It's actually about a corrupt attempt by Google to have the sole right to make out of print books available. I know the companies in the alliance don't have many fans on Slashdot, but this time they're right.
A relevant piece of a recently submitted and rejected article on lessons from post-Apollo to Orion/Constellation. There were many suggestions on Apollo derivatives and follow ups, but only Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz made the cut. Many more could have flown. That fact in itself is a valuable lesson -- build for adaptability.
That's more like a badly learned lesson, as Apollo was more than sufficiently adaptable to the tasks demanded of it. Skylab made the cut because it could use hardware made surplus by canceling two landing missions, ASTP made the cut because it could use leftover hardware floating around NASA warehouses. (See the pattern?)
Convenience stores of ghettos and hoods, which is one of the few places to buy food there.
Many of which do carry vegetables, not to mention the small "mom 'n pop" type of stores often found in such areas, and the ethnic stores that are also often found in those areas.
That's a study of places that "don't have access to supermarkets", not of places that "don't have access to vegetables". They even admit their conclusions are flawed because smaller markets were excluded from the study.
One thing I learned about the US that is hard to grasp for someone from say Holland is that there are areas in the US where you just can't buy produce. No vegetables.
And these areas [of the US] would be... where exactly?
I know sometime in the future there will be scarcity of oil, or peak oil (if we aren't there yet) but no-one seriously thinks that there will be so little fuel that a navy ship won't be supplied for many decades.
The Navy plans in terms of decades, so even by your figuring they are more or less on schedule by working on laboratory prototypes now. (They have even calculated the price of oil that will make it cost efficient to go to an all nuclear fleet.)
Actually, most of the time the plant isn't loaded heavily at all--most of its capacity is there solely for moving at high speed.
Forgot to add - if you start using the capacity reserved for high steam output periods (like flight ops and high speeds) that are normally only a small portion of the carrier's active lifetime... You're eating into the available RFPH (Reactor Full Power Hours), and reducing the time period between refuellings.
A reactor, like a tank of gas, only has so much energy stored in it. The faster you pump it out, the sooner it runs 'dry'. (This is already a concern given the high OPTEMPO of the last few years, much higher for much longer than originally considered when the carriers were designed.) Once the tank is 'dry', it's back to New News or PSNS for a fill up - which takes over a year.
Considering they're planning to try to get linear induction catapults in the Ford class -- I wouldn't be at all surprised if part of the A1B specification is a good chunk of surplus capacity.
Nope - they just reroute the steam currently dedicated to the cats to generators.
This may fit just fine since you'd presumably only be making fuel in the "off" times (i.e. when you aren't in direct combat operations, steaming at cruise instead of flank, etc.)
Which isn't really all that much time - only when in transit to and from station. Even when not in direct combat operations, doctrine is that they be ready to support them on a moments notice.
If this gets worked out -- I'd presume enough tanks on board to handle N days worth of expected worst-case flight ops and the plant keeps that tank topped off as needed, not a "must use the plant to launch planes" only model).
Remember, you can either keep them topped off, or be engaged in combat ops (drawing steam and fuel). Not a good combination as it can easily leave you in a combat zone - low on jet fuel.
Actually, most of the time the plant isn't loaded heavily at all--most of its capacity is there solely for moving at high speed. Since you don't do that very often (you get to wherever you're going and then putt around in little rectangles), there's plenty of power available for doing something like this.
So long as you want a very expensive carrier puttering around for days unable to support combat ops. (Both because of lack of fuel, and the need to dedicate energy to producing fuel.)
For what it's worth, the one I was on had several not-too-small empty spaces, certainly enough to install small test plants. I'm sure if this turns out to be viable, newer ships could be designed with plenty of room for fuel generators.
At the cost of tens of billions of dollars in building new drydocks, new piers, dredging channels, etc... etc... to support them. There's a reason carrier size hasn't changed much since the Big E was built.
Nuclear powered aircraft carrier, so you've got a pretty good supply of energy there
Plenty of energy - not so much to spare once you account for propulsion, hotel loads, steam for the catapults, etc...
being able to convert electricity into jet fuel would save them money and reduce the amount of fuel they have to carry
Carriers are big, but they are stuffed full of what they need to fight - and fuel tanks are tucked into odd corners well below the water line. Not much spare room for the major industrial plant required to produce sufficient fuel in a reasonable amount of time.
Now, if he wants to do a REAL test of his privacy -- photoshop some photos of a male politician in a pink tutu and make disparaging comments about his sexual orientation. I bet you get a knock on your door within a day.
Because I've had this number for nearly twenty years.
Because my house often has dodgy cell phone reception - not because of carrier or technology but because of geography.
Because E911 just [censored] works on my land line. (Important here, because the cells that I can sometimes connect through are in the city - but I'm in a small enclave of the county.)
And most importantly...
Because my cell phone is convenience for me, not a leash. It's for me to call out on, not for me to constantly available to others. (I.E. those who have my cell phone number is a fairly exclusive list.)
But why stick with more obvious motivations when you can turn everything into a retarded political pissing match, right?
Because eight years of watching Bush photoshops, mashups, etc... sail by unchallenged - followed a few months of watching the same treatment of Obama being censored really leaves few other conclusions.
I could imagine doing non-trivial systems in assembler, but mainly if the problem domain and its solutions are very well understood. When you see that 1% of your code is taking 99% of your execution time, you *could* tighten that code and get an immediate payback, or you could try understand the problem better in order to find a more efficient algorithm. If you can improve your algorithms, that's almost always going to be a bigger win.
Assuming of course the 1% of the code monopolizing execution time is part of your algorithm (and a part you can improve in the HLL) and not in the 'overhead'. It should go without saying that you are also assuming the cause of the bottleneck is poor algorithms and not a quirk of the compiler or libraries you've linked.
