Sounds like the start up of the 747. Boeing nearly bankrupted the company by pushing the envelope in plane design and manufacturing when many people didn't think the business model would work out. They're at the same point again for the same reasons, so we will see if they can do it again.
Um, no. The 747's had huge issues because of Pratt and Whitney's inability to deliver the engine they promised. There were no major issues with the aircraft itself.
Not only mirrors (that occurred to me as well), but have the missile spin so the energy of the laser is spread out over a much larger surface. Spinning would also allow the areas of the missile to cool down somewhat.
However, spinning the missile has a couple of huge downsides:
It makes guidance more difficult as the inertial system now has to compensate for the rotating vehicle.
It makes control more difficult as a commanded (for example) positive pitch will be (a fraction of a second later) a commanded positive yaw, then negative pitch, then negative yaw... So your control surfaces (aerodynamic or thrust vector control or whatever) will have to modulated at a high rate.
It makes maneuvering more difficult, as gyroscopic forces tend to the maintain stability and control inputs behave non linearly.
Equally, these gyroscopic forces can actually throw the vehicle out of control entirely. (Remember how pushing on a gyro causes an output 90 degrees from the input? You can have some nasty coupling issues arise from that.)
Finally, if your vehicle is liquid fueled, centrifugal force will throw your fuel away from the suction and towards the wall of the tank. (Which has some interesting effects on your CG.)
So, if you spin your missile, the ABL has already won a minor victory - by making your missile heavier, more complex, and introducing additional failure modes.
In all military advances in offense, the defense will find a way around it (and vice-versa). It's a cat and mouse game. Look at how Iraq tried to foil GPS guided ordinance, they jammed the GPS signals. I don't know how successful they were but given time they might have been successful.
Even if they'd been successful (in jamming) they have been less successful than they hopes (in stopping attacks), because what most people think of as 'GPS guided weapons' are actually 'inertially guided weapons with GPS updates'.
The people who come to Burning Man are NOT the general public; they're a subculture with completely different attitudes.
The people who come to Burning Man are whoever can cough up the dough to purchase the publicly available tickets. Subcultures interested in privacy sell their tickets through private (and often quasi backdoor) means, and they don't advertise the sales and have multiple ticket purchase locations.
They may have started out a subculture, but they've been commercial for years now.
If you don't happen to notice everybody who's around you in a public place, you expose your activities to the relatively limited number of people who are right there, right then. If you don't happen to notice that a photograph is being taken, that exposes your activities to an unlimited number of people, that number of people can grow in the future, and people can easily pass around a credible record of your activities, rather than just gossiping about them. Again, the probability of harm is much greater.
The solution to that is simple - don't do something in a public place you'd be embarrassed to be photographed doing. I mean seriously, I'm getting tired of the nonsensical arguments advanced in this and the previous discussion that Burning Man is simultaneously a place for public performance art and a private place where the performers/participants shouldn't be subject to the normal constraints of being public. You can be one, you can be the other, but you can't be both at the same time.
It's amazing, and humbling, when I think about how different UO is from the grindfests so prevalent these days
So, what did UO do to get rid of it's grindfests?
Seriously! A lot of people don't even realize UO is even around, when it still has a playerbase that outshines (in size *and* passion) many of the newest entrants, who're so quick to fade away while Britannia lives on.
Yes, Britannia lives on - like an old actress hooked on drugs, but painted up to look pretty (momentarily) for her segment of a 'What Ever Happened To?' tabloid entertainment feature. A pale and wrinkled shadow what she once was.
As other slashdotters have pointed out numerous times, there is an enormous list of spin-off benefits that come from manned-exploration of space.
No, what they have pointed to is either a) research that just happened to be done by NASA with little (if any) connection to manned space exploration, b) technology developed elsewhere that NASA uses and claims, or c) outright handwaving and propaganda.
No matter your political leanings, it is hard to argue that NASA does not provide a great return on investment.
That's the claim people keep making - but somehow the facts don't support the claim once you eliminate the intangible and the puffed up list of 'spinoffs'.
