The turbine itself was wired against tampering. All the bolts had little wires threaded through the heads that were then attached to the component the bolt was used in.
Wiring the bolt heads is pretty standard in high vibration environments, anti-tamper is just a bonus.
" It seems the deepest parts of the ocean, once thought to be devoid of life, are actually home to some organisms."
Do we really have to hear this every effing time a new deep sea species is discovered? The deeps haven't been thought of as being devoid of life for decades, if ever.
No, you "knew". One unsubstantiated story does not knowledge make. Not only that, but if you bothered to read and actually comprehend the story - it plainly says the information came from the FBI, not the Secret Service. Not only that, but it also plainly states the information was located via a Google search.
From the summary: "I'd like to think that there really are (or were) drones over Austin, but would also like to see Google's explanation for the close-up images."
It's Google implementing a feature Bing has had available for over a year - the Bird's Eye view.
Anyone who was on Kuro5hin in 2002 knew the Secret Service was keeping an eye on it.
Did they know it (for certain) or did they "know" it (was so widely assumed to be true that it was treated as truth). There is a difference.
At any rate, there's not a doubt in my mind that the Feds at least occasionally glance in on Slashdot - as it's dead certain that folks with high security clearances use it. (I personally know three.)
It's kinda like an international club I belong to, the members of which occasionally get up in arms about the rumour that the FBI has a file on it. Well, duh. Just in our local branch we had (at one time) over thirty members from the local Navy base - all with at least Secret clearances. (About five of us has TS clearances.) On top of which, we counted numerous DoD civilians and several local LEO's among our members.
Funny how, out of both sides involved in Lunar Race, it is Russia who now has few decades of experience with a spacecraft essentially capable of beyond-LEO operation.
Except - the Russians don't. Soyuz isn't Zond. Not only does does Soyuz not have the heatshield to re-enter from a lunar trajectory, it doesn't have the life support endurance, power supply duration, or pretty much anything else. From 1973 on, the Soyuz has been a dedicated LEO taxi.
Despite what you and some others want everyone to believe, there are quite a few people in this world that do stuff for things other than profit.
I keep seeing feel good twaddle like this in response to posts like the grandparents - but what I'm not seeing are any significant examples. That you believe that ancient monuments (built by nations, not individuals generally) to be examples shows just how confused you really are. Specifically, the Pyramids were built by a ruler, not a private individual, using slave and coerced labor, not a private fortune, for religious reasons, not for 'penis wagging'. Or, in short, they have precisely nothing in common with what you believe happened or would like to happen.
Just send the whole ISS. Most of their experiments don't care where the station is, so long as it is space, and plenty of instruments are already onboard.
But the ISS itself cares where it is... ISS isn't shielded to transit the Van Allen belts, and its thermal control isn't designed for lunar orbit. Nor is it structurally strong enough to take sufficient thrust to actually get it there in any reasonable time frame.
I wonder why they went with the plan to have the craft return to earth? It makes more sense to me to have a reusable "shuttlecraft" that ferried astronauts from the ISS to lunar orbit and back.
Because it takes an enormous amount of fuel to slow down into orbit. It also heavily constrains landing sites (already badly constrained or having high fuel requirements because of the idiotic choice of launch location) and heavily constrains return trajectories.
Launching to the moon from the ISS is already stupid enough, there's no need to compound the stupid by adding a requirement that it enter orbit and rendezvous with the ISS.
I never said anything different did I? All I said was that it was going to be large and complex with the technology of that era, and all the money in the world isn't going to change that. (Not to mention that many cold war projects never did quite live up to their billing - despite having large sums of money thrown at them.)
The claim being protested seems to be that GM's claims make it seem as if the gasoline-powered portion could reasonably be swapped out for a battery, fuel cell, more storage, what-have-you, when in actuality the ICE is still attached to the drive train.
Since GE never claimed that you could do so, and people seem to only believe that you could do so only because they believe you could do so.... (I.E. groundlessly.)
For the extra money GM is asking for the vehicle due to its nature, we would expect that it is not a "hybrid", but a "full EV", with all the connotations thereof.
In other words, like the OP, you judge the car not on it's performance, but on what it's called.
