It wasn't that long ago that a "Large Corporation" with an interest in seeing the Internet grow was stating that Internet traffic was doubling every year. Providers ran out and bought up all the gear they could get their hands on. Hardware suppliers ramped up to meet demand. Fiber was pumped into the ground by the truckload.
But traffic was only increasing by 50%/year. The equipment sat idle. Shops closed up and dumped the hardware they bought with VC money on the market at firesale prices. Hardware vendors could not sell anything in the glutted market. Worst of all, I got laid off.
I wouldn't believe Cisco any further than I could throw them.
If someone tries to sell me a load of bunk, I tell them how I think the world really works and ask them where I'm wrong. The best way to healthy skepticism is to know how the world works, and to be wary of anything that doesn't fit.
The problem is that with batteries, you have to carry your fuel and oxidizer everywhere you go. The IC engine picks up its oxidizer on demand, since we find it nearly everywhere down here at the bottom of the gravity well.
When you do your calculations, you need to include the cost of hauling all that oxidizer all over the place.
After you've paid $20,000(US) x $60,000(US) you are not necessarily excited about the prospect of paying for the process to test and certify the changes required to make the engine run a different fuel. The FAA keeps tight reigns on every insignificant change to an airplane, and any modification would have to be tested and approved for each different type of airplane that it went in. Airplanes aren't like cars. You won't see 100,000 of a specific type. You'll see more like 10's or 100's. That makes testing a certifying a widespread change a nightmare.
I'm building an experimental airplane. I can use any engine I want without FAA oversight. I'm using a rotary engine, and one of the benefits is being able to use any gas that a car will run. (The fuel system is also designed to handle the real world.)
Moderators, the parent post just barely has any idea what he/she is talking about.
Lead is use to increase the octane rating, which avoids detonation. There is no such things as "premature detonation". What he is thinking of there is pre-ignition. An engine generally only gets one shot at pre-ignition, since it tends to convert the cylinder into a grenade. Mild detonation is actually a good thing, though. While mildly increasing engine wear, it greatly increases power and fuel efficiency.
Unleaded fuels do nothing about compression. That is entirely controlled by combustion chamber geometry. Many airplanes DO run on unleaded gas. If your airplane's type qualifies, you pay $50 to the EAA for a piece of paper that says the FAA allows you to use pump gas. The biggest hindrance for most piston powered aircraft is actually fuel systems that will vapor lock, not anything to do with the combustion process.
Lead does NOTHING to prevent valve wear. All it does is clog valves, foul spark plugs, and increase maintenance cost. Tetraethyl lead's one and only saving grace is that it is the only chemical found that can boost standard gas' octane above 100. The "it lubricates valves" canard deserves to go the way of "smoking is good for you". They are equivalent. And getting rid of the lead would be a boon for the average pilot's maintenance bill.
Airplane engine were designed to run on the gas that was commonly available at the time they were designed. The spec is no more specific than for any other engine, and there is plenty of tolerance.
Every engine was designed to run at 100% of their power. The limiting factor has always been for how long. The 2000 TBO (total build out) is for a typical cruise power closer to 70%. Run 100% all the time, and you cannot expect to get rated life out of your airplane engine.
In order for Swiftfuel to be a replacement, it would have to have an octane of 100 or better. End of story.
The best way around this problem for new airplanes is to use a rotary, like I'm putting in my Delta. rotaries love ethanol filled, 87 octane pump gas.
Except the current study doesn't address airliners. The current study is for vehicles less that 40ft. long. The don't want to stop or protect airliners. The want to stop people from flying over sporting events, or near Washington, DC.
You seem to be assuming that they give a F*** about "stopping terrorist". The summary says they want to the ability to stop vehicles of up to 40ft long, ie. small planes and boats. The "Original Terrorist Weapon of Mass Destruction" was a whole lot longer than 40ft.
This is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt at control. Just like gun control laws and the war on drugs, it is a method to insure that YOU think inside the box...the one they make for you.
Years ago my Russian language teacher reported to us that his friend worked at a bank. The job was to find out who broke into the banks computer network and to take out mob contracts on them. Mess with the bank, then you'll have the mob messing with you.
I'm not making a recommendation, I'm just saying that not everyone plays nice.
