Not to pick nits, but I'm not sure why you think that planes haven't been used as successful launch platforms.
Most of the X-Planes were air-launched, mostly from B-36 and B-52 bombers. Orbital Sciences' Pegasus rocket is launched from an L-1011 (commercial jet liner).
The Backfire was a bomber, designed to launch cruise missiles. At one point, I believe that the Backfire was hypothesized to fire the cruise missiles backwards out of the bomb bay. I don't know if this was ever proven operationally, but I have a hard time understanding how it would have been advantageous to do so.
Some variants of SU-27 can fire short range air to air missiles backwards, but that's a different kettle of fish.
Complex design? Airborne launch is well-proven technology. The spacecraft is very cleverly and elegantly designed. The vehicle has enough "cargo" space to carry three people. Or two people and 200lbs of cargo. It carries a lot more than my Miata, and my Miata is a damn useful vehicle. Although I don't want to hold up the Shuttle as a great design, it obviously does fine with unpowered landing. Carrying fuel for re-entry and landing is insanely expensive in terms of weight and vehicle size. Unless there's something mission critical that requires fuel during the landing evolution, you/really/ don't want to waste weight with it.
I know how you feel. I resent the hell out of the contention that using the construction " begs the question that " is correct employment of the phrase.
It may be well accepted, but it's still WRONG.
: )
I might be a grammar nazi, but I only have one jackboot. And it's not really spiky. Can't find the other one. Stupid dog.
Re:stun guns are not that effective
on
Shocking Clothing
·
· Score: 1
Uh, what happened to that vest after you got shot wearing it? Please tell me that it was replaced.
That sounds like one extraordinarily expensive "self defense" course.
Re:Cruel Intentions...
on
Shocking Clothing
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Astoundingly enough, there do exist men who have not ever beaten a woman.
Me, I find the presumption that any man would abuse women far more repugnant than the idea that somehow women are inferior to men.
Both are artifacts of defective thinking. Both are sexist. Both have no place in civil society. One is on the way out. One is on the way in.
I've got no problem with being protected from people who commit crimes. I have an ENORMOUS problem with being "protected" from people who might think occasionally, with varying degrees of intent and peripheral action, about committing crimes.
I also have a huge problem with extending the definition of "crime" to include non-harmful activities.
Like carrying a freakin' 1" pocket knife onto an airplane.
Do you not understand that surveillance is power and power WILL (not might, not could, WILL) be abused?
If you're comfortable with the idea that the government is going to know everything you do from now until the day you die, you aren't a very good student of history.
Don't be silly. Only one person can eat any given candy bar. Depriving somebody of that candy bar is theft.
However, if I'm using a cell phone I've "liberated" at a non-peak time when I'm not denying anybody else bandwidth they've paid for, that's not "theft". It might be illegal, and it might be wrong, but "theft" is taking objects away from their owners. Similarly, if I decode the signal that's already coming into my house on Time Warner's coaxial cable, and it happens to show me HBO, that's not "theft". I'm not denying anybody else access to that programming: I'm decoding a signal they're sending into my home.
In no case is copyright infringement theft, never mind piracy (which is a different crime entirely).
However, the analysis DOES break RIAA's prima facie argument, which goes like this:
1) We're losing money. 2) People seem to be getting lots of music without paying us.
Therefore, the only reason we could possibly be losing money is piracy. QED.
Anybody with two neurons to bang together could point out the fallacies in that argument. Which is why our congresscritters seem to have so much trouble getting past it...
Unless the systems were somehow saturated and I was denying a paying customer access, I do not believe that any of those items can be "stolen".
Whether it's right or wrong to make unauthorized use of those services is another question. But it's not stealing. Stealing involves stuff that I can put my hands on.
(yes, including electronic funds transfers: Those funds are 1:1 representations of dollar bills or ounces of gold: Therefore, electronic theft of money is indeed theft)
PS did anybody else notice that every single vehicle in the car chase was a GM marque? Oldmobiles, Cadillacs, and Chevrolets. I think there was a Buick or two.
