The *only* folks who will go for this will be hipsters who would rather talk to an Amazon app on their iPhones than directly with a grubby blue collar contractor.
I have a neighbor who is a licensed construction foreman. When I need work done on my old house, I basically can assist with demo, site prep, and cleanup and he gives me a big break on the bill. He goes home with a case of my homebrew beer when it is all done.
That Amazon can even propose this business model really describes the sad state of affairs of the middle class, community, and humanity's ability to interact face-to-face. We need to put the fucking phones down and talk to each other.
Combustion CFD is a very difficult area. The problem is that there are so many interlinked phenomena all requiring special modeling methods that one really isn't quite certain of the accuracy of the result unless they can compare it to a physical model test, which is what is frequently done. Simply getting the correct boundary conditions can be very challenging. Failing to apply appropriate modeling and boundary situations leads to a garbage in/garbage out situation, but the numerical solution may look plausibly correct.
CFD is not use exclusively in design work except for very basic cases where the modeling accuracy is well understood. However, CFD for more complicated situations is still useful as it may illustrate behaviors and trends in performance in situations where physical observations are difficult (like in a rocket nozzle). The CFD results can be used to guide and interpret the results of physical testing.
Understanding CFD really requires PhDs who understand fluid dynamics as well as the limitations of the numerical models used. This is true in many industries, not just rocket surgery.
The Dream Chaser's advantage is that it can land on a runway. As long as the runway has sufficient length (Ellington's two runways are both over 8,000 ft in length) then Dream Chaser can land safely. The only real issues would be either a) a failure involving the landing gear, or b) FOD on the runway itself.
The plan for SpaceX's Dragon 2 is also a soft powered landing.
2. A listener hears the song and would like to listen to it on demand, so they head down to the album store and buy a CD or record.
3. Listener pays for product, leaves happy! Music!
4. Distribution label PROFITS!!! (though cut has to go to artist, agent, CD/record production, etc.. ).
The new model for music distribution:
1. Listener hears artist's music on Youtube, can play on demand for free, can contribute to artist directly!
2. ??? - sound of crickets chirping -
Not seeing the need for big labels anymore myself. They are trying to coerce money out of a system that is rapidly realizing this new reality. Good luck with that!
Fluid turbulence is actually well understood and very easy to visualize. Yes, direct simulation of turbulence is very computationally expensive, but good mathematical models for the effect of turbulence in flows have been around for a while and are used in CFD modeling in many industries.
I can actually see turbulence; if I just go down to the river or look up at the sky, there it is. It's complex, but it obeys simple rules and you can actually develop a physical intuition about turbulence.
Not so with quantum physics, at least not yet. I think part of the problem is people rarely get to see the actual experiments that illustrate where quantum physics and Newtonian physics part company. A picture book that illustrates the weirdness physically, maybe some experimental data, would be a help. I recently read a book called "A Quantum Moment" by Crease and Goldhaber; it wasn't bad where it was describing the history of quantum theory, and it actually contains some math, but it just gives up in some sections and starts getting really airy-fairy and weird.
Oh really, this is your sole role in life Sysrammer - pedantic grammar Nazi? "Ooh...ooh, let's derail the whole topic with a style critique. "Four" is definitely more appropriate than "4". Clarifies everything! I must be superior! Everybody bow before the Great Clarifier!
Try to get laid Sysrammer. Success isn't guaranteed but you should try to actually do something with your life. Some desperate boy might let you in.
Your parents are probably praying for you to leave their basement and to actually do something useful with your life.
Did you have any other bullshit waste-of-time comment to add to this conversation? No? Good! GTFA
Oh, the democrat would have waged perpetual war against the brown-skinned west Asian? Wow, that would have changed everything, shocking, yeah.
Um, no, actually...Raytheon et al. would have pushed perpetual war as a business model, as they did with the R in the White House.R, D, whatever.
Ahem...if you didn't hear me clearly...it doesn't matter what you think - the elections have been decided for you, citizen. Celebrate in your freedom from....eh, er.. freedom.
Cool, so flying dildos available for credit. Got it. Sweet! Party on fornicators!
I'm just waiting for some hillbilly with a shotgun to intercept a package with a gasoline-fueled vibrator, a gas generator with a Sybian, and Twitter their neighbor's presidential aspirations away.
In the U.S. you have the choice of (what is termed in Europe) right of center and extreme right. Or maybe left = right. Whatever. You can (and I have) voted for Edward Snowden for every position from President down to dog catcher. No change here in the U.S. And U.S. stability means perpetual war .
Come on mods...you haven't modded me to negative infinity yet. Maybe you are...curious?
