In addition to what's already been said; Trojans are only really stable in a simple (two body) system, or when the Trojan points belong to a body with a large gravity well.
The Earth has the moon disturbing it's Trojans, and Trojan's all over the solar system are effected by Jupiter.
From TFS "it's robust, in the sense that in order to shut it down completely, the censor would have to block every site containing user-generated content"
Well, not Collage is actually weak as hell - because it's Achilles's heel is the need to transmit the protocol between all users involved. If the authorities believe the people they are closing in on are using Flickr (to choose just one example), all they need to do is block Flickr to force them to communicate outside of that channel and potentially reveal themselves further. Furthermore, users are lazy - so examining their usage patterns (I.E. seeing if they always select tag 'xyz' on Flickr) will commonly reveal they they are doing something unusual and thus likely to be Up To Something.
Communications security involves a lot more than just encrypting the messages. It's a complex task with a whole hell of a lot of ways to screw up - and seemingly small slips can have vast potential consequences.
In the Air Force, everyone working around aircraft including pilots uses a CHECKLIST because memory is acknowledged to be fallible. Memory is nice, but get caught without a job guide and it's yo' ass!
In the Navy (in the submarine service), checklists were used for routine things like maintenance - things where you could stop and take your time. For things with time constraints, like fighting a fire or flooding, or other casualty situations, or in combat where time mattered... We were intensely trained and expected to use our memory.
Or, in other words, I suspect your comparison is a false one and in many places working in the medical field is almost nothing like working in a hanger and much more like working under combat conditions.
I'm rather surprised that the general public is both unaware and unconcerned that the entire Russian atomic arsenal is armed, pointed at us and the trigger autonomous.
[[citation needed]]
Seriously - there is absolutely zero reliable evidence that such an autonomous system exists. What the Russians *do* have is Perimeter, a system equivalent to the US's ABNCP(Looking Glass)/TACAMO systems. I.E. when under attack it transfers launch authority from the civilian authorities to the military authorities.
When I looked more closely at the box, it had small print that said something like "Arcade-version images shown. PC images may be different", or something to that effect.
I was pissed.
Was this your first encounter with a PC and/or a computer game - and thus you have an excuse for being pissed? Or were you (are you) just stupid and ignorant - and thus still have an excuse, although different from the above.
Seriously, this non topic comes around on Slashdot every couple of months, and every time my answer is the same: The writer of the article is either very young, or trolling. Nobody was fooled back then, we were quite aware of the graphics our computers/consoles could produce and the difference between that and box art.
Eisenhower warned us about the Military Industrial Complex on the way out of office. JFK tried to do something in that regard and he got his head blown off.
Quite the contrary. JFK ran, and was elected, on a platform that included considerably expanded defense spending - and followed through on that promise.
The O-rings are all but utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand. The issue is that the SRB's had a faulty joint design and NASA knew it to be faulty and continued to fly anyway. The temperature contributed to Challenger's loss - but the reality is that most of the flights with the worst damage (that is, which came closest to failure) occurred at joint temperatures well within the 'spec'. (To the minimal extent that they had a spec, which wasn't based on anything but ill-informed guesswork to start with.)
When you see the orbiters they look like they just rolled out of the factory.
ROTFLMAO. Not even remotely do they look like they just rolled out of the factory - they look worn and dirty and tired out.
Look at this picture in the large size - and you can plainly see the accumulated dirt. Find a picture showing the underside, and you can see where re-entry heat has heated and redeposited all kinds of things on the heatshield.
That's what happens to real vehicles in the real world - I don't know about whatever fantasy world you inhabit.
Anything you read about orbiters deteriorating is a lie. They are pristine.
Horseshit. I've worked around vehicles every bit as complicated as the Shuttle and wear and tear does accumulate. See the picture above, and consider (for just one example) the worn Kapton wiring that had to be replaced back in the late 90's.
Many people are still in denial that this county would be so stupid as to throw away such magnificent machines and they want to be there to keep them flying when we come to our senses.
No, the people in denial are those willing to lie as you did above.
As someone who wasn't alive during the Apollo years, it's pretty exciting for me to see a company that might actually make travel to space sustainable.
Since 'sustainable' is an utterly meaningless buzzword - I fail to see your point.