Except that my accountant has her CPA - a real life honest to god certification. (Not the take-a-class-and-take-a-test mickey mouse 'certifications' of the IT industry.)
She also has a code of ethics, belongs to a serious professional organization, and has a body of law that restricts what she may or may not do and an oversight organization over the top of all of that.
Pretty much none of which IT 'professionals' have.
the number of casual contributors has gone down because there's a lot less room to go into an article and be an expert
You don't need to be an expert on the topic, just having a reasonable grasp of the English language and (roughly) a high school level of knowledge on how to write a report... Too many Wikipedia articles are confusing masses, with facts all over the place, repetitive and redundant bits, and confusing and inconsistent organization.
And even when you are an expert - you're often judged not on the facts, but on the opinions of the soi-disant 'experts' who have appointed themselves guardians of the article. (Which you, unwittingly, admit in the following sentence.)
Also, casual contributors very often haven't learned how to make a good Wikipedia edit, and having it reverted is ultimately a good thing.
"Them darkies love being slaves, a bit of the lash is good for them".
Seriously, when you start using phrases like "a good Wikipedia edit" you starkly display just how deeply the rot has spread. It's no longer about facts, clarity, and organization - it's about being a good little Wikipedian who defers to his elders and the convoluted and often bizarre rituals and fetishes of their culture.
I think they are trying to keep it from degenerating into a blog, or a chat space, or an encyclopedia of trivial things like the Star Wars universe.
Folks wouldn't have a problem with that - if it weren't for the fact that the Wikipedia admins are so inconsistent with what they declare trivial.
Some wikis, like Wookiepedia, started out because Wikipedia kept kicking out certain stuff, like exhaustive detail of the Star Wars universe.
OTOH, they haven't kicked out exhaustive details of sports teams and figures, popular musicians (and their albums and songs), etc... There are also fictional universes with huge portals and exhaustive amounts of details which the admins seem disinclined to kick out. (Not to mention the whole webcomics fiasco.)
The alternative is that every article about a politician will include nasty, defamatory, and useless content and that vociferous fans of various fantasy genres and celebrities will take over all coverage of things related to their realms.
The latter (fictional genres and celebrities) have long since been taken over by vociferous fans. Nearly every movie is a cult classic, and nearly every band is hugely important. (I exaggerate some, but this effect is visible.)
That more like "not only doesn't work in IT, but doesn't know of or understand the theory". No slam, just the facts.
Seriously, the reason all OSes aren't tested this vigorously is that the time/amount of work needed to do so rises exponentially with the size/complexity of the OS. Not only does that imply the OS would take years to bring to market, but also that said OS would incredibly expensive. Worse yet, after all that time and expense, all you've actually proven is that your running code matches your specification - you're protected against errors arising from faulty programming, but not from errors arising from conceptual errors in the spec or from incorrect algorithms embedded in the spec.
In other words, corporate tyranny in order to protect the brand and the image... Accompanied with an attitude right out of Animal Farm, "four legs good, two legs bad".
(Yes, "corporate" has more meanings than "corporation".)
If I put a sign in my front yard next to my lawn chairs that says 'Free chairs', even if I can't read the sign myself, I can't blame anyone for taking the chairs. I did give them permission, even if I didn't know I was doing it.
Which is why we have age-of-consent laws, and laws regarding the validity of contracts, and laws concerning disclosures and waivers... Because the (US at least) legal system does not believe that one can give uninformed permission or consent. (Not to mention that what you are doing here is blaming the victim.)
Maybe you should consider your own biases and learn some reading comprehension before writing knee jerk responses (which mine wasn't). I very carefully and specifically didn't mention or discuss the relative strengths, so anything of the sort you saw is a product of your own bias and ignorance.
My comment was (to those with the ability to read) plainly sarcasm and commentary on the current fad of 'being green'.
My RT commute is ~24 miles. I can charge at work. Free gas anyone?
For so long as your employer allows you to charge for free.
I burn ~550 gallons of mid-grade fuel per year just on my commute. At $3/gallon that's $1650/year. Assuming the car lasts 10 years I'll save $16K just on not paying for commute fuel.