Now, the Trinity-on-motorcycle part had Fords, Lexuses, and a Mazda, but the bits with the cars (and the semi trucks and the 'splosions and the shootings) were all GM.
Umm, maybe the person writing the email was being tongue-in-cheek. Raise your hand if you've worked on computers for more than ten minutes and haven't done something idiotic.
If by "liberated" you mean "purchased for cash money from the people who owned it at the time who were not Canadians", then yes, your sentence is true.
If by "liberated" you wish to draw spurious parallels between the purchase of Alaska and the deposing of Saddam, you're an idiot.
The good thing (for me) is that I can't really tell a dramatic difference between a cheap 27" TV and a nice 27" TV. For me, longevity (as expressed by cost per year of use) is the major consideration.
And, since I won't be buying one for a couple years, and I expect DLPs to climb the quality curve really fast, I think it's the way to go (for me).
I also don't like the idea of all the waste heat generated by the LCD. Theoretically, a DLP can use a cooler bulb. Don't know if that is actually borne out in the products available, but I hope that it will be.
Slashdot Mirror
That is a really neat design....
until the vehicle comes down anything other than vertically. Hope they try to land on a day with zero wind.
In my not-quite-expert opinion..."Yikes!"
I smell an objectivist.
You are aware that Mr. Rutan has done much work as an evil government contractor, right?
According to the X-Prize rules, three people at a weight of 90 kilos. So you can swap people for cargo.
Not to pick nits, but I'm not sure why you think that planes haven't been used as successful launch platforms.
Most of the X-Planes were air-launched, mostly from B-36 and B-52 bombers. Orbital Sciences' Pegasus rocket is launched from an L-1011 (commercial jet liner).
The Backfire was a bomber, designed to launch cruise missiles. At one point, I believe that the Backfire was hypothesized to fire the cruise missiles backwards out of the bomb bay. I don't know if this was ever proven operationally, but I have a hard time understanding how it would have been advantageous to do so.
Some variants of SU-27 can fire short range air to air missiles backwards, but that's a different kettle of fish.
Anyhow. : )
You forgot the part about winning the designer ten million bucks, and international acclaim.
You're the kind of person who believes that Alan Shepard wasn't the first American in space, aren't you?
Complex design? Airborne launch is well-proven technology. The spacecraft is very cleverly and elegantly designed. The vehicle has enough "cargo" space to carry three people. Or two people and 200lbs of cargo. It carries a lot more than my Miata, and my Miata is a damn useful vehicle. Although I don't want to hold up the Shuttle as a great design, it obviously does fine with unpowered landing. Carrying fuel for re-entry and landing is insanely expensive in terms of weight and vehicle size. Unless there's something mission critical that requires fuel during the landing evolution, you /really/ don't want to waste weight with it.
What do you base your cost estimates on?
Rutan has a better track record than the rest of the competitors, combined.
Every morning, I wake up and thank GOD that I have a tin ear.
I can tune a guitar.
I have an excellent sense of pitch.
I can read music and sing it on key.
But I can't tell the difference between a $300 stereo and a $3000 stereo.
Thank goodness.
Any time I want music to sound better than on my (decent, but not too pricey) stereo rig, I'll perform it myself.
With the audiophiles, sometimes I want to scream "It is a FUCKING WIRE. Want less resistance? DOUBLE THE THICKNESS."
Pure silver cables....HAH! Reminds me of the gold connector I saw on an OPTICAL CABLE. That cracked me up for days.
I know how you feel. I resent the hell out of the contention that using the construction " begs the question that " is correct employment of the phrase.
It may be well accepted, but it's still WRONG.
: )
I might be a grammar nazi, but I only have one jackboot. And it's not really spiky. Can't find the other one. Stupid dog.
Uh, what happened to that vest after you got shot wearing it? Please tell me that it was replaced.