The skin on the belly of the Dyke Delta airplane I am building is made of fabric. http://ernest.isa-geek.org
Basically, it is dacron that hasn't been shrunk (shrinked? shrank?) at the factory. You attach it with a PVC type cement that permeates the weave when the fabric is wrapped loosely around the frame. A household iron is used to shrink the fabric, with the iron set at a maximum of 350*F. A fire suppressant is applied which also fills and seals the weave. Then aluminum powder filled latex paint is used to block UV, which would otherwise turn the fabric to powder in short order. A topcoat of colored latex paint makes it look nice. This is the Polyfiber system, and there are several others with minor variations. Many aircraft designs, both certified and experimental, still use this technique for the weight savings.
The problem is that it is EXTREMELY delicate. It is all but transparent to a flying sharp object like a pebble thrown from the tire of a construction truck; although, you can bounce on it like a trampoline if you take your shoes off. It makes a nice bass drum, too. The delicacy usually isn't a problem for small planes. Not many construction trucks to follow on the runway, and not many stones at altitude; however, my friend is selling his ultralight because he doesn't have a hangar. He never gets to fly, because it gets holes punched in it every time there's a storm.
I could only imagine what this thing would look like after a typical year of driving, and I wouldn't even think of buying a fabric covered car.
No, it would be akin to weavers complaining about cloth being given away for nothing.
While ignoring that the cloth being given away is able to be died any way the customer chooses, while their own cloth is pre-dyed.
The few commercial editors I've ever looked at required a large amount of overhead just to get up to speed. They have to do something to justify their large pricetags, and that usually involves complexity. I tend to prefer smaller, simpler tools with lower entry requirements.
Reducing your desire to learn? Only if your definition of "learn" is to memorize lists of facts. If your definition involves a deep understanding of how a complex array of characters interact in a system, then Google and the Internet is an invaluable tool. Intelligence is being able to use one's mind to shape the world to one's desires. I have access to a huge variety of information sources that I can glean hints of the truth from. I can invest my mental energy in storing individual points of fact, or in contemplating how those facts fit together and then using the results of those contemplations to better myself and the world around me. I have less desire for rote memorization, but I have a much greater desire to learn. The end results are much more obtainable now.
Which country is that in Africa that has a legal concept of "entrapment"?
From what I've heard from fellow workers (never been there myself) in most African countries, once the responsible authorities discover who is selling the ivory without paying said authority its proper cut, said seller will get a fast trial and a fair shooting.
In any case, Ebay provides for exposure of the sellers. Driving the trade underground is pointless, if not counter-productive.
The International Fund for Animal Welfare is just trolling for attention. It's a tried and true technique. Attack a large and popular entity and charge them with the responsibility of handling your pet project to save the world.
How about this "International Fund for Animal Welfare"? Instead of bitching real loud, how about you bid for the ivory, then tell the sellers that you will pick it up. Show up at the seller's door with law enforcement.
Oh, I see. That doesn't get you free advertisement for your fund raising efforts.
The company has to load a crapload of demoware for the advertisement kickbacks in order to synchronize the cost of a Linux vs Windows install. The comparison is the boot time with equal cost (to the vendor) OSs installed.
There is no way that Clinton could make them legal. The whole concept of 'legality' is muddy here. It is more a matter of "will the signature be recognized".
All a signature does is provide evidence to the fact that you were there and agreed to a contract. It is your "seal of approval". A court can say that they won't recognize a signature written in pencil. A bank has the option to reject a check signed in red pen. Clinton probably passed a directive saying that Federal Agencies will accept digital signatures of some sort. I honestly don't know.
That said, any signature can be contested in a court. It would be very difficult for a handwriting expert to confirm that a copied signature was yours if he doesn't have the pressure clues to go on.
Now, this leaves the door open for two alternatives that have seen themselves played out throughout history, repeatedly:
1. In his "love" for me he will do everything in his power (including the political power granted to him by the people) to "correct" my thinking through coercion.
2. Since his belief system has me being damned after death regardless, there's no real harm in allowing me or causing me to suffer while I still live (after all, I'd better get used to it).
Bzzt. Wrong. I don't even know why you entered the game.