$16k - (finance charges) - (cost of electricity when charged at home) - (cost of charging at work) - (increased insurance costs)
It's not clear at all how much you'll save when the costs are properly accounted for.
Most of those 'benefits' have nothing to do with the space program other than they were developed at an agency that also happens to run the space program.
The NASA PAO is also a past master at making it appear that NASA developed technology, when in reality all NASA did was applied research on already existing technology. (For example, freeze drying - first commercially used back in the 1930's!)
The magazine reference in your link (Spinoffs) is very aptly titled - because it's mostly spin.
It's written in such a way that we're supposed to think "and after that he raped her and jerked off to the pictures afterwards", but nothing indicates that this is the case.
Maybe there's nothing written because that's not actually what you're supposed to think.
Re:So, why couldn't the feds figure this one out?
on
The Outing of Pranknet
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
And you know the government has not... how exactly?
Seriously, the government/law enforcement agencies aren't going to move until they have a fairly reasonable case, and even then they aren't going spread the details all over the press - they save that for the courtroom.
The latter is a drug addled fantasy as a purchase price of two billion plus dollars is generally reserved for high performing or very high potential companies, not for startups with a paper profit, a few million in cash flow, and heavy obligations.
Tell that to myspace, youtube, et al.
Why, precisely, should I give a rat fuck what a bunch of random idiots with less knowledge about the facts of the matter than your average fecal bacteria say?
As for Tesla, a potentially disruptive company to a 100 year old industry, with a nice patent portfolio in an area that will clearly be around for the next 50 years; now that's a "high potential" company.
As with the grandparent poster that I originally replied to, you seem to have a hard time telling the difference between assumption and facts.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, no. The 747's had huge issues because of Pratt and Whitney's inability to deliver the engine they promised. There were no major issues with the aircraft itself.
However, spinning the missile has a couple of huge downsides:
So, if you spin your missile, the ABL has already won a minor victory - by making your missile heavier, more complex, and introducing additional failure modes.
Even if they'd been successful (in jamming) they have been less successful than they hopes (in stopping attacks), because what most people think of as 'GPS guided weapons' are actually 'inertially guided weapons with GPS updates'.
It's an event advertise to and open to the general public, it's a public event. Period. If you believe otherwise, you're deluding yourself.
Burning Man doesn't take place on private property, it takes place on public lands.
The OP implied that BM was somehow private and thus shouldn't be treated as being public - I showed how this was false.
The people who come to Burning Man are whoever can cough up the dough to purchase the publicly available tickets. Subcultures interested in privacy sell their tickets through private (and often quasi backdoor) means, and they don't advertise the sales and have multiple ticket purchase locations.
They may have started out a subculture, but they've been commercial for years now.
The solution to that is simple - don't do something in a public place you'd be embarrassed to be photographed doing. I mean seriously, I'm getting tired of the nonsensical arguments advanced in this and the previous discussion that Burning Man is simultaneously a place for public performance art and a private place where the performers/participants shouldn't be subject to the normal constraints of being public. You can be one, you can be the other, but you can't be both at the same time.
So, what did UO do to get rid of it's grindfests?
Yes, Britannia lives on - like an old actress hooked on drugs, but painted up to look pretty (momentarily) for her segment of a 'What Ever Happened To?' tabloid entertainment feature. A pale and wrinkled shadow what she once was.
No, what they have pointed to is either a) research that just happened to be done by NASA with little (if any) connection to manned space exploration, b) technology developed elsewhere that NASA uses and claims, or c) outright handwaving and propaganda.
That's the claim people keep making - but somehow the facts don't support the claim once you eliminate the intangible and the puffed up list of 'spinoffs'.
Then just look at the many more companies that don't cook their books and don't get in trouble with the SEC because of it.
In a certain simple minded way you say that. But that's not the fault of accountants.
Except that my accountant has her CPA - a real life honest to god certification. (Not the take-a-class-and-take-a-test mickey mouse 'certifications' of the IT industry.)
She also has a code of ethics, belongs to a serious professional organization, and has a body of law that restricts what she may or may not do and an oversight organization over the top of all of that.