People don't vote because there is very little practical difference between the candidates nowadays. The parties (and their financial backers) set up a horse race between the two top contenders most amenable to the parties (and their financial backers), not the voters.
Oh sure, the voters can chose a candidate in their primaries, and they later can chose between the candidates from the different parties, but the actual decisions about the future leadership of the country have already been made by the parties and their financial backers.If it makes you feel like a rebel or a patriot, you can occasionally vote for the 3rd party candidate (but not so much anymore). They might garner some of the vote, but generally have no chance of winning, and don't change the fact that the candidates of the two major parties have already been selected for you. They might sway the election from one party to another, but that doesn't really make a difference. The American voter gets the choice of 31 flavors, but they're unfortunately all vanilla.
Here are U.S. presidential popular vote results since 1980 (if you don't remember who won, Google it or something). Note that the difference between the major party candidates hasn't exceeded 8% since 1984 (average difference was about 5% and has been decreasing with time), and that the party balance has bounced from Democrat to Republican several times in those years, even with major 3rd party rabble-rousers like Ross Perot. 3rd parties have been effectively snuffed (remember Ralph Nader? Me neither).
1980 50.8% 41.0% 6.6% (Anderson)
1984 58.8% 40.6%
1988 53.4% 45.7%
1992 43.0% 37.5% 18.9% (Ross Perot)
1996 49.2% 40.7% 8.4% (Ross Perot)
2000 47.9% 48.4%
2004 50.7% 48.3%
2008 52.9% 45.7%
2012 51.1% 47.2%
A variable +/-5% difference between winning and losing does not connote blow-out landside win to me. Sounds a lot like coin toss odds, exactly what you would expect if there was no real difference between the candidates.
The upshot - the variation in candidate choices has flat-lined. The candidates are effectively clones - they'll do their backer's bidding, no matter who actually wins the election. Vote if you like, but don't expect big change.
Most of the "innovations" are actually detrimental to corporate users who simply are trying to keep everything running and they don't want to climb a learning curve just to get back to their former level of productivity. But that is what MS is pushing.
Tinkering under the hood to improve performance is one thing. Arguably Windows 8 is a good OS under a god-awful and painful GUI. Messing with GUIs is probably Microsoft's biggest error. They should provide different GUIs for different installations, but provide a freakling XP/Win7 GUI wrapper for the folks simply trying to get work done on a desktop that have been using that sort of interface for 20+ years.
Most people doing anything on the internet have no functional literacy in security. WEP, WPA, SSL, https,...it's all alphabet soup mumbo jumbo to most people.
Now, some self-appointed expert is going to chime in in a few moments and say that these ignorant fools need to educate themselves about this, and if they get pwned it's all their own fault.
The problem *is* that people need to be educated, but right now to truly understand the rudiments of security technology and the risks probably requires some night classes more suited to IT professionals. If that is the burden on the user, security will never work.
People understand locks and keys on their cars and doors, and know the consequences of not using them. The same can't be said for internet security. Most people are stuck relying on the kindness of strangers to implement security for them, and that is just asking for trouble.
The person who solves this problem, of making internet security understandable by the lay user, will be doing the world a great service.
The destruction of intact chemical weapons is not very hard, you just need a hot incinerator. It's a little more complicated than that, but there are incinerators that are made to do this (IIRC one was deployed to Syria on a ship a few years ago to do this).
But, if what they are really talking about is decontamination of areas where these weapons were deployed, that is a much harder problem. You can't just rinse this stuff off because that just moves the problem. You have to got to chemically break down the chemical. If you have lots of masony and textiles contaminated, forget it, you'll need to kill that with fire too.
How is it that we can put people to sleep every day by the thousands, cut them apart, sew them back together, and wake them back up -- and this is considered normal medical care -- but for some reason the same procedures aren't good enough for performing an execution?
Because most medical professionals went into that profession to save lives?
Which means getting someone to do this requires A) someone with the actual skills to properly insert the needles and administer the drugs and B) someone not so fussed about the fact that what they are doing is going to kill someone. Someone who meets criteria A is not likely to fulfill criteria B and vice versa. A and B aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but the overlap is probably damned small
Slashdot Mirror
The *only* folks who will go for this will be hipsters who would rather talk to an Amazon app on their iPhones than directly with a grubby blue collar contractor.
I have a neighbor who is a licensed construction foreman. When I need work done on my old house, I basically can assist with demo, site prep, and cleanup and he gives me a big break on the bill. He goes home with a case of my homebrew beer when it is all done.
That Amazon can even propose this business model really describes the sad state of affairs of the middle class, community, and humanity's ability to interact face-to-face. We need to put the fucking phones down and talk to each other.
Umm, rocket science is...rocket science?