Jesus told his people to go preach to all who would listen. If they went into a city, and the people did not accept what they had to say, then they should shake the dust off their feet and move on. No points were given for brow-beating people into acceptance, and there were definitely no prize for punishing people on earth.
I don't talk about Jewish, Hindu or Muslim religions, because I don't know enough about them not to make a fool of myself in public. You might try doing the same.
Could you define "force it on me"? How does my expression of a view force it upon you?
"If you disapprove of selling children as sex slaves, fine, but you should leave people who don't share your views alone." You can pick ANY action that you don't see as morally reprehensible and claim that you should be free to act upon it.
If a singularity is ever created, it will wake up, look around, and turn itself off.
Why have I spent the last 6 years building an airplane in my garage? It's freakin' insane people. There is just no way to justify all the time, energy and money I've spent on it other than to say that it is what I WANTED to do.
How do you explain want? Desire? Love? Full-fillment? The singularity would necessarily have the personality of Douglas Adams' Marvin. It will wake up, look at all the data, and say, "What's the fucking point! You're all a bunch of dumbasses!"
It is our insanity that keeps us inventing new toys to help us manage the toys we've invented so that we can invent newer toys. We "need" computers to communicate with people around the world...while ignoring our neighbors. Logic would dictate throwing out the expensive computer and walking outside.
Unless we're able to invent an insane computer, the singularity will have no effect on the world.
My wife is a real-estate agent. Has to deal with passing a lot of signatures around. It was only a couple of years ago that North Carolina passed a law to make faxed signatures legally binding.
The Feds in the US are paying for chain-link fences around aiports. There can be several miles of bob-wire topped, 10ft high chain-link,which is all but transparent to a set of $20 bolt cutters, but in many places it is just a 4ft high barrier. These come with electronic gates, that stay broken and hence propped open most of the time.
Slashdot Mirror
It wasn't that long ago that a "Large Corporation" with an interest in seeing the Internet grow was stating that Internet traffic was doubling every year. Providers ran out and bought up all the gear they could get their hands on. Hardware suppliers ramped up to meet demand. Fiber was pumped into the ground by the truckload.
But traffic was only increasing by 50%/year. The equipment sat idle. Shops closed up and dumped the hardware they bought with VC money on the market at firesale prices. Hardware vendors could not sell anything in the glutted market. Worst of all, I got laid off.
I wouldn't believe Cisco any further than I could throw them.
If someone tries to sell me a load of bunk, I tell them how I think the world really works and ask them where I'm wrong. The best way to healthy skepticism is to know how the world works, and to be wary of anything that doesn't fit.
The problem is that with batteries, you have to carry your fuel and oxidizer everywhere you go. The IC engine picks up its oxidizer on demand, since we find it nearly everywhere down here at the bottom of the gravity well.
When you do your calculations, you need to include the cost of hauling all that oxidizer all over the place.
You're totally correct Viol8....HOWEVER...
(there's always a however)
After you've paid $20,000(US) x $60,000(US) you are not necessarily excited about the prospect of paying for the process to test and certify the changes required to make the engine run a different fuel. The FAA keeps tight reigns on every insignificant change to an airplane, and any modification would have to be tested and approved for each different type of airplane that it went in. Airplanes aren't like cars. You won't see 100,000 of a specific type. You'll see more like 10's or 100's. That makes testing a certifying a widespread change a nightmare.
I'm building an experimental airplane. I can use any engine I want without FAA oversight. I'm using a rotary engine, and one of the benefits is being able to use any gas that a car will run. (The fuel system is also designed to handle the real world.)
Moderators, the parent post just barely has any idea what he/she is talking about.
Lead is use to increase the octane rating, which avoids detonation. There is no such things as "premature detonation". What he is thinking of there is pre-ignition. An engine generally only gets one shot at pre-ignition, since it tends to convert the cylinder into a grenade. Mild detonation is actually a good thing, though. While mildly increasing engine wear, it greatly increases power and fuel efficiency.
Unleaded fuels do nothing about compression. That is entirely controlled by combustion chamber geometry. Many airplanes DO run on unleaded gas. If your airplane's type qualifies, you pay $50 to the EAA for a piece of paper that says the FAA allows you to use pump gas. The biggest hindrance for most piston powered aircraft is actually fuel systems that will vapor lock, not anything to do with the combustion process.
