Sure you could, but the only way to slow yourself down outside the atmosphere by using rockets. And rockets require fuel. And carrying fuel to orbit for a beefier de-orbit burn takes more fuel, which takes more fuel to lift, which takes more fuel to lift, repeat recursion until desired effect is achieved.
You would also need a big big rocket, because you'd have to decelerate rapidly indeed in order to 1) decrease your velocity enough to make it worthwhile, and 2) Get the pointy end back into the wind. Once you start to slow down, you'll be headed down into the atmosphere quickly (since, of course, you are no longer travelling at orbital velocity).
You could do the math, but I bet it would be weight-prohibitive to use the technique you are outlining.
Aerobraking works really really well. The Shuttle is just very poorly designed.
Um, where exactly are you going to keep the fuel to keep yourself travelling at "a couple of machs"? You'd have to make SpaceShip One about (loose guess) seven times its current size. I bet the carrier a/c won't be able to deal with that.
High speed atmospheric flight is obscenely expensive, fuel-wise.
How do you make that control? How do you gather data on whether the driver or the passenger was in the middle of a sentence when the accident occured? The data do not exist. I would love for you to give me a citation demonstrating my error.
Videophones, as long as the camera shows the driver but the driver can not see a screen, will be no more or less dangerous than current car-borne activities (such as headbanging and makeup application). Giving the driver a picture of the person they're talking to is not useful.
So, if drivers LISTENING is the problem, then we'll get rid of radios, an gags for all the passengers. Bet the infant children will love that. I'm sure they won't scream at all.
There are LOTS of distractions while driving. The solution is to not attempt to reduce the number of distractions, but to train drivers not to be distracted. Not a simple solution, but it has the conspicuous advantage of perhaps working.
I'm very glad, then, that we don't live in a democracy. Seems like an awful way to run a railroad.
Tyranny of the majority was/precisely/ what the founding fathers feared (nice alliteration!) when they set a representative democracy, AKA a "republic".
Majority rules with minority rights. Mob rule != justice.
I, for one, do not hope that the current anti-terrorist doctrine works. More to the point, I believe that it can not. It is not possible to protect a free society from the depradations of true believers willing to kill themselves to make a point.
It is better to live in a free society, and risk death by a terrorist attack, than to live in a "safe" police state.
*needs a PDA *likes occasional games, more than are available than on the current Palm platform *doesn't want to schlep a GBA *realizes that WinCE is properly named
Apparently Tapwave has a different idea of their target market than you do. We'll see. I hate the idea of schlepping around a GBA with a pocket-ful of cartridges. Memory storage GOOD.
I don't understand why you think this thing is expensive. There aren't a whole lot of cheaper color Palms on the horizon, and exactly zero with the 320x480 screen and (I assume) software graffiti area. Maybe the market will change as the release date approaches. Hey! Maybe the price point will too!
No, the clamshell CLIEs need not apply. They're too big to fit in my pocket comfortably.
I don't think your correlation is meaningful. As soon as I explain to some paper planner devotee that it keeps a backup of all the data in two places, they understand the value instantly.
The GBA's target market is kids. The PDA's target market is business professionals and tech geeks. My mom (not a geek) wouldn't be without her Palm for any reason. Nobody stops people outside the target market from buying either product.
Your thinking is similar to that of large, pre-internet companies: They think the only way to make money is to appeal to the mass market. Many internet success stories come from people who exploit a niche with a well-designed, focused product.
Would I buy one of these? Maybe. If the screen was good and it could play MP3's, and had a good design, sure. Do I care about the games? No, not really, but I know a lot of people who would.
That's about middle-of-the-road price wise for PalmOS based color devices. This device is not aimed at the GameBoy market. It's aimed at the not-GameBoy market.
As long as you don't try to stick your arms through the shock wave, you'd be fine. Just keep 'em by your sides. A blunt helmet would encourage the formation of a shock wave normal to the direction of travel. The big problems with the early transonic planes occured because their wingtips were in the path of the shock waves, causing very seriously bad things to happen to the lateral stability of the aircraft.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure you could, but the only way to slow yourself down outside the atmosphere by using rockets. And rockets require fuel. And carrying fuel to orbit for a beefier de-orbit burn takes more fuel, which takes more fuel to lift, which takes more fuel to lift, repeat recursion until desired effect is achieved.
You would also need a big big rocket, because you'd have to decelerate rapidly indeed in order to 1) decrease your velocity enough to make it worthwhile, and 2) Get the pointy end back into the wind. Once you start to slow down, you'll be headed down into the atmosphere quickly (since, of course, you are no longer travelling at orbital velocity).
You could do the math, but I bet it would be weight-prohibitive to use the technique you are outlining.
Aerobraking works really really well. The Shuttle is just very poorly designed.
...which then runs out of fuel. The rocket engine will not keep the airplane going at "a couple of machs" for any length of time.
I promise.
Beech Starship. Beautiful aircraft, pioneered mass-production composites fabrication.
Designed by Burt Rutan, but unfortunately, not a commercial success.
