Go Google the location of the plates and fault lines, then look at earthquakes for the last 10 years and you will see a pattern.
Not really, I see a bunch of earthquakes in random locations along fault lines. Show me a map for the 10 years before that, and then ten years before that, etc... and then we'll talk. Until then, all you have is pseudo-scientific bullshit.
If it was surgery, you'd probably pick the surgeon with 20 years experience over the one with a couple of years experience to operate on you.
If is was a builder you were employing, you'd probably prefer the one with 20 years experience over the younger one to build your house.
The interesting this is, though you meant to imply the opposite, you actually show why I wouldn't hire a programmer with twenty years experience.
A doctor has ten years of school, and ten years of field experience, and leads a team of professionals. Your builder (unlike the doctor) doesn't do the hands on work anymore; but what I'm hiring is the crew he leads, and the network of subcontractors he's built up, and his contacts down at the local builder's supply... While someone who is still just a programmer after twenty years is someone stuck in a rut doing grunt work. If I hire someone who wants his wages based on his years of experience, I'm going to hire someone who brings something worth those wages to the table. I'm going to hire a supervisor or a manger - not a grunt. Grunts are a dime a dozen.
Small jet engines are readily available (every airliner has one as an auxiliary power generator unit)
While it's true that every airliner has a small turbine powered auxiliary generator, they're no more a small jet engine than my lawn mower's IC engine is a small F1 racing IC engine. Surface similarities in operation emphatically do not imply equalities in capability and performance. (No matter how many times Hollywood tells you that it does.)
same for CCD cameras and lenses. GPS, CPUs and memory are commodity parts.
Indeed, commercial grade equipment is available off the shelf. But do I really need to point out how unlikely it is that the drone is built of commercial grade parts?
No, the OP has it right - to build a military grade unit, there's a lot of secret sauce. Between design, integration, and manufacture there's a lot of 'know how' embedded in the physical vehicle that's not visible to the naked eye and that to replicate takes considerable analysis and follow on development work. As another poster says, using the automobile analogy, it's easier to copy a Lamborghini when you have a real one for reference rather than just a picture - but "easier" is not the same as "easy". It's not just a matter of slapping together parts that look more-or-less the same, because you have to answer "why?" as well as "how?" and "what?".
have been in use by the U.S. Navy for decades. They've plenty of safety and failure rate data on them, they've got a high safety rating, and they're pretty small.
And they cost considerably more than a plant designed for civilian use does. Not just to build (because of the hardening for test depth) but to operate (the HEU they use is much more expensive than the LEU used in civilian plants). They also have engineering features (the ability to rapidly alter power levels) not needed for civilian plants.
Even just taking the obvious 'simple' step (re-engineer them to remove HEU, both for expense and proliferation risk), and they're no longer economically feasible as their ouput is significantly decreased.
The real secret for cutting down on reselling used games (can't eliminate it entirely) is to provide an incentive for the customer to retain it. New content, re-playability, tie in with future products that open new avenues of gameplay, rewards for brand loyalty, etc.
That's what downloadable content is supposed to do - but the howls from players are loud and long over paying more money for more stuff. ("I bought the game once, why do I have to keep paying more money".)
Unless of course, you meant the publisher should do that work gratis, in which case - ROTFL,
While you win the pedant award - the underlying technology is irrelevant to the facts of the case. India has had the capability to deliver strategic nuclear weapons for decades, and this and other reasons are why the reaction to the Agni test was different from the reaction to North Korea's test.
There is furniture other than couches... The advertisers are (from long experience) betting that a) like most people you only had the scratch to upgrade/replace/purchase a single item, and b) that having done so you'll be more likely to be interested in upgrading/replacing/purchasing the balance (either on credit now, or in the future when you have the scratch). Given the low cost and higher conversion rate of targeted ads, they'd be leaving money on the table if they didn't invest something in trying to capture a couch buyer for the rest of their purchases.
Servers are more secure than desktops in the Linux arena primarily because there is no idiot user sitting in front of the keyboard to click "Ok" when malware tries to install itself. Also, servers aren't typically used for surfing and downloading, so the malware doesn't get a chance to try to install itself.