Maybe it's just me, but one flight hardly 'proves' much of anything. Doing something once is a stunt, and can happen by chance. Being able to do something repeatedly and reliably proves that it wasn't.
This really is turning into a great tool for obsessive people. Here's an example; I'm on facebook and I am updated about what new friends my friends have. Why on earth should I know this? It is utterly pointless and makes you feel like a stalker.
When one of my high school friends has a new friend, it just might be someone I knew/know as well, who just got on Facebook. When one of my SCA friends has a new friend - it just might be someone I knew/know as well, who just got on Facebook. When one of my geocaching friends has a new friend... well, you get the picture.
As for the location business, it's like a ticking time bomb to me until the media focus on a particular crime where the attacker used facebook as a means to gather private information about whereabouts.
And then what? Oh, you don't actually have a 'then what' - you're just invoking vague handwaving like "terrorism" and "think of the children".
I don't know why anyone would put any real data into a service like Facebook.
Because most people have no understanding about what the consequences might be. Apart from the first year or so online, I have used an alias especially to separate real life and online things. Basically because I know people will drag stuff out of context.
And most Slashdotters keep vaguely handwaving about 'consequences' without ever really actually enumerating any. It's become a fear word like 'terrorism' or 'think of the children'. If you need an alias to separate your words from yourself, I suspect the problem is you can your communications skills - not 'people'.[1]
I had an facebook account just to see what it was and got even to the point of having 100 people as 'friends'. Basically people I have no idea of what to say to in real life. So I had no idea why I had them as 'friends'. I guess the number of people on your list is like a pissing contest.
In other words, you added people you don't really know as friends - and this it's somehow Facebook's fault that you don't have any actual people you'd want to talk to.
Anyway: there was only one other person who did not use her own name and that was because she was stalked by her ex and she would want to use her own name. And yes a real name IS real data. And all the other information that people put out there is amazing.
And here you invoke the equivalent of 'think of the children' again.
Just ask one of these people to go to a complete stranger in a pub or on the street and tell them the information they just hared with the world and they will think you are crazy or they are natural attention whores.
Which is utterly irrelevant to Facebook, as unless you are crazy or a natural attention whore, the people in your friends list aren't complete strangers.
[1]What I've posted to my facebook in the last 24 hours:
- A link to a story about an amazing rescue performed the USN (they flew a helicopter under a bridge and into a narrow canyon to medivac an injured hiker). - A wry comment on looking through the house for something only to find it right where it should have been in the first place. ("Don't you have when you're looking for something, and when you find it: a) it was right where it should have been and you swore it wasn't..., and b) you've walked past/looked right at it half a dozen times?") - A link to a picture I took back in March, but just now got around to processing and putting up on Flickr. (And a pretty good picture if I do say so myself.)
I can see how there's going to be serious consequences for sharing that, and how people can take it out of context, etc... etc...
"Sure, if by 'self sufficient' you mean 'living in stone age conditions'."
I don't.
Then honestly, you don't know what you're talking about.
"Sure a rural region can provide all three 'for themselves' so long as they have an industrial base to provide the tools and implements, otherwise it's back to the stone age."
Are you under the impression that "rural area" means "only farms"? You know more electricity is generated in rural areas than urban and suburban, and that there are factories in rural areas?
Yes, I know both. And I know neither will function long without industrial support for fuel, materials, and spare parts. This is the real world, not a game, and factories aren't fungible. If you're talking a scenario in which cities vanish, but long distance transport remains intact (economically impossible BTW), then you aren't using a definition of 'self sufficient' that has any reasonable meaning.
There is absolutely NO DOUBT that a high speed rail system could be economically feasible. It's a matter of making it competitive with airlines, on price, and on convenience, and on speed. If that is done. You will replace the airlines almost over night.
And there is absolutely NO DOUBT that if pigs had wings, hats would be fashionable again.
Seriously, the problem isn't constructing a scenario where trains can beat planes. The problem is construction a scenario where trains can beat planes without requiring magic pixie dust or massive and ongoing subsidies. Land is hellishly expensive, track construction is expensive, track maintenance is expensive - all of which add up to 'trains cannot compete economically'.
Rural areas are generally capable of becoming self sufficient if need be in practically no time at all.