Um, where exactly are you going to keep the fuel to keep yourself travelling at "a couple of machs"? You'd have to make SpaceShip One about (loose guess) seven times its current size. I bet the carrier a/c won't be able to deal with that.
High speed atmospheric flight is obscenely expensive, fuel-wise.
How do you make that control? How do you gather data on whether the driver or the passenger was in the middle of a sentence when the accident occured? The data do not exist. I would love for you to give me a citation demonstrating my error.
Videophones, as long as the camera shows the driver but the driver can not see a screen, will be no more or less dangerous than current car-borne activities (such as headbanging and makeup application). Giving the driver a picture of the person they're talking to is not useful.
So, if drivers LISTENING is the problem, then we'll get rid of radios, an gags for all the passengers. Bet the infant children will love that. I'm sure they won't scream at all.
There are LOTS of distractions while driving. The solution is to not attempt to reduce the number of distractions, but to train drivers not to be distracted. Not a simple solution, but it has the conspicuous advantage of perhaps working.
Until these studies control for accidents that occur when the driver is speaking with a passenger, they will be unconvincing to me.
If talking to people is dangerous, drivers should be forced to wear gags.
Er, that's "set UP a representative democracy blah blah words words."
I'm very glad, then, that we don't live in a democracy. Seems like an awful way to run a railroad.
/precisely/ what the founding fathers feared (nice alliteration!) when they set a representative democracy, AKA a "republic".
Tyranny of the majority was
Majority rules with minority rights. Mob rule != justice.
Yeah, he couldn't possibly have a well-thought-out position on the subject. Since he disagrees with you, he must be a whackjob.
/. Carry on.
Oh, wait, this is
I, for one, do not hope that the current anti-terrorist doctrine works. More to the point, I believe that it can not. It is not possible to protect a free society from the depradations of true believers willing to kill themselves to make a point.
It is better to live in a free society, and risk death by a terrorist attack, than to live in a "safe" police state.
Yeah, the Constitution is full of words like "the", "an", and "also". Those IP stealing Founding Father bastards.
I don't know about the original poster, but I think PopFile kicks much ass, and it works with any POP or (I think) IMAP mail client.
And it's Free.
What exactly would they nationalize? That's about the dumbest thing I've ever read on /., and that's going some.
Who's "we"? You got an air-defense radar in your pocket there, sparky?
If you can get a strategic bomber to have an RCS smaller than an eagle, you could make a lot of money replacing B-2's.
You're crazy.
My 10 year old HP48G has symbolic integration, and I know the 48S series does too.
If you like your TI, fine. Every time I try to use one, it's like somebody's holding my elbows.
They're pretty useful for "real" engineering, though. You know, the kind that solves "real" problems.
: )
Or:
*needs a PDA
*likes occasional games, more than are available than on the current Palm platform
*doesn't want to schlep a GBA
*realizes that WinCE is properly named
Apparently Tapwave has a different idea of their target market than you do. We'll see. I hate the idea of schlepping around a GBA with a pocket-ful of cartridges. Memory storage GOOD.
I don't understand why you think this thing is expensive. There aren't a whole lot of cheaper color Palms on the horizon, and exactly zero with the 320x480 screen and (I assume) software graffiti area. Maybe the market will change as the release date approaches. Hey! Maybe the price point will too!
No, the clamshell CLIEs need not apply. They're too big to fit in my pocket comfortably.
I don't think your correlation is meaningful. As soon as I explain to some paper planner devotee that it keeps a backup of all the data in two places, they understand the value instantly.
The GBA's target market is kids. The PDA's target market is business professionals and tech geeks. My mom (not a geek) wouldn't be without her Palm for any reason. Nobody stops people outside the target market from buying either product.
Your thinking is similar to that of large, pre-internet companies: They think the only way to make money is to appeal to the mass market. Many internet success stories come from people who exploit a niche with a well-designed, focused product.
Would I buy one of these? Maybe. If the screen was good and it could play MP3's, and had a good design, sure. Do I care about the games? No, not really, but I know a lot of people who would.
It's not, however, illegal for my grandmother to give me the VCR I had her purchase with my money.
Sorry, dude, but it doesn't work on monochrome Palms.
That color Clie's starting to look pretty good, eh? : )
That's about middle-of-the-road price wise for PalmOS based color devices. This device is not aimed at the GameBoy market. It's aimed at the not-GameBoy market.
Uh, please differentiate "toy" from "capable portable gaming device".
It's a toy. My Palm is a tool. Neither of these terms are perjorative.
"amerature"
What does this word mean?
As long as you don't try to stick your arms through the shock wave, you'd be fine. Just keep 'em by your sides. A blunt helmet would encourage the formation of a shock wave normal to the direction of travel. The big problems with the early transonic planes occured because their wingtips were in the path of the shock waves, causing very seriously bad things to happen to the lateral stability of the aircraft.
You mean, like, an "airspeed"? I wonder if that number would be useful to aircraft pilots...hmmm.