Lead does NOTHING to prevent valve wear. All it does is clog valves, foul spark plugs, and increase maintenance cost. Tetraethyl lead's one and only saving grace is that it is the only chemical found that can boost standard gas' octane above 100. The "it lubricates valves" canard deserves to go the way of "smoking is good for you". They are equivalent. And getting rid of the lead would be a boon for the average pilot's maintenance bill.
Airplane engine were designed to run on the gas that was commonly available at the time they were designed. The spec is no more specific than for any other engine, and there is plenty of tolerance.
Every engine was designed to run at 100% of their power. The limiting factor has always been for how long. The 2000 TBO (total build out) is for a typical cruise power closer to 70%. Run 100% all the time, and you cannot expect to get rated life out of your airplane engine.
In order for Swiftfuel to be a replacement, it would have to have an octane of 100 or better. End of story.
The best way around this problem for new airplanes is to use a rotary, like I'm putting in my Delta. rotaries love ethanol filled, 87 octane pump gas.
Except the current study doesn't address airliners. The current study is for vehicles less that 40ft. long. The don't want to stop or protect airliners. The want to stop people from flying over sporting events, or near Washington, DC.
Nice thought, but this device doesn't even address passenger planes. There aren't many passenger planes less that 40ft long.
You seem to be assuming that they give a F*** about "stopping terrorist". The summary says they want to the ability to stop vehicles of up to 40ft long, ie. small planes and boats. The "Original Terrorist Weapon of Mass Destruction" was a whole lot longer than 40ft.
This is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt at control. Just like gun control laws and the war on drugs, it is a method to insure that YOU think inside the box...the one they make for you.
There is the other venue.
Years ago my Russian language teacher reported to us that his friend worked at a bank. The job was to find out who broke into the banks computer network and to take out mob contracts on them. Mess with the bank, then you'll have the mob messing with you.
I'm not making a recommendation, I'm just saying that not everyone plays nice.
The skin on the belly of the Dyke Delta airplane I am building is made of fabric. http://ernest.isa-geek.org
Basically, it is dacron that hasn't been shrunk (shrinked? shrank?) at the factory. You attach it with a PVC type cement that permeates the weave when the fabric is wrapped loosely around the frame. A household iron is used to shrink the fabric, with the iron set at a maximum of 350*F. A fire suppressant is applied which also fills and seals the weave. Then aluminum powder filled latex paint is used to block UV, which would otherwise turn the fabric to powder in short order. A topcoat of colored latex paint makes it look nice. This is the Polyfiber system, and there are several others with minor variations. Many aircraft designs, both certified and experimental, still use this technique for the weight savings.
The problem is that it is EXTREMELY delicate. It is all but transparent to a flying sharp object like a pebble thrown from the tire of a construction truck; although, you can bounce on it like a trampoline if you take your shoes off. It makes a nice bass drum, too. The delicacy usually isn't a problem for small planes. Not many construction trucks to follow on the runway, and not many stones at altitude; however, my friend is selling his ultralight because he doesn't have a hangar. He never gets to fly, because it gets holes punched in it every time there's a storm.
I could only imagine what this thing would look like after a typical year of driving, and I wouldn't even think of buying a fabric covered car.
No, it would be akin to weavers complaining about cloth being given away for nothing.
While ignoring that the cloth being given away is able to be died any way the customer chooses, while their own cloth is pre-dyed.
The few commercial editors I've ever looked at required a large amount of overhead just to get up to speed. They have to do something to justify their large pricetags, and that usually involves complexity. I tend to prefer smaller, simpler tools with lower entry requirements.
In most companies I've worked in, the programs would be better if the management did just that.
More design time, and less keyboard punching.
Reducing your desire to learn? Only if your definition of "learn" is to memorize lists of facts. If your definition involves a deep understanding of how a complex array of characters interact in a system, then Google and the Internet is an invaluable tool.
Intelligence is being able to use one's mind to shape the world to one's desires. I have access to a huge variety of information sources that I can glean hints of the truth from. I can invest my mental energy in storing individual points of fact, or in contemplating how those facts fit together and then using the results of those contemplations to better myself and the world around me. I have less desire for rote memorization, but I have a much greater desire to learn. The end results are much more obtainable now.
