The neat idea behind Chrysler's design is that the turbine must be de-coupled from the drive train. The electric engine is the thing that is moving the car. This way the turbine can run at the most efficient RPM.
That's not a particularly new idea... Diesel-electric submarines were built this way back in the 1930's.
Re:Is it just me ?
on
Sunspots Return
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It's just you - here in the Pacific Northwet, it's been exactly the opposite.
Is there really that much difference in having a thousand or having a dozen? Could the country with a dozen warheads not fuck any other country beyond repair or redemption just as well as one with a thousand nukes?
In addition to the factors others have mentioned there is this - when the number of warheads is reduced, each remaining one becomes proportionally more valuable.
The practical effect of this is that it increases the pressure on the 'trigger'. Back during the Cold War, losing a single SSBN (for example) meant losing maybe 1-2% of the available force. Damaging, but not fatal. Under a 500 launcher regime, losing a single SSBN means the loss of nearly 20% of the available force. This increases the pressure to 'use it or lose it'. (For 'SSBN' you can also substitute 'bomber base' or 'missile squadron'.)
Another effect is that as the number of launchers and warheads goes down, missile defense becomes more attractive. Thousands of incoming warheads are essentially impossible to stop or event blunt. When you drop that to dozens, such an attack is much easier to blunt and to possibly even all but stop. Which is why the US has deliberately sharply limited the number of missiles and deployment locations for it's current system - while it can blunt or stop an attack from China or stop one from one of the rogue states, it can barely blunt an attack from the Russians. That balance changes with these current reductions, and is one of the reasons the Russians have objected so greatly to expanding the system.
(Disclaimer: I'm not a nuclear strategist by profession, nor do I play one on TV... But I have informally studied it for a couple of decades now.)
I would suspect in 1989, they started automatically issuing SSN's at birth, which made the target much easier, if they had the birth month and year available.
IIRC, around then the IRS started requiring you to submit the SSN's of minor dependents you were claiming as exemptions.
Hydrogen isn't an energy source - it's a battery. Electric cars require a power plant to charge the batteries. Hydrogen cars require a power plant to power the the facility that manufactures the hydrogen. (And a far more complex infrastructure to move the hydrogen to the end user.)
NASA always looks at these ideas and then normally decides that either the risk profile is too high (the most impressive thing about the first moon landings were the LACK of deaths)
Don't confuse luck with skill - especially when the sample set is so very small.
For example, consider the (un)safety record of the LLRV and it's descendant the LLTV. Consider also the loss of Apollo 1 and the accident on Apollo 13. Then there is the the failure of the CSM/LM docking system on Apollo 14, overcome only with brute force and potentially fatal had it occurred in Lunar orbit.. There's also the near failure of the SPS on Apollo 16 in Lunar orbit, where the mission controllers continued the mission despite partial loss of the primary control systems for the engine. Not to mention the leaking fuel tanks on Skylab III and the leakage of fuel fumes into the spacecraft cabin during ASTP's landing.
They were playing Russian Roulette and they were very lucky. (And I haven't even mentioned the incidents in the Mercury and Gemini programs.)
This is a HUGE challenge and one where a government agency has to do so at levels of safety that a commercial organisation wouldn't bother to meet.
Overall, the best safety record in space flight is either the Shuttle or Soyuz programs which both come in at around 98% or so. To put that in perspective - if commercial aviation had that safety record, there would be (roughly) 20 fatal crashes per day at Seattle-Tacoma International alone! (And Apollo's record is even worse than either Shuttle or Soyuz, coming in at about 94%.)
When someone in a technical role screws up a timezone designation, for me that is always a red flag that they are sloppy with facts, and I need to closely watch their other decisions, actions and statements, because they may be in over their head.
When someone is excessively pedantic for the sole reason of making his virtual penis larger and harder, I point and laaaaaaaaaaugh.
Seriously, get the fuck over yourself. PST is a widely used and widely accepted descriptive term for the Pacific time zone. For 99% of the people, it doesn't matter whether it's actually PST or PDST.
"Openness", both ideologically and in the FOSS sense, forms one of the core requirements of successful academia.
So what? Academia isn't under discussion - corporate research and development is.
I don't blame or absolve the professor - He had a contract, and I suppose the legal details of this boil down to a matter of contract law (though I most certainly do have a problem with prison time rather than monetary damages for breach of contract).
He didn't go to prison because he broke his contract - he went to prison because he broke the law.
[Handwaving horsecrap deleted as not worth commenting on.]
You don't spank a baby for giggling at butterflies, and you don't hold it accountable if you give it a gun and someone gets hurt.