Pretty much none of which IT 'professionals' have.
He didn't say he couldn't afford an in-house admin did he?
You don't need to be an expert on the topic, just having a reasonable grasp of the English language and (roughly) a high school level of knowledge on how to write a report... Too many Wikipedia articles are confusing masses, with facts all over the place, repetitive and redundant bits, and confusing and inconsistent organization.
And even when you are an expert - you're often judged not on the facts, but on the opinions of the soi-disant 'experts' who have appointed themselves guardians of the article. (Which you, unwittingly, admit in the following sentence.)
"Them darkies love being slaves, a bit of the lash is good for them".
Seriously, when you start using phrases like "a good Wikipedia edit" you starkly display just how deeply the rot has spread. It's no longer about facts, clarity, and organization - it's about being a good little Wikipedian who defers to his elders and the convoluted and often bizarre rituals and fetishes of their culture.
Folks wouldn't have a problem with that - if it weren't for the fact that the Wikipedia admins are so inconsistent with what they declare trivial.
OTOH, they haven't kicked out exhaustive details of sports teams and figures, popular musicians (and their albums and songs), etc... There are also fictional universes with huge portals and exhaustive amounts of details which the admins seem disinclined to kick out. (Not to mention the whole webcomics fiasco.)
The latter (fictional genres and celebrities) have long since been taken over by vociferous fans. Nearly every movie is a cult classic, and nearly every band is hugely important. (I exaggerate some, but this effect is visible.)
That more like "not only doesn't work in IT, but doesn't know of or understand the theory". No slam, just the facts.
Seriously, the reason all OSes aren't tested this vigorously is that the time/amount of work needed to do so rises exponentially with the size/complexity of the OS. Not only does that imply the OS would take years to bring to market, but also that said OS would incredibly expensive. Worse yet, after all that time and expense, all you've actually proven is that your running code matches your specification - you're protected against errors arising from faulty programming, but not from errors arising from conceptual errors in the spec or from incorrect algorithms embedded in the spec.
In other words, corporate tyranny in order to protect the brand and the image... Accompanied with an attitude right out of Animal Farm, "four legs good, two legs bad".
(Yes, "corporate" has more meanings than "corporation".)
Which is why we have age-of-consent laws, and laws regarding the validity of contracts, and laws concerning disclosures and waivers... Because the (US at least) legal system does not believe that one can give uninformed permission or consent. (Not to mention that what you are doing here is blaming the victim.)
Maybe you should consider your own biases and learn some reading comprehension before writing knee jerk responses (which mine wasn't). I very carefully and specifically didn't mention or discuss the relative strengths, so anything of the sort you saw is a product of your own bias and ignorance.
My comment was (to those with the ability to read) plainly sarcasm and commentary on the current fad of 'being green'.
Who cares dude? It's effin' green! just like the cash we can get from investors because it's like fashionable to investing in things that are green!
You can't buy what doesn't exist.
For so long as your employer allows you to charge for free.
$16k - (finance charges) - (cost of electricity when charged at home) - (cost of charging at work) - (increased insurance costs)
It's not clear at all how much you'll save when the costs are properly accounted for.
Most of those 'benefits' have nothing to do with the space program other than they were developed at an agency that also happens to run the space program.
The NASA PAO is also a past master at making it appear that NASA developed technology, when in reality all NASA did was applied research on already existing technology. (For example, freeze drying - first commercially used back in the 1930's!)
The magazine reference in your link (Spinoffs) is very aptly titled - because it's mostly spin.
Maybe there's nothing written because that's not actually what you're supposed to think.
And you know the government has not... how exactly?
Seriously, the government/law enforcement agencies aren't going to move until they have a fairly reasonable case, and even then they aren't going spread the details all over the press - they save that for the courtroom.
Why, precisely, should I give a rat fuck what a bunch of random idiots with less knowledge about the facts of the matter than your average fecal bacteria say?
As with the grandparent poster that I originally replied to, you seem to have a hard time telling the difference between assumption and facts.
[Use your brain for something other than a paperweight, how do you think a non neutral organization will operate?]