That's true of Windows too. In fact, it's true *regardless* of the OS.
As the OP pointed out - the issue isn't just chemistry, it's energy dissipation. Batteries aren't 100% efficient at transforming incoming current into chemically stored energy, and the balance usually comes out as heat. When you're talking about a high capacity battery, you're talking about a *lot* of heat.
A stopped clock *is* always right twice a day after all...:):)
No, my problem isn't with eco-assholes per se, but with eco-assholes who don't understand the technological, logistical, infrastructure, and social challenges that lay between a wistful hope for a practical electrical car and the actual existence of one sitting in Joe Sixpack's driveway. (I'm not saying or implying that you are one mind you, just noting their existence.) My full ire is reserved for those who not only don't recognize the existence of such challenges, but who also insist the sole reason we don't have practical electrical cars is because some byzantine corporate/government conspiracy.
The small reactors, about a fourth or less the capacity of full-size nuclear units, are appealing to the nuclear industry because they could be manufactured at a central plant and shipped around the world. By contrast, building nuclear reactors today is a more cumbersome process that must be done largely on site and takes years.
That's an editorial addition by the submitter - and not part of TFA. And it's not quite right either.
Regardless of the size of the plant, the major machinery is built off-site and shipped to the construction site for installation. What's time consuming and expensive on site (and it's not clear that small reactors escape this) is the labor intensive work of hooking up all the piping, wiring, and ancillary systems for the plant.
What saves time and money in this kind of construction is eliminating building major machinery only on demand, and instead building it at a slow but steady and predictable pace. I.E. if you can negotiate to buy April's production in February of the previous year, you have less capital tied up (and thus pay less interest) than if you had to order your machinery two, three, or four years in advance. Though standardized serial production isn't quite the same as mass production, it has the same benefits to a lesser degree.
Every year the post commander would propose building 4 or 5 new officerâ(TM)s houses, and every year Congress would strike those line items from the Federal budget. No new houses. Until one year, he had a really ingenious idea. He proposed that since the army was often in the field pursuing the âoehostilesâ that the government should construct four âoefield kitchensâ to feed the men. Then, the commandant used the maintenance budget and the free labor of the troops during the winter months to build âoeextensionsâ on those âoefield kitchensâ.
True in the 1880's, true in the 1990's, and still true today; it is no so much following the rules as it is finding a way to get what needs to be done in spite of the rules.
The Navy did the same thing in the same time period - used "maintenance" money to jack up the nameplates on old worn out wooden vessels and slide new steel vessels underneath, because Congress would not approve the purchase of new vessels.
But Hale doesn't seem to understand why this was done... and that it has nothing at all to do with byzantine regulations. (Though we're all used to suchlike today, they were essentially non-existent in today's form back in the late 19th century.) Nor does it necessarily have much to do with accountability for how the money was spent. (Again, much looser then than now.)
The Army and the Navy had to do these things because, prior to advent of the Cold War in the late 1940's/early 1950's, the US in general and Congress in specific had a strong antipathy towards having standing armed forces. Long memories of the British 'regulars' who had oppressed the American colonists, and the historical cases of generals who instigated and lead revolutions or seized power and then enforced their regime with armed force combined to produce a belief that standing armies were a grave threat to freedom. The ethos of the "citizen soldier" protecting their home and the myth of the Minuteman only enforced the idea that standing armies weren't needed. They only grudgingly accepted the notion that their needed be a cadre - a core of trained and experienced professionals that could train and lead those citizen soldiers and Minutemen when the need arose.
In their view, the only way to control that barely tolerated cadre was to keep it on a starvation diet. An Army and a Navy starved and emasculated could neither threaten freedom nor tempt the President into 'foreign adventures'. (To use the contemporary term.) Nor does the modern existence of standing armed forces mean this is a dead idea. Though Congress has finally accepted that technology and the speed of modern events requires standing forces - they still wish a check on Presidential authority to maintain the Constitutionally mandated separation of powers - hence the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
The first bio dome failed because the concrete consumed more oxygen then was previously believed. The facility never produced enough oxygen even to cure the concrete and thus couldn't be sealed.