Combustion CFD is a very difficult area. The problem is that there are so many interlinked phenomena all requiring special modeling methods that one really isn't quite certain of the accuracy of the result unless they can compare it to a physical model test, which is what is frequently done. Simply getting the correct boundary conditions can be very challenging. Failing to apply appropriate modeling and boundary situations leads to a garbage in/garbage out situation, but the numerical solution may look plausibly correct.
CFD is not use exclusively in design work except for very basic cases where the modeling accuracy is well understood. However, CFD for more complicated situations is still useful as it may illustrate behaviors and trends in performance in situations where physical observations are difficult (like in a rocket nozzle). The CFD results can be used to guide and interpret the results of physical testing.
Understanding CFD really requires PhDs who understand fluid dynamics as well as the limitations of the numerical models used. This is true in many industries, not just rocket surgery.
Ahem; that's "Matter of Color", thank you very much.
Chicken chicken, (chicken) chicken?
https://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume12/v12i5/chicken-12-5.pdf
https://xkcd.com/538/
If they can't afford enough computer to crack your passphrase, they can still afford a $5 wrench
The Dream Chaser's advantage is that it can land on a runway. As long as the runway has sufficient length (Ellington's two runways are both over 8,000 ft in length) then Dream Chaser can land safely. The only real issues would be either a) a failure involving the landing gear, or b) FOD on the runway itself.
The plan for SpaceX's Dragon 2 is also a soft powered landing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf_-g3UWQ04
The old model for music distribution:
1. A song gets played on the radio.
2. A listener hears the song and would like to listen to it on demand, so they head down to the album store and buy a CD or record.
3. Listener pays for product, leaves happy! Music!
4. Distribution label PROFITS!!! (though cut has to go to artist, agent, CD/record production, etc.. ).
The new model for music distribution:
1. Listener hears artist's music on Youtube, can play on demand for free, can contribute to artist directly!
2. ??? - sound of crickets chirping -
Not seeing the need for big labels anymore myself. They are trying to coerce money out of a system that is rapidly realizing this new reality. Good luck with that!
Let's have someone running around the office wearing goggles and brandishing a weapon at invisible beasties falling through the ceiling.
Don't see a problem at all with this.
Fluid turbulence is actually well understood and very easy to visualize. Yes, direct simulation of turbulence is very computationally expensive, but good mathematical models for the effect of turbulence in flows have been around for a while and are used in CFD modeling in many industries.
I can actually see turbulence; if I just go down to the river or look up at the sky, there it is. It's complex, but it obeys simple rules and you can actually develop a physical intuition about turbulence.
Not so with quantum physics, at least not yet. I think part of the problem is people rarely get to see the actual experiments that illustrate where quantum physics and Newtonian physics part company. A picture book that illustrates the weirdness physically, maybe some experimental data, would be a help. I recently read a book called "A Quantum Moment" by Crease and Goldhaber; it wasn't bad where it was describing the history of quantum theory, and it actually contains some math, but it just gives up in some sections and starts getting really airy-fairy and weird.
Anybody else read this and think, "Oh come on ... the physicists are just getting silly and making up shit now."
I'm still waiting for somebody to synthesize this whole field and make it halfway possible to visualize.
Oh really, this is your sole role in life Sysrammer - pedantic grammar Nazi? "Ooh...ooh, let's derail the whole topic with a style critique. "Four" is definitely more appropriate than "4". Clarifies everything! I must be superior! Everybody bow before the Great Clarifier!
Try to get laid Sysrammer. Success isn't guaranteed but you should try to actually do something with your life. Some desperate boy might let you in.
Your parents are probably praying for you to leave their basement and to actually do something useful with your life.
Did you have any other bullshit waste-of-time comment to add to this conversation? No? Good! GTFA
.
Oh, the democrat would have waged perpetual war against the brown-skinned west Asian? Wow, that would have changed everything, shocking, yeah. Um, no, actually...Raytheon et al. would have pushed perpetual war as a business model, as they did with the R in the White House.R, D, whatever. Ahem...if you didn't hear me clearly...it doesn't matter what you think - the elections have been decided for you, citizen. Celebrate in your freedom from ....eh, er.. freedom.
Cool, so flying dildos available for credit. Got it. Sweet! Party on fornicators! I'm just waiting for some hillbilly with a shotgun to intercept a package with a gasoline-fueled vibrator, a gas generator with a Sybian, and Twitter their neighbor's presidential aspirations away.
In the U.S. you have the choice of (what is termed in Europe) right of center and extreme right. Or maybe left = right. Whatever. You can (and I have) voted for Edward Snowden for every position from President down to dog catcher. No change here in the U.S. And U.S. stability means perpetual war . Come on mods...you haven't modded me to negative infinity yet. Maybe you are...curious?