Since it was an adult 'given the gun' - how the fuck is a baby relevant? The professor signed the contract, the professor was given specific warning, how the hell is he not accountable?
Yeah, your job isn't at risk in a recession - because you've probably already lost it because the contract went elsewhere. Military contractor jobs are about as unstable as they come, contrary to popular myth.
I am a government contractor (VSAT technician working in the middle east) and this is not really true.
I live in an area with many government contractors and know many government contractors across the country - and yeah, it's very, very true. I see it happen all the time. *Especially* with research and development contracts, which are a different beast from the operator/support contract you are under.
Is that a bad Linux setup... Or a poor implementation of a system intended to provide tracking and accountability? Geeks, and especially computer geeks, love to automate the hell out of everything possible - but that's not always appropriate to the situation.
That being said, "manual" and "error prone" are not synonyms. It's a matter of operator training and discipline.
I was about to say the same thing. TFA spends more time on rumour and innuendo than it does on facts, but it appears the competition is between applications - not operating systems.
Why not aspire to work on head up displays used by the military, you should get paid pretty well, not lose your job in a recession, occasionally get to blow things up for real
Yeah, your job isn't at risk in a recession - because you've probably already lost it because the contract went elsewhere. Military contractor jobs are about as unstable as they come, contrary to popular myth.
If you were going at the moment - that would be fine. But the poster specified a three day trek.
There's also the question of whether the market in the South means crossing a dangerous rapid, while the one to the North is via a smooth flat route. Etc... Etc...
Which is why my doctor tells me not to take any medication containing acetaminophen other than those prescribed, and the form I have to sign when I pick my prescriptions repeats that warning.
Or perhaps being able to contact someone at the market *before* you set of on the three day trek to sell your crops/animals so that you know it's worth going and that you'll get a good price, rather than getting there and getting stiffed because you have to sell to *someone* but there's a glut.
People who've actually had experience with agriculture know that when an animal or crop is ready for sale - it's ready for sale. You don't have much of a choice because crops rot and animals cost money to hold ready for sale.
While I agree with you, there are also some things to be gained from having access to the internet. For example how many people would care about the situation in Iran if Iran had no internet?
What does it matter if people in Rwanda (as specified in the grandparent) care about Iran? They can't do anything about it (and neither can people in the developed world) and caring about Iran doesn't help them with any of the problems they face.
Not that the internet really cares about anything but the latest shiny anyhow - Iran having been eclipsed by Micheal Jackson's death.
When the poor villages in Africa realize that their tribal overlords aren't helping them, that food isn't as scarce as they think it is, change will happen.
Yeah, they'll change from not being able to do anything about it to not being able to do anything about it while blogging, twittering, and joining Facebook groups to 'support' somebody doing something about it.
On either end. A city big enough to absorb 1,000 workers, won't notice the increase. A city big enough to attract and hold 1,000 workers, won't notice the increase. A city big enough to have a pool of workers big enough to recruit 1,000 workers with the appropriate skills won't notice the increase.
Actually it would have the effect of increasing costs because decentralizing operations also means decentralizing support functions (IT, HR, procurement, etc... etc...). Your tooth-to-tail ratio goes to hell in a handbasket. Then you have to figure in the need to duplicate infrastructure. Then figure in increased travel and communications costs. Then figure in the costs of increased 'friction' caused by less efficient (I.E. non face-to-face) communications. Etc... Etc...
There are reason why corporations and governments prefer centralization.
How much of your mileage isn't on public roads? For most people, I'd guess almost none (up and down the driveway doesn't account for much for my trip into work each day).
Then there is my friends driveways. And the parking lot at work. And the parking lot at the grocery store. And the parking lot at the hardware store. Etc...
This will (well, could) be great for geek hikers like myself; I find the topographical maps available okay, but don't really give one an accurate feel for the lay of the land.
Well, given that the map discussed in the article is nothing but a topographical map... The fancy pictures of the terrain are renders produced from the dataset and could equally easily be produced from current topographic maps/datasets.
Incorporating this map into GPS (or, in the shorter term, some open source mapping software on a PDA-sized device) will be very cool
When this map is integrated into current maps, or even into new maps, you'll likely not even notice the difference. A map can only contain so much information due to the limits of graphical presentation.
Oh well, navigating/mapping is half the fun of exploring, to me (whether in a car, boat, or on foot).
But apparently understanding what you are looking at isn't. (Oh for the days when 'geek' meant 'learning and understanding things' rather than 'plays with the latest gadgets as if they were just expensive gaming consoles'.)
Uh, my igoogle entertainment page is much more usable than that ugly mess and it's specialized to the teams I follow as well as including general sports information.