Sure, if by 'self sufficient' you mean 'living in stone age conditions'.
You have to supply water, food and energy from the city. In rural areas where density is sustainable, one can provide all 3 for themselves.
Sure a rural region can provide all three 'for themselves' so long as they have an industrial base to provide the tools and implements, otherwise it's back to the stone age. Not to mention that there probably aren't enough oxen, mules, donkeys, or draft horses about to pull the plows...
So, what else shall we make legal because it costs too much to enforce, is too hard to enforce, and we can't stop it anyhow? Drunk driving? Rape? Murder?
The only thing I remember about yahoo was back in 1995-96 when it was nothing but a single webpage with lots of links maintained by some chinese guy. Essentially that's what it remains..
Oh, really? You, and the folks who modded you up, need to get over your prejudices and get out more.
Yahoo is a lot more than just links - and is the primary reason why Google has added Gmail, iGoogle, News... and all the other things that aren't search.
In other words, the problem with Yahoo is that it didn't scale. Failure was designed in. If the internet succeeded then Yahoo had to fail. That is not a good business model.
No, the problem with Yahoo was/is Google. Google serves/served up semi-garbage results very fast, while Yahoo served up very good results fairly slow - and one truism of the net is that the denizens thereof will eat almost anything, so long as it's fast.
Getting a false death notice on a newspaper for someone with the same name of some half way unknown internet celebrity would seems to be an easy way to game this system.
That's why any reputable business requires a death certificate rather than a clipping/screencap of an obituary. If real money or real property is on the line, they often will require a properly certified letter from the court indicating you have the authority to do whatever you're doing as well as a death certificate.
Protip: If you're handling an estate, get a stack (10-20+) of certified copies of the death certificate the first time you visit the office issuing them. You'll save yourself a metric buttload of time and grief if you do because for the first couple of weeks you're handing them out like Halloween candy.
If you ever want access to the content of somebody who died then you need to have the executor of the estate forward a page from the will outlining who the executor of the will is and a copy of the funeral director's proof of death. If you try and wait for official copies of the government's proof of death you could be looking at a 2 year wait.
Having dealt with deaths personally in three different (US) states now, I have to say you're full of it. I've never seen a death certificate take longer than the next workday to produce and I've never had to wait longer than a couple of hours for a stack of certified copies. I also know multiple people online who've lost a spouse - and precisely none of them have reported any problems with insurance, car title transfer, or any of the myriad other things that require an official death certificate. ('Official' in this context meaning a certified government certificate - as everyone I've dealt with was very clear this was the only acceptable document.)
In short, a 'funeral directors certificate' isn't worth the paper it's printed on and is nothing but another scam from an industry that preys on people in their most vulnerable hours.
Also forward the name of the funeral home who handled the arrangements in case they have any questions.
Everyone I've ever dealt with will deal with no less than legally authorized representative of the estate - which category doesn't include funeral directors. (And if you slip a general power of attorney into the stack of paperwork you ask people to sign, as the slimeball who at first handled my best friends funeral did, you're nothing but a scam artist.)
If you are not the executor or the person who made the arrangements then you need to get in touch with them and get their permission. It doesn't matter if you were the deceased's favorite brother the law in most places favors the executor.
You not only need to get their permission, you need to get it in writing and properly witnessed/notarized. Unless you can prove you're a legally authorized representative, I don't know of any place that will deal with you. (And if they do, they open you and themselves up to being sued by the executor.)
Rather than putting the module on a boom, I'd just put jets on the module and spin it up.
Won't work as the module is too small. To get any noticeable gravity at the ends of the module, your spin rate will be high enough to cause dizziness. (Not to mention the area of useful gravity will be small, and the gravity gradient will be very steep.)
Which is why most proposals use tethers or booms to give a 'virtual diameter' large enough to hold the spin rate down.
Slashdot Mirror
In addition to what's already been said; Trojans are only really stable in a simple (two body) system, or when the Trojan points belong to a body with a large gravity well.
The Earth has the moon disturbing it's Trojans, and Trojan's all over the solar system are effected by Jupiter.