In other words, if you say it's an electric car, I should be able to remove the internal combustion engine
Or, in other words, like the OP you make nonsensical claims based on... well, pretty much nothing beyond groundless assumptions.
I find that a bit hard to credit, though I have no doubt they may have tried... You're talking sub microsecond resolution on the delay lines and some hellaciously low noise amplifiers and filters, pretty high tech stuff for then. Not to mention a whole room full of equipment and another for the cooling system.
Yes, and no. It is a cool application of a well used technique - but the technique in question is beamforming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beamforming), not phased array. It's a bog standard technique for (among other things) Naval sonars to 'listen' in a specific direction without physically moving the listening array.
Didn't defend anything, I merely questioned his ludicrous examples and shoddy logic. Those with an IQ above room temperature will recognize the difference.
It is important. If it is simply a version of the existing hybrid cars, with both gas and electric propulsion systems, then it needs the maintenance that gas and hybrid cars need; oil changes, traditional transmission, etc.
So you're saying people are so stupid they won't perform engine maintenance unless it's labeled a hybrid?
The price is marginally (very marginally) acceptable given the new technology and abilities and projected savings that have been touted by GM. But if it's 'just' a hybrid with slightly better numbers, then the $40K price tag is simply ridiculous...
So whether it's price is acceptable or not varies not with performance and costs - but with what the car is called?
To put it simply, I find the claims you make in support of the notion that the label is important ludicrous at best.
If a 61% stake isn't ownership... I don't know what is!
That depends on the class of stock being traded. For example, you could own 100% of GOOG - but you still won't own Google, because ownership rights are vested in a class of stock that is closely held and isn't publicly traded.
I'm sure there are things that people would be willing to pay $1000 per pound to deliver in that fashion if they could get from say New York to Tokyo in three hours. For some items there are people who would be willing to pay 100x that price if it could be done quickly.
Oh certainly there are people who need such a service and are willing to pay. The question is whether there is enough such people with enough cargo/passengers on a regular basis to repay the R&D, construction, and operations cost of the vehicle to fill the need. Concorde (for example), despite having the first two items written off and thus only having to cover the latter could only barely stay in business.
For those jobs where an aerostat would currently be too expensive, there are edge cases where it would be competitive and if they could capture enough economy of scale the edge broadens.
Since my point seemingly went over your head, I'll repeat it: there are no niches for aerostats that aren't already filled by more effective systems. None. Nada. Zip. Zero. It has nothing to do with expense, and everything to do with the aerostat being unable to compete in any way, shape, or form with existing systems.
Admittedly I took the optimist's view in my examples.
No, you took the view of someone who knew nothing about what he's talking about - and maintain that view despite being shown that the facts don't support your fantasies.
Slashdot Mirror
Wiring the bolt heads is pretty standard in high vibration environments, anti-tamper is just a bonus.
Their horrid fuel economy, high manufacturing expense, and high noise level probably has something to do with it.
" It seems the deepest parts of the ocean, once thought to be devoid of life, are actually home to some organisms."
Do we really have to hear this every effing time a new deep sea species is discovered? The deeps haven't been thought of as being devoid of life for decades, if ever.
Those are reactions subsequent to the summary being written. Duh.
No, you "knew". One unsubstantiated story does not knowledge make. Not only that, but if you bothered to read and actually comprehend the story - it plainly says the information came from the FBI, not the Secret Service. Not only that, but it also plainly states the information was located via a Google search.
"The pair have gotten some sympathetic reactions from around the world, and promise to appeal."
A single blog entry from a seeming lunatic does not 'reactions from around the world' make.
From the summary: "I'd like to think that there really are (or were) drones over Austin, but would also like to see Google's explanation for the close-up images."
It's Google implementing a feature Bing has had available for over a year - the Bird's Eye view.
Did they know it (for certain) or did they "know" it (was so widely assumed to be true that it was treated as truth). There is a difference.
At any rate, there's not a doubt in my mind that the Feds at least occasionally glance in on Slashdot - as it's dead certain that folks with high security clearances use it. (I personally know three.)