I live in the Pacific Northwest, where Boeing used to do most everything. There is a strong belief up here - maybe because we feel screwed by Boeing - that Boeing moved production all over the place basically to bust one of the few strong unions we've had up here in Washington.
That explanation might make sense - but for the inconvenient fact that Boeing has manufacturing plants all over the place, and has for decades.
The same goes for outsourcing - Boeing has been outsourcing components, major and minor, for decades.
But the fix Boeing has come up with is literally a couple of extra kilograms. (I'm talking about the second issue now; the fixes for both issues are literally about 10kg total.) That's not going to drive anybody to a competitor's airplane, and the total weight penalty is going to be negligible. About the same as carrying an extra food cart on the plane on every trip.
Keep this in mind: Airlines no longer provide free magazines (aside from their house organ) in flight because the cost of carrying that extra fifty pounds or so on every mile of every flight added up to a considerable cost in fuel annually.
The skins had little angled stringers attached to the inside surface, painted with some horrible green mixture. The draftsman who drew them used the wrong width pen, and these stringers turned out to be 1/2mm shorter than they needed to be.
Horseshit. You don't take your measurements from the drawing, you use from the dimensions on the drawing.
Ok, great, they put the heat in one side of the Sterling Cycle Engine, and it moves to the other side and we get motion, but what do they do with the heat? There's no air/water to bump against a cooling fin to get the activity of the molecules. Does the "icy vacuum of space" actually cool things very well?
Slashdot Mirror
It's actually about a corrupt attempt by Google to have the sole right to make out of print books available. I know the companies in the alliance don't have many fans on Slashdot, but this time they're right.
That's more like a badly learned lesson, as Apollo was more than sufficiently adaptable to the tasks demanded of it. Skylab made the cut because it could use hardware made surplus by canceling two landing missions, ASTP made the cut because it could use leftover hardware floating around NASA warehouses. (See the pattern?)
Huh? Maybe you should look up who builds the Atlas and Delta boosters. Commercial entities have been flying rockets, *big* rockets, for decades.
Many of which do carry vegetables, not to mention the small "mom 'n pop" type of stores often found in such areas, and the ethnic stores that are also often found in those areas.
That's a study of places that "don't have access to supermarkets", not of places that "don't have access to vegetables". They even admit their conclusions are flawed because smaller markets were excluded from the study.
And these areas [of the US] would be... where exactly?
Having to pull offline to produce the fuel needed for combat ops will also prove a pretty serious tactical limitation.
The Navy plans in terms of decades, so even by your figuring they are more or less on schedule by working on laboratory prototypes now. (They have even calculated the price of oil that will make it cost efficient to go to an all nuclear fleet.)
Forgot to add - if you start using the capacity reserved for high steam output periods (like flight ops and high speeds) that are normally only a small portion of the carrier's active lifetime... You're eating into the available RFPH (Reactor Full Power Hours), and reducing the time period between refuellings.
A reactor, like a tank of gas, only has so much energy stored in it. The faster you pump it out, the sooner it runs 'dry'. (This is already a concern given the high OPTEMPO of the last few years, much higher for much longer than originally considered when the carriers were designed.) Once the tank is 'dry', it's back to New News or PSNS for a fill up - which takes over a year.
Nope - they just reroute the steam currently dedicated to the cats to generators.
Which isn't really all that much time - only when in transit to and from station. Even when not in direct combat operations, doctrine is that they be ready to support them on a moments notice.
Remember, you can either keep them topped off, or be engaged in combat ops (drawing steam and fuel). Not a good combination as it can easily leave you in a combat zone - low on jet fuel.
So long as you want a very expensive carrier puttering around for days unable to support combat ops. (Both because of lack of fuel, and the need to dedicate energy to producing fuel.)
At the cost of tens of billions of dollars in building new drydocks, new piers, dredging channels, etc... etc... to support them. There's a reason carrier size hasn't changed much since the Big E was built.
Plenty of energy - not so much to spare once you account for propulsion, hotel loads, steam for the catapults, etc...
Carriers are big, but they are stuffed full of what they need to fight - and fuel tanks are tucked into odd corners well below the water line. Not much spare room for the major industrial plant required to produce sufficient fuel in a reasonable amount of time.
Computers can't do anything they haven't been programmed to to.
That is, if the politician is a Democrat and not a Republican.
(But seriously folks, it is just me or are the paranoia levels on Slashdot reaching an all time high?)
Why would I keep a land line?
And most importantly...
Which is very true - but problems arise when management selectively decides who get a soapbox and who does not.
Because eight years of watching Bush photoshops, mashups, etc... sail by unchallenged - followed a few months of watching the same treatment of Obama being censored really leaves few other conclusions.
Assuming of course the 1% of the code monopolizing execution time is part of your algorithm (and a part you can improve in the HLL) and not in the 'overhead'. It should go without saying that you are also assuming the cause of the bottleneck is poor algorithms and not a quirk of the compiler or libraries you've linked.
That explanation might make sense - but for the inconvenient fact that Boeing has manufacturing plants all over the place, and has for decades.
The same goes for outsourcing - Boeing has been outsourcing components, major and minor, for decades.
And some of the 'info' is actually true. *Some* of it.
Keep this in mind: Airlines no longer provide free magazines (aside from their house organ) in flight because the cost of carrying that extra fifty pounds or so on every mile of every flight added up to a considerable cost in fuel annually.
Horseshit. You don't take your measurements from the drawing, you use from the dimensions on the drawing.
That was P&W's issue, the engine case deformed (IIRC) because of an issue with the design of the fan.
Because there are several different ways of transferring heat.
How the hell does such ignorance get modded insightful?
Mostly because you're only going to have significant quantities of shaded and lit areas adjacent to each other for only a few days a month.