That's the cause of the operational failure.... The overall cause of the failure is more subtle and quite relevant here - the Biosphere ultimately failed because a) it was designed in accordance with ecological and philosophical philosophies*, and b) it was operated in accordance with ecological and philosophical philosophies.**
NASA has actually been building experimental 'green' (though we didn't call it that back then) buildings since the 1970's... Over the last decade and some, we've seen endless articles about new building with ever higher 'certification' levels... But we never seem to see any reports or coverage of how these buildings have fared over time. How have they held up fiscally? Maintenance wise? Shiny new techniques are way cool, but how are they faring in the real world?
* If you go back into the articles written before and during construction, you'll see the "lungs" were a late addition. The 'geniuses'/mystics that originally designed the building forgot to account for the fact that the atmosphere inside the building would expand and contract with changes in temperature.
** I.E. the 'geniuses'/mystics didn't have the relevant engineering experience to know that such a facility would need a commissioning program - which would have discovered the problems with the concrete. They rushed into a full scale test program with insufficient testing. (That they were strapped for cash because they'd spent way too much money important stuff like sand didn't help any.)
Keep in mind that the Agni isn't exactly new... it's been around since the 1980's. Also, India has had theatre level ability to deliver nuclear weapons since the 1970's.
So, seniority, not batshit crazy, generally stable, generally well behaved, all these things play a part.
Virtually nobody sees the bias in their chosen news sources. They wouldn't even recognize it if it ran up and hit them with a 2x4. (As your first post so aptly demonstrates.) They will however invent bias everywhere else though. (As your reply equally aptly demonstrates.)
At least back then, people *knew* news sources were biased - you were ignorant of it until I pointed it out, and will forget it tomorrow as soon as a piece you agree with scrolls up your screen.
No need to wait until 8 o'clock to see your favorite show; or wait for MTV to play your favorite song; just watch it now online.
Indeed - I just got finished watching a TV episode I TIVO'ed last week. In the middle of the night without having to remember to set the clock or put a tape in either.
People are talking directly to one another (okay typing to one another) and no longer believing the lies/blatant omissions coming from the old media. The press is once again the people, where it belonged all along.
Instead, they're believing the lies and blatant omissions coming from the new media... The press hasn't "returned to the people", but rather it has returned to an older era - where every news source took sides and had it's political slant and didn't even pretend to unbiased or accurate. The technology has changed, but people haven't.
There was an interview with one of the guys at Motorola who worked on it saying something along the lines of how he saw the communicator not as an impossible sci-fi gadget, but as a challenge to make.
Media can influence culture, and sci-fi can for sure influence geeks.
The problem is - work on mobile telephony long predates Star Trek. The first car phones were deployed in 1946! Not only that, but mobile communicators in SF predate Star Trek as well - witness the systems used by the crew of the Bellerephon in the 1956 film Forbidden Planet. Star Trek may have inspired him personally to work on the project, but I have no reason to doubt the handheld phones were coming with or without him or Star Trek - the trend had already been visible for decades.
Re:This was already solved by a portuguese in 2009
on
Pioneer Anomaly Solved
·
· Score: 2
So, how does his evidence and analysis stack up against the current one? (Especially in light of how little data was available until recently.)
I.E. lots of people have theorized the effect, some have made (relatively crude) calculations supporting this as a cause - but this is the first using the whole dataset.
I don't know any average Joe who can write enough software to make a light off an MCU blink.
The problem isn't the average Joe writing software. The problem, as it always is, is the average Joe downloading and installing a patch from www.trustmeimnotmalware.reallyimnot.com. Worms and trojans and botnets on the 'net are bad enough - but on the highways? Thank you, no. I don't have any desire to potentially place my life and limb at the disposal of some black hat in Siberia.