It's kinda like an international club I belong to, the members of which occasionally get up in arms about the rumour that the FBI has a file on it. Well, duh. Just in our local branch we had (at one time) over thirty members from the local Navy base - all with at least Secret clearances. (About five of us has TS clearances.) On top of which, we counted numerous DoD civilians and several local LEO's among our members.
I was thinking much the same thing... What we're actually seeing here isn't spying, but a form of undercover work.
The moral of the story is the same as always: If you wouldn't want your mother to know, don't post it online.
Except - the Russians don't. Soyuz isn't Zond. Not only does does Soyuz not have the heatshield to re-enter from a lunar trajectory, it doesn't have the life support endurance, power supply duration, or pretty much anything else. From 1973 on, the Soyuz has been a dedicated LEO taxi.
I keep seeing feel good twaddle like this in response to posts like the grandparents - but what I'm not seeing are any significant examples. That you believe that ancient monuments (built by nations, not individuals generally) to be examples shows just how confused you really are. Specifically, the Pyramids were built by a ruler, not a private individual, using slave and coerced labor, not a private fortune, for religious reasons, not for 'penis wagging'. Or, in short, they have precisely nothing in common with what you believe happened or would like to happen.
But the ISS itself cares where it is... ISS isn't shielded to transit the Van Allen belts, and its thermal control isn't designed for lunar orbit. Nor is it structurally strong enough to take sufficient thrust to actually get it there in any reasonable time frame.
Because it takes an enormous amount of fuel to slow down into orbit. It also heavily constrains landing sites (already badly constrained or having high fuel requirements because of the idiotic choice of launch location) and heavily constrains return trajectories.
Launching to the moon from the ISS is already stupid enough, there's no need to compound the stupid by adding a requirement that it enter orbit and rendezvous with the ISS.
I never said anything different did I? All I said was that it was going to be large and complex with the technology of that era, and all the money in the world isn't going to change that. (Not to mention that many cold war projects never did quite live up to their billing - despite having large sums of money thrown at them.)
Since GE never claimed that you could do so, and people seem to only believe that you could do so only because they believe you could do so.... (I.E. groundlessly.)
In other words, like the OP, you judge the car not on it's performance, but on what it's called.
Or, in other words, like the OP you make nonsensical claims based on... well, pretty much nothing beyond groundless assumptions.
No, I'm not kidding. But then I know a little about the issue, and it sounds like you know roughly less than squat.
Can't speak to radar, but for passive sonars - you're dead wrong. Some USN passives are broadboand, others narrow, but none are single freq.
I find that a bit hard to credit, though I have no doubt they may have tried... You're talking sub microsecond resolution on the delay lines and some hellaciously low noise amplifiers and filters, pretty high tech stuff for then. Not to mention a whole room full of equipment and another for the cooling system.
Yes, and no. It is a cool application of a well used technique - but the technique in question is beamforming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beamforming), not phased array. It's a bog standard technique for (among other things) Naval sonars to 'listen' in a specific direction without physically moving the listening array.
I was thinking the same thing - (US) Navy submarine sonars were doing almost this good, or better, with 1960's era hardware.
Didn't defend anything, I merely questioned his ludicrous examples and shoddy logic. Those with an IQ above room temperature will recognize the difference.
So you're saying people are so stupid they won't perform engine maintenance unless it's labeled a hybrid?
So whether it's price is acceptable or not varies not with performance and costs - but with what the car is called?
To put it simply, I find the claims you make in support of the notion that the label is important ludicrous at best.
That depends on the class of stock being traded. For example, you could own 100% of GOOG - but you still won't own Google, because ownership rights are vested in a class of stock that is closely held and isn't publicly traded.
Oh certainly there are people who need such a service and are willing to pay. The question is whether there is enough such people with enough cargo/passengers on a regular basis to repay the R&D, construction, and operations cost of the vehicle to fill the need. Concorde (for example), despite having the first two items written off and thus only having to cover the latter could only barely stay in business.
Since my point seemingly went over your head, I'll repeat it: there are no niches for aerostats that aren't already filled by more effective systems. None. Nada. Zip. Zero. It has nothing to do with expense, and everything to do with the aerostat being unable to compete in any way, shape, or form with existing systems.
No, you took the view of someone who knew nothing about what he's talking about - and maintain that view despite being shown that the facts don't support your fantasies.