I don't see how it can be 'much more usable' given how straightforward the page I link to is. (Not to mention the page I link to is a sports page, not an entertainment page.)
It also includes non sports related entertainment addons which I mixed and matched to meet my preferences, not something provided to me on some media companies terms.
Right - the content on your iGoogle appears suddenly as if by magic. No media company had a hand in creating it. No media company defined the preferences you get to choose from, they too suddenly appear as if by magic.
Yahoo's search results haven't seemed competitive to me since '97.
Hint: There's much more to do on the web than search, and thus Yahoo! (and Google) provide a lot more services than search.
Honestly, I'm not trying to troll; just wondering why a site that's stagnated for over 10 years now needs anything cutting-edge.
Honestly, not trying to troll or flamebait, but are you really as ignorant as your posting makes you sound? Are you really too lazy to visit http://www.yahoo.com and spend a little time just reading the page and clicking around on the services offered?
Anyone still using them? Have any insights why we ought to care what they're up to?
I'm still using them because Google offers nothing to match the Yahoo! page I use as a homepage. (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb.) I still use Yahoo! mail for some functions as it's UI beats Gmail hands down. I still track my finances at Yahoo! because their management and analysis tools are superior to those provided by Google. I use Flickr because the collaboration and other tools it provides are superior to Picasa's. Etc... Etc...
Google's predominance in search and advertising blinds people to the 'also ran' status of so many of it's other services.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not a particularly new idea... Diesel-electric submarines were built this way back in the 1930's.
It's just you - here in the Pacific Northwet, it's been exactly the opposite.
Ah yes, comparing apples (heavily secured non-IE browsers) to oranges (unsecured IE installations) is so useful.
That's like saying "since I survived a ten MPH crash, a hundred MPH crash should be no problem".
In addition to the factors others have mentioned there is this - when the number of warheads is reduced, each remaining one becomes proportionally more valuable.
The practical effect of this is that it increases the pressure on the 'trigger'. Back during the Cold War, losing a single SSBN (for example) meant losing maybe 1-2% of the available force. Damaging, but not fatal. Under a 500 launcher regime, losing a single SSBN means the loss of nearly 20% of the available force. This increases the pressure to 'use it or lose it'. (For 'SSBN' you can also substitute 'bomber base' or 'missile squadron'.)
Another effect is that as the number of launchers and warheads goes down, missile defense becomes more attractive. Thousands of incoming warheads are essentially impossible to stop or event blunt. When you drop that to dozens, such an attack is much easier to blunt and to possibly even all but stop. Which is why the US has deliberately sharply limited the number of missiles and deployment locations for it's current system - while it can blunt or stop an attack from China or stop one from one of the rogue states, it can barely blunt an attack from the Russians. That balance changes with these current reductions, and is one of the reasons the Russians have objected so greatly to expanding the system.
(Disclaimer: I'm not a nuclear strategist by profession, nor do I play one on TV... But I have informally studied it for a couple of decades now.)
IIRC, around then the IRS started requiring you to submit the SSN's of minor dependents you were claiming as exemptions.
Hydrogen isn't an energy source - it's a battery. Electric cars require a power plant to charge the batteries. Hydrogen cars require a power plant to power the the facility that manufactures the hydrogen. (And a far more complex infrastructure to move the hydrogen to the end user.)
Don't confuse luck with skill - especially when the sample set is so very small.
For example, consider the (un)safety record of the LLRV and it's descendant the LLTV. Consider also the loss of Apollo 1 and the accident on Apollo 13. Then there is the the failure of the CSM/LM docking system on Apollo 14, overcome only with brute force and potentially fatal had it occurred in Lunar orbit.. There's also the near failure of the SPS on Apollo 16 in Lunar orbit, where the mission controllers continued the mission despite partial loss of the primary control systems for the engine. Not to mention the leaking fuel tanks on Skylab III and the leakage of fuel fumes into the spacecraft cabin during ASTP's landing.
They were playing Russian Roulette and they were very lucky. (And I haven't even mentioned the incidents in the Mercury and Gemini programs.)
Overall, the best safety record in space flight is either the Shuttle or Soyuz programs which both come in at around 98% or so. To put that in perspective - if commercial aviation had that safety record, there would be (roughly) 20 fatal crashes per day at Seattle-Tacoma International alone! (And Apollo's record is even worse than either Shuttle or Soyuz, coming in at about 94%.)
When someone is excessively pedantic for the sole reason of making his virtual penis larger and harder, I point and laaaaaaaaaaugh.
Seriously, get the fuck over yourself. PST is a widely used and widely accepted descriptive term for the Pacific time zone. For 99% of the people, it doesn't matter whether it's actually PST or PDST.