That sounds like one extraordinarily expensive "self defense" course.
Astoundingly enough, there do exist men who have not ever beaten a woman.
Me, I find the presumption that any man would abuse women far more repugnant than the idea that somehow women are inferior to men.
Both are artifacts of defective thinking. Both are sexist. Both have no place in civil society. One is on the way out. One is on the way in.
Go figure.
Just as soon as they start killing people, yes.
You have /utterly failed/ to understand the point.
I've got no problem with being protected from people who commit crimes. I have an ENORMOUS problem with being "protected" from people who might think occasionally, with varying degrees of intent and peripheral action, about committing crimes.
I also have a huge problem with extending the definition of "crime" to include non-harmful activities.
Like carrying a freakin' 1" pocket knife onto an airplane.
Do you not understand that surveillance is power and power WILL (not might, not could, WILL) be abused?
If you're comfortable with the idea that the government is going to know everything you do from now until the day you die, you aren't a very good student of history.
Don't be silly. Only one person can eat any given candy bar. Depriving somebody of that candy bar is theft.
However, if I'm using a cell phone I've "liberated" at a non-peak time when I'm not denying anybody else bandwidth they've paid for, that's not "theft". It might be illegal, and it might be wrong, but "theft" is taking objects away from their owners. Similarly, if I decode the signal that's already coming into my house on Time Warner's coaxial cable, and it happens to show me HBO, that's not "theft". I'm not denying anybody else access to that programming: I'm decoding a signal they're sending into my home.
In no case is copyright infringement theft, never mind piracy (which is a different crime entirely).
However, the analysis DOES break RIAA's prima facie argument, which goes like this:
1) We're losing money.
2) People seem to be getting lots of music without paying us.
Therefore, the only reason we could possibly be losing money is piracy. QED.
Anybody with two neurons to bang together could point out the fallacies in that argument. Which is why our congresscritters seem to have so much trouble getting past it...
Unless your stationery includes a cover letter of a million-dollar bearer bond, your "representative" doesn't want to hear from you.
They might play like they want to hear from you, but they don't.
You made the parent's point.
Look how well Polaroid is doing right now. (hint: They're courting bankruptcy)
Unless the systems were somehow saturated and I was denying a paying customer access, I do not believe that any of those items can be "stolen".
Whether it's right or wrong to make unauthorized use of those services is another question. But it's not stealing. Stealing involves stuff that I can put my hands on.
(yes, including electronic funds transfers: Those funds are 1:1 representations of dollar bills or ounces of gold: Therefore, electronic theft of money is indeed theft)
Figured that was it. : )
You're absolutely right. But watch when they get on the freeway...it's uncanny.
ooh. Good one.
PS did anybody else notice that every single vehicle in the car chase was a GM marque? Oldmobiles, Cadillacs, and Chevrolets. I think there was a Buick or two.
Now, the Trinity-on-motorcycle part had Fords, Lexuses, and a Mazda, but the bits with the cars (and the semi trucks and the 'splosions and the shootings) were all GM.
Mindfuck, but a catastrophically dumb movie. Man, did it ever not pay off at the end.
Umm, maybe the person writing the email was being tongue-in-cheek. Raise your hand if you've worked on computers for more than ten minutes and haven't done something idiotic.
If by "liberated" you mean "purchased for cash money from the people who owned it at the time who were not Canadians", then yes, your sentence is true.
If by "liberated" you wish to draw spurious parallels between the purchase of Alaska and the deposing of Saddam, you're an idiot.
The good thing (for me) is that I can't really tell a dramatic difference between a cheap 27" TV and a nice 27" TV. For me, longevity (as expressed by cost per year of use) is the major consideration.
And, since I won't be buying one for a couple years, and I expect DLPs to climb the quality curve really fast, I think it's the way to go (for me).
I also don't like the idea of all the waste heat generated by the LCD. Theoretically, a DLP can use a cooler bulb. Don't know if that is actually borne out in the products available, but I hope that it will be.