Separating the people from the power maybe.
The interesting thing is the machine burns so much money every election to spin the idea that the people have a real choice.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, citizens!
Mod this up, please! Don't be afraid of 4-letter words that start with F.
People don't vote because there is very little practical difference between the candidates nowadays. The parties (and their financial backers) set up a horse race between the two top contenders most amenable to the parties (and their financial backers), not the voters.
Oh sure, the voters can chose a candidate in their primaries, and they later can chose between the candidates from the different parties, but the actual decisions about the future leadership of the country have already been made by the parties and their financial backers.If it makes you feel like a rebel or a patriot, you can occasionally vote for the 3rd party candidate (but not so much anymore). They might garner some of the vote, but generally have no chance of winning, and don't change the fact that the candidates of the two major parties have already been selected for you. They might sway the election from one party to another, but that doesn't really make a difference. The American voter gets the choice of 31 flavors, but they're unfortunately all vanilla.
Here are U.S. presidential popular vote results since 1980 (if you don't remember who won, Google it or something). Note that the difference between the major party candidates hasn't exceeded 8% since 1984 (average difference was about 5% and has been decreasing with time), and that the party balance has bounced from Democrat to Republican several times in those years, even with major 3rd party rabble-rousers like Ross Perot. 3rd parties have been effectively snuffed (remember Ralph Nader? Me neither).
1980 50.8% 41.0% 6.6% (Anderson)
1984 58.8% 40.6%
1988 53.4% 45.7%
1992 43.0% 37.5% 18.9% (Ross Perot)
1996 49.2% 40.7% 8.4% (Ross Perot)
2000 47.9% 48.4%
2004 50.7% 48.3%
2008 52.9% 45.7%
2012 51.1% 47.2%
A variable +/-5% difference between winning and losing does not connote blow-out landside win to me. Sounds a lot like coin toss odds, exactly what you would expect if there was no real difference between the candidates.
The upshot - the variation in candidate choices has flat-lined. The candidates are effectively clones - they'll do their backer's bidding, no matter who actually wins the election. Vote if you like, but don't expect big change.
Most of the "innovations" are actually detrimental to corporate users who simply are trying to keep everything running and they don't want to climb a learning curve just to get back to their former level of productivity. But that is what MS is pushing. Tinkering under the hood to improve performance is one thing. Arguably Windows 8 is a good OS under a god-awful and painful GUI. Messing with GUIs is probably Microsoft's biggest error. They should provide different GUIs for different installations, but provide a freakling XP/Win7 GUI wrapper for the folks simply trying to get work done on a desktop that have been using that sort of interface for 20+ years.
Most people doing anything on the internet have no functional literacy in security. WEP, WPA, SSL, https,...it's all alphabet soup mumbo jumbo to most people.
Now, some self-appointed expert is going to chime in in a few moments and say that these ignorant fools need to educate themselves about this, and if they get pwned it's all their own fault.
The problem *is* that people need to be educated, but right now to truly understand the rudiments of security technology and the risks probably requires some night classes more suited to IT professionals. If that is the burden on the user, security will never work.
People understand locks and keys on their cars and doors, and know the consequences of not using them. The same can't be said for internet security. Most people are stuck relying on the kindness of strangers to implement security for them, and that is just asking for trouble.
The person who solves this problem, of making internet security understandable by the lay user, will be doing the world a great service.
The destruction of intact chemical weapons is not very hard, you just need a hot incinerator. It's a little more complicated than that, but there are incinerators that are made to do this (IIRC one was deployed to Syria on a ship a few years ago to do this).
But, if what they are really talking about is decontamination of areas where these weapons were deployed, that is a much harder problem. You can't just rinse this stuff off because that just moves the problem. You have to got to chemically break down the chemical. If you have lots of masony and textiles contaminated, forget it, you'll need to kill that with fire too.
'What is the most recent version of Windows, Winston?'
Ever see two horses "breed"? There isn't anything noble and certainly nothing romantic about it.
I don't think this is found at Disney World:
The Euthanasia Coaster
How is it that we can put people to sleep every day by the thousands, cut them apart, sew them back together, and wake them back up -- and this is considered normal medical care -- but for some reason the same procedures aren't good enough for performing an execution?
Because most medical professionals went into that profession to save lives?
Which means getting someone to do this requires A) someone with the actual skills to properly insert the needles and administer the drugs and B) someone not so fussed about the fact that what they are doing is going to kill someone. Someone who meets criteria A is not likely to fulfill criteria B and vice versa. A and B aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but the overlap is probably damned small
...you lose your smartphone, eh?