So what? Academia isn't under discussion - corporate research and development is.
He didn't go to prison because he broke his contract - he went to prison because he broke the law.
[Handwaving horsecrap deleted as not worth commenting on.]
Since it was an adult 'given the gun' - how the fuck is a baby relevant? The professor signed the contract, the professor was given specific warning, how the hell is he not accountable?
I live in an area with many government contractors and know many government contractors across the country - and yeah, it's very, very true. I see it happen all the time. *Especially* with research and development contracts, which are a different beast from the operator/support contract you are under.
Is that a bad Linux setup... Or a poor implementation of a system intended to provide tracking and accountability? Geeks, and especially computer geeks, love to automate the hell out of everything possible - but that's not always appropriate to the situation.
That being said, "manual" and "error prone" are not synonyms. It's a matter of operator training and discipline.
I was about to say the same thing. TFA spends more time on rumour and innuendo than it does on facts, but it appears the competition is between applications - not operating systems.
Yeah, your job isn't at risk in a recession - because you've probably already lost it because the contract went elsewhere. Military contractor jobs are about as unstable as they come, contrary to popular myth.
If you were going at the moment - that would be fine. But the poster specified a three day trek.
There's also the question of whether the market in the South means crossing a dangerous rapid, while the one to the North is via a smooth flat route. Etc... Etc...
Which is why my doctor tells me not to take any medication containing acetaminophen other than those prescribed, and the form I have to sign when I pick my prescriptions repeats that warning.
People who've actually had experience with agriculture know that when an animal or crop is ready for sale - it's ready for sale. You don't have much of a choice because crops rot and animals cost money to hold ready for sale.
What does it matter if people in Rwanda (as specified in the grandparent) care about Iran? They can't do anything about it (and neither can people in the developed world) and caring about Iran doesn't help them with any of the problems they face.
Not that the internet really cares about anything but the latest shiny anyhow - Iran having been eclipsed by Micheal Jackson's death.
Yeah, they'll change from not being able to do anything about it to not being able to do anything about it while blogging, twittering, and joining Facebook groups to 'support' somebody doing something about it.
On either end. A city big enough to absorb 1,000 workers, won't notice the increase. A city big enough to attract and hold 1,000 workers, won't notice the increase. A city big enough to have a pool of workers big enough to recruit 1,000 workers with the appropriate skills won't notice the increase.
It's true that moving 1,000 people won't create many problems - but it won't solve any either. It's akin to peeing on a forest fire.
Actually it would have the effect of increasing costs because decentralizing operations also means decentralizing support functions (IT, HR, procurement, etc... etc...). Your tooth-to-tail ratio goes to hell in a handbasket. Then you have to figure in the need to duplicate infrastructure. Then figure in increased travel and communications costs. Then figure in the costs of increased 'friction' caused by less efficient (I.E. non face-to-face) communications. Etc... Etc...
There are reason why corporations and governments prefer centralization.
Then there is my friends driveways. And the parking lot at work. And the parking lot at the grocery store. And the parking lot at the hardware store. Etc...
The errors add up significantly over time.
Well, given that the map discussed in the article is nothing but a topographical map... The fancy pictures of the terrain are renders produced from the dataset and could equally easily be produced from current topographic maps/datasets.
When this map is integrated into current maps, or even into new maps, you'll likely not even notice the difference. A map can only contain so much information due to the limits of graphical presentation.
But apparently understanding what you are looking at isn't. (Oh for the days when 'geek' meant 'learning and understanding things' rather than 'plays with the latest gadgets as if they were just expensive gaming consoles'.)
I don't see how it can be 'much more usable' given how straightforward the page I link to is. (Not to mention the page I link to is a sports page, not an entertainment page.)
Right - the content on your iGoogle appears suddenly as if by magic. No media company had a hand in creating it. No media company defined the preferences you get to choose from, they too suddenly appear as if by magic.
Hint: There's much more to do on the web than search, and thus Yahoo! (and Google) provide a lot more services than search.
Honestly, not trying to troll or flamebait, but are you really as ignorant as your posting makes you sound? Are you really too lazy to visit http://www.yahoo.com and spend a little time just reading the page and clicking around on the services offered?
I'm still using them because Google offers nothing to match the Yahoo! page I use as a homepage. (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb.) I still use Yahoo! mail for some functions as it's UI beats Gmail hands down. I still track my finances at Yahoo! because their management and analysis tools are superior to those provided by Google. I use Flickr because the collaboration and other tools it provides are superior to Picasa's. Etc... Etc...
Google's predominance in search and advertising blinds people to the 'also ran' status of so many of it's other services.