Times change. Everyone now lives in a very small town. You go out get drunk and make a fool of yourself then everyone will know it. Just how do you want to put the Genie back in the bottle? Ban taking pictures in public? So when you are having a farewell dinner with a friend at a restaurant you want to be banned from taking a picture because you might catch someone in the background? Or maybe when you want to be banned from making a video of your kid playing in public park. Or do you want to ban those pictures from the internet? I love how it is Facebook's fault when your buddy posts a video of you with a bong in one hand and your underwear on your head. The world has changed. You can not easily keep in touch with friends all over the world. There was a time when when a friend moved out of town you might get a Christmas card or if they where really close a letter now and then. The world does change and you must adapt to that change. Worrying about the video from aircraft is pretty dumb. The have lots of cameras including bodycams now, aerial imagery is going to be used to keep track of things like where masses of people are and maybe vehicles. It is for broad coverage not for individuals plus the angle for face detection is terrible. Even if you are using a 45 degree slant the increase in distance will make it less than practical.
" I suppose if your Navy is limited to F-35s aircraft anyhow, you might as well buy the VSTOL version and try to recover some money elsewhere." Not really. For one big issue you are limited to helicopter AEW vs the E2 Hawkeye. Second the VSTOL F35 carries a smaller load a shorter distance then the CATOBAR F35 and the big issue is carry back aka you may have to drop some expensive weapons into the sea to land. Also the VSTOL F35 will be more complex to maintain and operate.
The QE carrier did not start out as CATOBAR except maybe at the very early stage. When the VSTOL F35 started to have issues they actually started to look at going to CATOBAR but decided it was too expensive. I fear that will end up biting them in the rear, I see the them going back into dry dock for an expensive refit soon. The QE seems in many ways closer to the USS America LHA than a CV like the Nimitz or the new Ford class. They also can only carry half the fixed air wing of US carriers. It is closer to a super I for the life of me do not know why the UK did not just buy E-3 AWACS to start but maybe with Rolls Royce engines if they really wanted instead of the AEW Nimrod that failed. Bought the P3 to replace the Nimrod or wait for the P-8 to be ready before blowing huge money on an upgraded Nimrod that failed.
They are not in service yet and they are still VSTOL carriers just big ones. Also they will still have turbines as well. Just in this case gas turbines. Frankly the UKs fixation issues I have always found very odd. The way the clung to the Comet/Nimrod even after the AEW disaster is a good example. The fact that they didn't build this generation of carriers as CATOBAR is another. They are just really hung up on VSTOL.
" fitted with diesels sized for aircraft carriers" Aircraft carriers do not use diesels. Maybe some Jeep carriers and ships like LPH but not the big carriers. They uses massive steam turbines and yes the USS United States used a power plant very much like the one used in the first generation of US super carriers. From http://www.ss-united-states.ne...
"Propulsion: The ship was able to attain such a high rate of speed due to an unrivaled power-to-weight ratio. The SS United States was a quadruple screw vessel, powered by 4 Westinghouse steam turbines, rotating at 5240 rpm, which produced up to a combined 247,785 shaft horsepower (SHP). Today's nuclear powered aircraft carriers only produce slightly more power than this. Her oil-burning boilers could reach 1,200 degrees F, causing the turbines to spin faster than than any ship of her day. The Big U could steam for 10,000 miles without stopping to refuel. The SS United States was a mere 28 feet shorter than the Queen Mary, but due to the extensive usage of aluminum in her superstructure (2,000 tons) weighed only 53,290 tons, roughly 30,000 tons less than the Queen Mary. The SS United States was such a success that its hull and engine designs were placed in nearly all large naval battle ships, and the ship itself was the prototype for the first super aircraft carriers, the Forrestal class. On the Big U, the powerplant was slightly derated because boiler superheat temp was lowered from 1,000 degrees to about 925 in the interests of reliability/maintenance. The Carriers actually generated 5,000 to 10,000 SHP per shaft more than the Big U. The propulsion system was a closely guarded secret until the 1970s. "
The USS United States used the same power plant as the Iowa Class BBs. A lot of it's details where kept secret and like all ocean liners it was designed to be put into service as a Troop ship in case of war. Part of the problem was that they where going to swap out that old power plant and put in diesels which would have been a lot cheaper to run but would have made the ship a lot slower. They would have basicly needed to take the ship apart are rebuild it.