Which country is that in Africa that has a legal concept of "entrapment"?
From what I've heard from fellow workers (never been there myself) in most African countries, once the responsible authorities discover who is selling the ivory without paying said authority its proper cut, said seller will get a fast trial and a fair shooting.
In any case, Ebay provides for exposure of the sellers. Driving the trade underground is pointless, if not counter-productive.
The International Fund for Animal Welfare is just trolling for attention. It's a tried and true technique. Attack a large and popular entity and charge them with the responsibility of handling your pet project to save the world.
How about this "International Fund for Animal Welfare"? Instead of bitching real loud, how about you bid for the ivory, then tell the sellers that you will pick it up. Show up at the seller's door with law enforcement.
Oh, I see. That doesn't get you free advertisement for your fund raising efforts.
That WOULD be apples to apples.
The company has to load a crapload of demoware for the advertisement kickbacks in order to synchronize the cost of a Linux vs Windows install. The comparison is the boot time with equal cost (to the vendor) OSs installed.
(dropped it at least five times and even spilled Gatorade (an electrolyte) on it)
Gatorade. It's what laptops crave.
There is no way that Clinton could make them legal. The whole concept of 'legality' is muddy here. It is more a matter of "will the signature be recognized".
All a signature does is provide evidence to the fact that you were there and agreed to a contract. It is your "seal of approval". A court can say that they won't recognize a signature written in pencil. A bank has the option to reject a check signed in red pen. Clinton probably passed a directive saying that Federal Agencies will accept digital signatures of some sort. I honestly don't know.
That said, any signature can be contested in a court. It would be very difficult for a handwriting expert to confirm that a copied signature was yours if he doesn't have the pressure clues to go on.
Now, this leaves the door open for two alternatives that have seen themselves played out throughout history, repeatedly:
1. In his "love" for me he will do everything in his power (including the political power granted to him by the people) to "correct" my thinking through coercion.
2. Since his belief system has me being damned after death regardless, there's no real harm in allowing me or causing me to suffer while I still live (after all, I'd better get used to it).
Bzzt. Wrong. I don't even know why you entered the game.
Jesus told his people to go preach to all who would listen. If they went into a city, and the people did not accept what they had to say, then they should shake the dust off their feet and move on. No points were given for brow-beating people into acceptance, and there were definitely no prize for punishing people on earth.
I don't talk about Jewish, Hindu or Muslim religions, because I don't know enough about them not to make a fool of myself in public. You might try doing the same.
What makes you think that anyone else wants to hear you rant about your personal religious views.
Why the hell are you participating in a public forum if you don't want to hear someone else's views? Sheesh!
Could you define "force it on me"? How does my expression of a view force it upon you?
"If you disapprove of selling children as sex slaves, fine, but you should leave people who don't share your views alone." You can pick ANY action that you don't see as morally reprehensible and claim that you should be free to act upon it.
If a singularity is ever created, it will wake up, look around, and turn itself off.
Why have I spent the last 6 years building an airplane in my garage? It's freakin' insane people. There is just no way to justify all the time, energy and money I've spent on it other than to say that it is what I WANTED to do.
How do you explain want? Desire? Love? Full-fillment? The singularity would necessarily have the personality of Douglas Adams' Marvin. It will wake up, look at all the data, and say, "What's the fucking point! You're all a bunch of dumbasses!"
It is our insanity that keeps us inventing new toys to help us manage the toys we've invented so that we can invent newer toys. We "need" computers to communicate with people around the world...while ignoring our neighbors. Logic would dictate throwing out the expensive computer and walking outside.
Unless we're able to invent an insane computer, the singularity will have no effect on the world.
TWO sharks per nanobot!!
Why not just drop the sharks into the clouds instead.
Depends on where you live.
My wife is a real-estate agent. Has to deal with passing a lot of signatures around. It was only a couple of years ago that North Carolina passed a law to make faxed signatures legally binding.
Lot of Fedexing going on up till then.
The Feds in the US are paying for chain-link fences around aiports. There can be several miles of bob-wire topped, 10ft high chain-link,which is all but transparent to a set of $20 bolt cutters, but in many places it is just a 4ft high barrier. These come with electronic gates, that stay broken and hence propped open most of the time.