From TFS "it's robust, in the sense that in order to shut it down completely, the censor would have to block every site containing user-generated content"
Well, not Collage is actually weak as hell - because it's Achilles's heel is the need to transmit the protocol between all users involved. If the authorities believe the people they are closing in on are using Flickr (to choose just one example), all they need to do is block Flickr to force them to communicate outside of that channel and potentially reveal themselves further. Furthermore, users are lazy - so examining their usage patterns (I.E. seeing if they always select tag 'xyz' on Flickr) will commonly reveal they they are doing something unusual and thus likely to be Up To Something.
Communications security involves a lot more than just encrypting the messages. It's a complex task with a whole hell of a lot of ways to screw up - and seemingly small slips can have vast potential consequences.
In the Navy (in the submarine service), checklists were used for routine things like maintenance - things where you could stop and take your time. For things with time constraints, like fighting a fire or flooding, or other casualty situations, or in combat where time mattered... We were intensely trained and expected to use our memory.
Or, in other words, I suspect your comparison is a false one and in many places working in the medical field is almost nothing like working in a hanger and much more like working under combat conditions.
[[citation needed]]
Seriously - there is absolutely zero reliable evidence that such an autonomous system exists. What the Russians *do* have is Perimeter, a system equivalent to the US's ABNCP(Looking Glass)/TACAMO systems. I.E. when under attack it transfers launch authority from the civilian authorities to the military authorities.
Replacing one buzzword with another does not clarify anything.
Was this your first encounter with a PC and/or a computer game - and thus you have an excuse for being pissed? Or were you (are you) just stupid and ignorant - and thus still have an excuse, although different from the above.
Seriously, this non topic comes around on Slashdot every couple of months, and every time my answer is the same: The writer of the article is either very young, or trolling. Nobody was fooled back then, we were quite aware of the graphics our computers/consoles could produce and the difference between that and box art.
Quite the contrary. JFK ran, and was elected, on a platform that included considerably expanded defense spending - and followed through on that promise.
The O-rings are all but utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand. The issue is that the SRB's had a faulty joint design and NASA knew it to be faulty and continued to fly anyway. The temperature contributed to Challenger's loss - but the reality is that most of the flights with the worst damage (that is, which came closest to failure) occurred at joint temperatures well within the 'spec'. (To the minimal extent that they had a spec, which wasn't based on anything but ill-informed guesswork to start with.)
ROTFLMAO. Not even remotely do they look like they just rolled out of the factory - they look worn and dirty and tired out.
Look at this picture in the large size - and you can plainly see the accumulated dirt. Find a picture showing the underside, and you can see where re-entry heat has heated and redeposited all kinds of things on the heatshield.
That's what happens to real vehicles in the real world - I don't know about whatever fantasy world you inhabit.
Horseshit. I've worked around vehicles every bit as complicated as the Shuttle and wear and tear does accumulate. See the picture above, and consider (for just one example) the worn Kapton wiring that had to be replaced back in the late 90's.
No, the people in denial are those willing to lie as you did above.
Since 'sustainable' is an utterly meaningless buzzword - I fail to see your point.
Maybe it's just me, but one flight hardly 'proves' much of anything. Doing something once is a stunt, and can happen by chance. Being able to do something repeatedly and reliably proves that it wasn't.
When one of my high school friends has a new friend, it just might be someone I knew/know as well, who just got on Facebook. When one of my SCA friends has a new friend - it just might be someone I knew/know as well, who just got on Facebook. When one of my geocaching friends has a new friend... well, you get the picture.
And then what? Oh, you don't actually have a 'then what' - you're just invoking vague handwaving like "terrorism" and "think of the children".
And most Slashdotters keep vaguely handwaving about 'consequences' without ever really actually enumerating any. It's become a fear word like 'terrorism' or 'think of the children'. If you need an alias to separate your words from yourself, I suspect the problem is you can your communications skills - not 'people'.[1]
In other words, you added people you don't really know as friends - and this it's somehow Facebook's fault that you don't have any actual people you'd want to talk to.
And here you invoke the equivalent of 'think of the children' again.
Which is utterly irrelevant to Facebook, as unless you are crazy or a natural attention whore, the people in your friends list aren't complete strangers.
[1]What I've posted to my facebook in the last 24 hours:
- A link to a story about an amazing rescue performed the USN (they flew a helicopter under a bridge and into a narrow canyon to medivac an injured hiker).