The commenters above talking about how you "can't significantly alter the performance" are either missing the point or not being imaginative enough... Just off the top of my head, I can think of several ways to seriously mess with both the performance and the internal workings of the car. Imagine a malware patch that introduced a random delay between pressing the accelerator and actually applying the acceleration? (Or doing the same to the brakes.) Or messing with the battery capacity display. (Or the speedometer.) Or adds a positive or negative delta to the accelerometer or the brakes? Or disables regenerative braking while displaying it as taking place. Etc... etc... That's just the results of stream-of-conciousness thinking on half a cup of coffee, actual black hats can probably come up with even more clever and destructive hacks.
And that doesn't even address the issue of the well meaning white hat that diddles with code he doesn't fully understand. Yeah, Bobbyelectrics.com's patch may make 'x' seem to work better - but what's the effect 10 or 20k miles down the road? You can't (generally) break a computer's physical hardware with software, but that's not necessarily also true of a car.
However, I wonder, if it has access to salt water, why not adapt it to use ocean water instead of the humidity from the air? Is it a problem of what to do with the salt and other minerals?
It's not just an issue of what to do with the brine... there's also the issue of the vastly increased maintenance costs.... not just because of the environment, but because you'll need more machinery (a distiller and a condenser as opposed to just a condenser) as well.
Slashdot Mirror
By taking a random 10 year period and trying to "find a pattern", that's what he was doing.
Not really, I see a bunch of earthquakes in random locations along fault lines. Show me a map for the 10 years before that, and then ten years before that, etc... and then we'll talk. Until then, all you have is pseudo-scientific bullshit.
The interesting this is, though you meant to imply the opposite, you actually show why I wouldn't hire a programmer with twenty years experience.
A doctor has ten years of school, and ten years of field experience, and leads a team of professionals. Your builder (unlike the doctor) doesn't do the hands on work anymore; but what I'm hiring is the crew he leads, and the network of subcontractors he's built up, and his contacts down at the local builder's supply... While someone who is still just a programmer after twenty years is someone stuck in a rut doing grunt work. If I hire someone who wants his wages based on his years of experience, I'm going to hire someone who brings something worth those wages to the table. I'm going to hire a supervisor or a manger - not a grunt. Grunts are a dime a dozen.
While it's true that every airliner has a small turbine powered auxiliary generator, they're no more a small jet engine than my lawn mower's IC engine is a small F1 racing IC engine. Surface similarities in operation emphatically do not imply equalities in capability and performance. (No matter how many times Hollywood tells you that it does.)
Indeed, commercial grade equipment is available off the shelf. But do I really need to point out how unlikely it is that the drone is built of commercial grade parts?
No, the OP has it right - to build a military grade unit, there's a lot of secret sauce. Between design, integration, and manufacture there's a lot of 'know how' embedded in the physical vehicle that's not visible to the naked eye and that to replicate takes considerable analysis and follow on development work. As another poster says, using the automobile analogy, it's easier to copy a Lamborghini when you have a real one for reference rather than just a picture - but "easier" is not the same as "easy". It's not just a matter of slapping together parts that look more-or-less the same, because you have to answer "why?" as well as "how?" and "what?".
And they cost considerably more than a plant designed for civilian use does. Not just to build (because of the hardening for test depth) but to operate (the HEU they use is much more expensive than the LEU used in civilian plants). They also have engineering features (the ability to rapidly alter power levels) not needed for civilian plants.
Even just taking the obvious 'simple' step (re-engineer them to remove HEU, both for expense and proliferation risk), and they're no longer economically feasible as their ouput is significantly decreased.
Here's the actual press release (which Network World just cut-and-pasted): http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2012/04/20.aspx
That's what downloadable content is supposed to do - but the howls from players are loud and long over paying more money for more stuff. ("I bought the game once, why do I have to keep paying more money".)
Unless of course, you meant the publisher should do that work gratis, in which case - ROTFL,
While you win the pedant award - the underlying technology is irrelevant to the facts of the case. India has had the capability to deliver strategic nuclear weapons for decades, and this and other reasons are why the reaction to the Agni test was different from the reaction to North Korea's test.