Actually that was the basis of a story by A.C. Clarke I believe. The USSR built the first comsat as a way to broadcast propaganda and porn to the the US over TV. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Simple to ruin the US economy. 1. They put a large satellite and pick up all US broadcast TV. 2. They use the satellite to rebroadcast it to the entire US. 3. Comcast and Time Warner go out of business. 4. They broadcast 24 hour a day free porn to the US and destroy all morality and productivity. and yes I am kidding.
No you are wrong.
Back in the 60s and 70s the tax laws where a lot different and really supported the idea of research. IBM, Xerox PARC, and AT&T Bell Labs are all good examples.
True but the big issue is that building large rockets is still pretty hard. It is not like a computer where you can buy the parts cheap. CAD and simulation help but you still have to make the big and precise metal parts.
IRBMs are not ICBMs. And If you can find me a single reference to the Atlas being a single stage rocket I would love to see it. Even the Space Shuttle is not considered a single stage or an SSTO and all of it's motors fire at once. So no ICBM is a single stage. Martin was looking into making one but it never got past the drawing board.
It should be noted that ALL ICBMs are multi stage. Some MRBMs and SRBMs are single stage. Even closest like the Atlas where considered 1 1/2 stage while the SS-6 used boosters and a core which are also considered multi stage rocket.
The USSR did toy with the idea of using the N-1 to carry the Tsar-bomb 100 megaton device. It could have also been used as a way to deploy orbital weapons platforms to drop nukes from orbit. But the USSR and the US have signed a treaty to prevent that. http://www.russianspaceweb.com...
I do not know if many people are old enough to remember Johnny Carson's or Karnak routine but it comes to mind seeing this post.
"Food, indoor plumbing, and sanity" "Name three things that North Korea needs more than landing men on the moon."
"The only major things that were the API (which was deprecated in 2.x anyway), and, because of the API, the file system had some limitations (drive letters, 8.3 file names) that were similar to CP/M's." Ummm..... So just the APIs and file system???? Yea.... And version 2.x.....
That is one of the many myths the other was that he was out flying his plane when they came. The real story was that IBM wanted digital research to sign a bunch of NDAs before they would even talk to them and Kildall asked why and they walked. At that time when IBM wants to make a deal with you it was unwise to ask questions.
His not getting the IBM PC OS deal was probably a huge blow to him. MS-DOS was in many ways based on CP/M but with some improvements for normal people like using copy instead of pip. It also suffered with many of the warts of CP/M like using the slash for switches. Kildall was from all I heard a great guy but just was not ready for the microcomputer industry to big business. Bill Gates was ready to work the IBM way and eventually beat IBM. Kildall proves the old saying settlers get rich pioneers get massacred. Look at the history Altar, Commodore, Atari, Tandy/Radio Shack, and Sinclair are all gone from the computer industry. Only Apple survived and that was a miracle. They managed to keep a high priced system alive for a very long time without a lot of business users.
Or maybe the reviewers are right. Frankly with the cost of movies being so high I would rather wait for the reviews before I spend the money. I was looking forward to this movie but now I will probably give it a miss or wait and see it during the day when it is cheaper.
Even Space X is questionable. Is SpaceX selling DC-3s or Wright Flyers? Are these products or test vehicles? As long as the customer knows that they are flying on an experimental LV that is fine but just where in the develop phase are we? The good thing is right now no one dies when SpaceX blows it. Even better is no payload is lost when a Falcon does not land so I would say that SpaceX is debatable. Back to Tesla, let's not forget the problems with the auto opening doors and the self parking as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Times change. Everyone now lives in a very small town. You go out get drunk and make a fool of yourself then everyone will know it.
Just how do you want to put the Genie back in the bottle? Ban taking pictures in public? So when you are having a farewell dinner with a friend at a restaurant you want to be banned from taking a picture because you might catch someone in the background? Or maybe when you want to be banned from making a video of your kid playing in public park.