- A wry comment on looking through the house for something only to find it right where it should have been in the first place. ("Don't you have when you're looking for something, and when you find it: a) it was right where it should have been and you swore it wasn't..., and b) you've walked past/looked right at it half a dozen times?")
- A link to a picture I took back in March, but just now got around to processing and putting up on Flickr. (And a pretty good picture if I do say so myself.)
I can see how there's going to be serious consequences for sharing that, and how people can take it out of context, etc... etc...
Or not.
Then honestly, you don't know what you're talking about.
Yes, I know both. And I know neither will function long without industrial support for fuel, materials, and spare parts. This is the real world, not a game, and factories aren't fungible. If you're talking a scenario in which cities vanish, but long distance transport remains intact (economically impossible BTW), then you aren't using a definition of 'self sufficient' that has any reasonable meaning.
And there is absolutely NO DOUBT that if pigs had wings, hats would be fashionable again.
Seriously, the problem isn't constructing a scenario where trains can beat planes. The problem is construction a scenario where trains can beat planes without requiring magic pixie dust or massive and ongoing subsidies. Land is hellishly expensive, track construction is expensive, track maintenance is expensive - all of which add up to 'trains cannot compete economically'.
We had such a train in the US, and it's impact on the airlines was essentially nil.
Sure, if by 'self sufficient' you mean 'living in stone age conditions'.
Sure a rural region can provide all three 'for themselves' so long as they have an industrial base to provide the tools and implements, otherwise it's back to the stone age. Not to mention that there probably aren't enough oxen, mules, donkeys, or draft horses about to pull the plows...
So, what else shall we make legal because it costs too much to enforce, is too hard to enforce, and we can't stop it anyhow? Drunk driving? Rape? Murder?
Hurricanes don't form in the Gulf, so the plankton population and the effects of the spill thereof are irrelevant.
Oh, really? You, and the folks who modded you up, need to get over your prejudices and get out more.
Yahoo is a lot more than just links - and is the primary reason why Google has added Gmail, iGoogle, News... and all the other things that aren't search.
No, the problem with Yahoo was/is Google. Google serves/served up semi-garbage results very fast, while Yahoo served up very good results fairly slow - and one truism of the net is that the denizens thereof will eat almost anything, so long as it's fast.
That's why any reputable business requires a death certificate rather than a clipping/screencap of an obituary. If real money or real property is on the line, they often will require a properly certified letter from the court indicating you have the authority to do whatever you're doing as well as a death certificate.
Protip: If you're handling an estate, get a stack (10-20+) of certified copies of the death certificate the first time you visit the office issuing them. You'll save yourself a metric buttload of time and grief if you do because for the first couple of weeks you're handing them out like Halloween candy.
Having dealt with deaths personally in three different (US) states now, I have to say you're full of it. I've never seen a death certificate take longer than the next workday to produce and I've never had to wait longer than a couple of hours for a stack of certified copies. I also know multiple people online who've lost a spouse - and precisely none of them have reported any problems with insurance, car title transfer, or any of the myriad other things that require an official death certificate. ('Official' in this context meaning a certified government certificate - as everyone I've dealt with was very clear this was the only acceptable document.)
In short, a 'funeral directors certificate' isn't worth the paper it's printed on and is nothing but another scam from an industry that preys on people in their most vulnerable hours.
Everyone I've ever dealt with will deal with no less than legally authorized representative of the estate - which category doesn't include funeral directors. (And if you slip a general power of attorney into the stack of paperwork you ask people to sign, as the slimeball who at first handled my best friends funeral did, you're nothing but a scam artist.)
You not only need to get their permission, you need to get it in writing and properly witnessed/notarized. Unless you can prove you're a legally authorized representative, I don't know of any place that will deal with you. (And if they do, they open you and themselves up to being sued by the executor.)
There, fixed that for you.
Won't work as the module is too small. To get any noticeable gravity at the ends of the module, your spin rate will be high enough to cause dizziness. (Not to mention the area of useful gravity will be small, and the gravity gradient will be very steep.)
Which is why most proposals use tethers or booms to give a 'virtual diameter' large enough to hold the spin rate down.