefore he has to assume a search space of lowercase+uppercase for all positions, which leads to 52^6.
It consumed roughtly 737,400lbs of fuel, minus the weight of the Atlas V rocket (so 500,000 lbs of fuel?)
Way more than that. The fuel fraction of a rocket has to be on the order of 90% to have a useful payload.
these are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise?
Citation needed. That is 7% of Italy's GDP, and seems an awfully high number.
Until now, the most efficient electric generators for home use I've seen are heat-power coupling devices: natural gas-powered engines that have their coolant loop linked to the house central heating system. They can reach a combined efficiency of near 100%, if you can use the heating. In the summer, they get expensive to use.
60% efficiency for electricity alone is pretty good.
That should be part of the efficiency calculations as well.
in a previous thread I noted that back in the 60s the Russian Moon super-rocket N-1 had 30 engines. It failed, repeatedly.
I've been reading Boris Chertok's memoirs 'Rockets and people'. Chertok discusses the N-1 program at length, including the causes of the four failures. None of them had much to do with the large number of engines.
The two main factors were testing and testing:
1. the engines were single-use. If they were test-run, they couldn't be used for a launch. So they'd produce engines in batches of 8, test 4 and install the other 4 in the rocket.
As it turns out, there were a few flaws in the engine design. One of the launches failed because an engine ingested a foreign object (probably a bolt). One failed because a sensor fitting blew out of a high-pressure line. One launch failed because the oxygen pump had too-tight tolerances, vibrations caused the impeller to strike the casing.
2. to save money, they didn't build a test stand for the complete first stage. This meant that problems like vibration modes weren't found out before the first complete launch.
By 1970, they were working on new engines that were multi-use, and they'd come a long way in fixing the bugs of the N-1. With the first American moon landing, the urgency went out of the N-1 program and it got cancelled prematurely.
I have. Usenet, ca 15 years ago.
Did you not notice the Miles O'Brien arc? It may not have been the major focus, but it sure was one of the recurring subplots.
does it use vacuum tubes?
In those units, the ultrasound is used to vibrate the dirt and shake it loose. The ones I know of (used in cleaning medical instruments) operate nowhere near the boiling point of the liquid.
I don't even begin to understand the mentality that views that acceptable. That bad things happen is something I accept but you have to then figure out what happened and take steps to avoid that situation in the future.
Everyone seems to be saying there is no way to stop this from happening.
You're assuming things not in evidence. I've seen no replies on this thread that indicate either of your statements.
1. There's going to be hell to pay in the USN and its contractors once the cause of this incident has been found. A full analysis may take months, so don't hold your breath waiting for it. But acceptable? Nobody will be viewing it that way.
2. Catastrophic fires on a sub are rare, and yes, impossible to prevent entirely. With millions of parts in confined spaces, it's impossible to fireproof everything.
There were people on board according to TFA. Repairs were being carried out at the time.
It's possible that holes were cut in the hull for these repairs, which would make it impossible to seal compartments airtight.
There's plenty of oxygen on board that you don't want a fire to get to: emergency oxygen bottles, and the oxygen supply in torpedos, for instance. If you abandon ship, you risk major explosions before the fire goes out.
There's plenty of flammable stuff on board. Torpedo fuel, hydraulic and other oils, cooking oil, fabrics, paint, etc.
The hatches weren't just closed because you don't want to abandon a ship with a nuclear reactor and a bunch of torpedos on board (or any ship worth $900 M for that matter) unless there is absolutely no other choice.
Also, according to TFA there were people on board in the aft compartments.
Fire suppression on a sub is difficult because you can't just point a firehose at the fire: the extra weight of the water may end up sending the boat to the bottom. Using Halon or somesuch would force you to surface soon to prevent killing the crew.
A sub is also a very dense structure. There are lots of nooks and crannies, so building an automatic suppression system that can reach everywhere (again, without flooding the boat) would be difficult.
So yes, from what I've seen of submarines (mainly on Discovery Channel, I admit), yes, it's mostly handheld fire extinguishers.
Right, because random people looting a site is exactly the same as bringing back some pieces for scientific purposes.
The failure mode was almost always the heater element burning out.
Fun fact: this was what held back the adoption of tube-based logic circuits. Before WW2, Tommy Flowers at the UK Post Office research lab was working on a tube-based telephone exchange to replace the relay-based machines. He believed he could solve the burning-out problem by never switching the heating elements off. The phone exchange went nowhere because WW2 intervened, but Flowers applied his ideas to the Colossus computer, at the time the largest collection of vacuum tubes ever (by an order of magnitude, iirc). Colossus ran very reliably throughout the war, with tube replacements being relatively rare.
Why settle for a t-shirt when you can have a scale model Falcon 9 instead