Or do you want to ban those pictures from the internet?
I love how it is Facebook's fault when your buddy posts a video of you with a bong in one hand and your underwear on your head.
The world has changed. You can not easily keep in touch with friends all over the world. There was a time when when a friend moved out of town you might get a Christmas card or if they where really close a letter now and then. The world does change and you must adapt to that change.
Worrying about the video from aircraft is pretty dumb. The have lots of cameras including bodycams now, aerial imagery is going to be used to keep track of things like where masses of people are and maybe vehicles. It is for broad coverage not for individuals plus the angle for face detection is terrible. Even if you are using a 45 degree slant the increase in distance will make it less than practical.
" I suppose if your Navy is limited to F-35s aircraft anyhow, you might as well buy the VSTOL version and try to recover some money elsewhere."
Not really. For one big issue you are limited to helicopter AEW vs the E2 Hawkeye. Second the VSTOL F35 carries a smaller load a shorter distance then the CATOBAR F35 and the big issue is carry back aka you may have to drop some expensive weapons into the sea to land. Also the VSTOL F35 will be more complex to maintain and operate.
The QE carrier did not start out as CATOBAR except maybe at the very early stage. When the VSTOL F35 started to have issues they actually started to look at going to CATOBAR but decided it was too expensive. I fear that will end up biting them in the rear, I see the them going back into dry dock for an expensive refit soon. The QE seems in many ways closer to the USS America LHA than a CV like the Nimitz or the new Ford class.
They also can only carry half the fixed air wing of US carriers. It is closer to a super I for the life of me do not know why the UK did not just buy E-3 AWACS to start but maybe with Rolls Royce engines if they really wanted instead of the AEW Nimrod that failed. Bought the P3 to replace the Nimrod or wait for the P-8 to be ready before blowing huge money on an upgraded Nimrod that failed.
They are not in service yet and they are still VSTOL carriers just big ones. Also they will still have turbines as well. Just in this case gas turbines. Frankly the UKs fixation issues I have always found very odd. The way the clung to the Comet/Nimrod even after the AEW disaster is a good example. The fact that they didn't build this generation of carriers as CATOBAR is another. They are just really hung up on VSTOL.
Got to love the anti technology stories on Slashdot.
" fitted with diesels sized for aircraft carriers"
Aircraft carriers do not use diesels. Maybe some Jeep carriers and ships like LPH but not the big carriers.
They uses massive steam turbines and yes the USS United States used a power plant very much like the one used in the first generation of US super carriers.
From http://www.ss-united-states.ne...
"Propulsion: The ship was able to attain such a high rate of speed due to an unrivaled power-to-weight ratio. The SS United States was a quadruple screw vessel, powered by 4 Westinghouse steam turbines, rotating at 5240 rpm, which produced up to a combined 247,785 shaft horsepower (SHP). Today's nuclear powered aircraft carriers only produce slightly more power than this. Her oil-burning boilers could reach 1,200 degrees F, causing the turbines to spin faster than than any ship of her day. The Big U could steam for 10,000 miles without stopping to refuel. The SS United States was a mere 28 feet shorter than the Queen Mary, but due to the extensive usage of aluminum in her superstructure (2,000 tons) weighed only 53,290 tons, roughly 30,000 tons less than the Queen Mary. The SS United States was such a success that its hull and engine designs were placed in nearly all large naval battle ships, and the ship itself was the prototype for the first super aircraft carriers, the Forrestal class. On the Big U, the powerplant was slightly derated because boiler superheat temp was lowered from 1,000 degrees to about 925 in the interests of reliability/maintenance. The Carriers actually generated 5,000 to 10,000 SHP per shaft more than the Big U. The propulsion system was a closely guarded secret until the 1970s. "
The USS United States used the same power plant as the Iowa Class BBs. A lot of it's details where kept secret and like all ocean liners it was designed to be put into service as a Troop ship in case of war. Part of the problem was that they where going to swap out that old power plant and put in diesels which would have been a lot cheaper to run but would have made the ship a lot slower. They would have basicly needed to take the ship apart are rebuild it.