There is furniture other than couches... The advertisers are (from long experience) betting that a) like most people you only had the scratch to upgrade/replace/purchase a single item, and b) that having done so you'll be more likely to be interested in upgrading/replacing/purchasing the balance (either on credit now, or in the future when you have the scratch). Given the low cost and higher conversion rate of targeted ads, they'd be leaving money on the table if they didn't invest something in trying to capture a couch buyer for the rest of their purchases.
That's true of Windows too. In fact, it's true *regardless* of the OS.
As the OP pointed out - the issue isn't just chemistry, it's energy dissipation. Batteries aren't 100% efficient at transforming incoming current into chemically stored energy, and the balance usually comes out as heat. When you're talking about a high capacity battery, you're talking about a *lot* of heat.
A stopped clock *is* always right twice a day after all... :) :)
No, my problem isn't with eco-assholes per se, but with eco-assholes who don't understand the technological, logistical, infrastructure, and social challenges that lay between a wistful hope for a practical electrical car and the actual existence of one sitting in Joe Sixpack's driveway. (I'm not saying or implying that you are one mind you, just noting their existence.) My full ire is reserved for those who not only don't recognize the existence of such challenges, but who also insist the sole reason we don't have practical electrical cars is because some byzantine corporate/government conspiracy.
When non-American's stop indulging in the same habit, then we'll talk.
That's an editorial addition by the submitter - and not part of TFA. And it's not quite right either.
Regardless of the size of the plant, the major machinery is built off-site and shipped to the construction site for installation. What's time consuming and expensive on site (and it's not clear that small reactors escape this) is the labor intensive work of hooking up all the piping, wiring, and ancillary systems for the plant.
What saves time and money in this kind of construction is eliminating building major machinery only on demand, and instead building it at a slow but steady and predictable pace. I.E. if you can negotiate to buy April's production in February of the previous year, you have less capital tied up (and thus pay less interest) than if you had to order your machinery two, three, or four years in advance. Though standardized serial production isn't quite the same as mass production, it has the same benefits to a lesser degree.
The Navy did the same thing in the same time period - used "maintenance" money to jack up the nameplates on old worn out wooden vessels and slide new steel vessels underneath, because Congress would not approve the purchase of new vessels.
But Hale doesn't seem to understand why this was done... and that it has nothing at all to do with byzantine regulations. (Though we're all used to suchlike today, they were essentially non-existent in today's form back in the late 19th century.) Nor does it necessarily have much to do with accountability for how the money was spent. (Again, much looser then than now.)
The Army and the Navy had to do these things because, prior to advent of the Cold War in the late 1940's/early 1950's, the US in general and Congress in specific had a strong antipathy towards having standing armed forces. Long memories of the British 'regulars' who had oppressed the American colonists, and the historical cases of generals who instigated and lead revolutions or seized power and then enforced their regime with armed force combined to produce a belief that standing armies were a grave threat to freedom. The ethos of the "citizen soldier" protecting their home and the myth of the Minuteman only enforced the idea that standing armies weren't needed. They only grudgingly accepted the notion that their needed be a cadre - a core of trained and experienced professionals that could train and lead those citizen soldiers and Minutemen when the need arose.
In their view, the only way to control that barely tolerated cadre was to keep it on a starvation diet. An Army and a Navy starved and emasculated could neither threaten freedom nor tempt the President into 'foreign adventures'. (To use the contemporary term.) Nor does the modern existence of standing armed forces mean this is a dead idea. Though Congress has finally accepted that technology and the speed of modern events requires standing forces - they still wish a check on Presidential authority to maintain the Constitutionally mandated separation of powers - hence the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
That's the cause of the operational failure.... The overall cause of the failure is more subtle and quite relevant here - the Biosphere ultimately failed because a) it was designed in accordance with ecological and philosophical philosophies*, and b) it was operated in accordance with ecological and philosophical philosophies.**
NASA has actually been building experimental 'green' (though we didn't call it that back then) buildings since the 1970's... Over the last decade and some, we've seen endless articles about new building with ever higher 'certification' levels... But we never seem to see any reports or coverage of how these buildings have fared over time. How have they held up fiscally? Maintenance wise? Shiny new techniques are way cool, but how are they faring in the real world?