The NS Savannah was a mixed cargo passenger ship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It had 30 staterooms and looked like it would have have been a very interesting way to travel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Actually that was the basis of a story by A.C. Clarke I believe. The USSR built the first comsat as a way to broadcast propaganda and porn to the the US over TV.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Really the fact that we have Emojis is bad enough having news stories about them is just too much to take.
Simple to ruin the US economy.
1. They put a large satellite and pick up all US broadcast TV.
2. They use the satellite to rebroadcast it to the entire US.
3. Comcast and Time Warner go out of business.
4. They broadcast 24 hour a day free porn to the US and destroy all morality and productivity.
and yes I am kidding.
No you are wrong.
Back in the 60s and 70s the tax laws where a lot different and really supported the idea of research. IBM, Xerox PARC, and AT&T Bell Labs are all good examples.
True but the big issue is that building large rockets is still pretty hard. It is not like a computer where you can buy the parts cheap. CAD and simulation help but you still have to make the big and precise metal parts.
IRBMs are not ICBMs.
And If you can find me a single reference to the Atlas being a single stage rocket I would love to see it. Even the Space Shuttle is not considered a single stage or an SSTO and all of it's motors fire at once.
So no ICBM is a single stage. Martin was looking into making one but it never got past the drawing board.
It should be noted that ALL ICBMs are multi stage. Some MRBMs and SRBMs are single stage. Even closest like the Atlas where considered 1 1/2 stage while the SS-6 used boosters and a core which are also considered multi stage rocket.
The USSR did toy with the idea of using the N-1 to carry the Tsar-bomb 100 megaton device. It could have also been used as a way to deploy orbital weapons platforms to drop nukes from orbit. But the USSR and the US have signed a treaty to prevent that.
http://www.russianspaceweb.com...
I do not know if many people are old enough to remember Johnny Carson's or Karnak routine but it comes to mind seeing this post.
"Food, indoor plumbing, and sanity"
"Name three things that North Korea needs more than landing men on the moon."
Of course it is silly since the autopilot has been fooled just by nature.
CP/M's API was not a copy of VMS. It was influenced by TOPS-10 but the APIs where probably just a small subset.
"The only major things that were the API (which was deprecated in 2.x anyway), and, because of the API, the file system had some limitations (drive letters, 8.3 file names) that were similar to CP/M's."
Ummm..... So just the APIs and file system????
Yea....
And version 2.x.....
That is one of the many myths the other was that he was out flying his plane when they came. The real story was that IBM wanted digital research to sign a bunch of NDAs before they would even talk to them and Kildall asked why and they walked. At that time when IBM wants to make a deal with you it was unwise to ask questions.
His not getting the IBM PC OS deal was probably a huge blow to him. MS-DOS was in many ways based on CP/M but with some improvements for normal people like using copy instead of pip. It also suffered with many of the warts of CP/M like using the slash for switches. Kildall was from all I heard a great guy but just was not ready for the microcomputer industry to big business. Bill Gates was ready to work the IBM way and eventually beat IBM. Kildall proves the old saying settlers get rich pioneers get massacred.
Look at the history Altar, Commodore, Atari, Tandy/Radio Shack, and Sinclair are all gone from the computer industry. Only Apple survived and that was a miracle. They managed to keep a high priced system alive for a very long time without a lot of business users.
Or maybe the reviewers are right. Frankly with the cost of movies being so high I would rather wait for the reviews before I spend the money. I was looking forward to this movie but now I will probably give it a miss or wait and see it during the day when it is cheaper.
Even Space X is questionable. Is SpaceX selling DC-3s or Wright Flyers?
Are these products or test vehicles? As long as the customer knows that they are flying on an experimental LV that is fine but just where in the develop phase are we? The good thing is right now no one dies when SpaceX blows it. Even better is no payload is lost when a Falcon does not land so I would say that SpaceX is debatable.
Back to Tesla, let's not forget the problems with the auto opening doors and the self parking as well.
"Not every athlete grew up in a septic tank like the Americans and some Europeans."
Does not fit with using rhyming slang for an american does it?
Flashing FOSS firmware is never easy or for less technical users..
Hey if you didn't have to add pins and get out a JTAG it is easy.
Let me make a wild guess, English is not your first language.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...