* If you go back into the articles written before and during construction, you'll see the "lungs" were a late addition. The 'geniuses'/mystics that originally designed the building forgot to account for the fact that the atmosphere inside the building would expand and contract with changes in temperature.
** I.E. the 'geniuses'/mystics didn't have the relevant engineering experience to know that such a facility would need a commissioning program - which would have discovered the problems with the concrete. They rushed into a full scale test program with insufficient testing. (That they were strapped for cash because they'd spent way too much money important stuff like sand didn't help any.)
Keep in mind that the Agni isn't exactly new... it's been around since the 1980's. Also, India has had theatre level ability to deliver nuclear weapons since the 1970's.
So, seniority, not batshit crazy, generally stable, generally well behaved, all these things play a part.
Virtually nobody sees the bias in their chosen news sources. They wouldn't even recognize it if it ran up and hit them with a 2x4. (As your first post so aptly demonstrates.) They will however invent bias everywhere else though. (As your reply equally aptly demonstrates.)
At least back then, people *knew* news sources were biased - you were ignorant of it until I pointed it out, and will forget it tomorrow as soon as a piece you agree with scrolls up your screen.
Indeed - I just got finished watching a TV episode I TIVO'ed last week. In the middle of the night without having to remember to set the clock or put a tape in either.
Instead, they're believing the lies and blatant omissions coming from the new media... The press hasn't "returned to the people", but rather it has returned to an older era - where every news source took sides and had it's political slant and didn't even pretend to unbiased or accurate. The technology has changed, but people haven't.
The problem is - work on mobile telephony long predates Star Trek. The first car phones were deployed in 1946! Not only that, but mobile communicators in SF predate Star Trek as well - witness the systems used by the crew of the Bellerephon in the 1956 film Forbidden Planet. Star Trek may have inspired him personally to work on the project, but I have no reason to doubt the handheld phones were coming with or without him or Star Trek - the trend had already been visible for decades.
So, how does his evidence and analysis stack up against the current one? (Especially in light of how little data was available until recently.)
I.E. lots of people have theorized the effect, some have made (relatively crude) calculations supporting this as a cause - but this is the first using the whole dataset.
The problem isn't the average Joe writing software. The problem, as it always is, is the average Joe downloading and installing a patch from www.trustmeimnotmalware.reallyimnot.com. Worms and trojans and botnets on the 'net are bad enough - but on the highways? Thank you, no. I don't have any desire to potentially place my life and limb at the disposal of some black hat in Siberia.
The commenters above talking about how you "can't significantly alter the performance" are either missing the point or not being imaginative enough... Just off the top of my head, I can think of several ways to seriously mess with both the performance and the internal workings of the car. Imagine a malware patch that introduced a random delay between pressing the accelerator and actually applying the acceleration? (Or doing the same to the brakes.) Or messing with the battery capacity display. (Or the speedometer.) Or adds a positive or negative delta to the accelerometer or the brakes? Or disables regenerative braking while displaying it as taking place. Etc... etc... That's just the results of stream-of-conciousness thinking on half a cup of coffee, actual black hats can probably come up with even more clever and destructive hacks.
And that doesn't even address the issue of the well meaning white hat that diddles with code he doesn't fully understand. Yeah, Bobbyelectrics.com's patch may make 'x' seem to work better - but what's the effect 10 or 20k miles down the road? You can't (generally) break a computer's physical hardware with software, but that's not necessarily also true of a car.
In app purchases/microtransactions are a proven model.
It's not just an issue of what to do with the brine... there's also the issue of the vastly increased maintenance costs.... not just because of the environment, but because you'll need more machinery (a distiller and a condenser as opposed to just a condenser) as well.
"And a little scary for one company (other than Google or Apple) to host this much cloud infrastructure."
There, fixed that for you.