So, what this boils down to is a truth-in-advertising issue?
If Comcast wasn't lying in their advertisements there wouldn't be an issue here. But I guess "56kbps guaranteed service, but more when it's available" doesn't have that certain ring to it.
The Drake Equation is getting pretty close to 1.0 in a lot of categories.
Dude! That's funny.
R* = We have some guesses from a few years of observation, but nothing approaching mathematical certainty. fp = We just recently learned how to find planets, and the number found is extremely low compared to the number of stars found. It would be silly to try to assert with any certainty what percentage of stars have planets. ne = Other than Earth, none have been found. No indication that any other will be found has been found. Nearly everything found so far have been gas giants orbiting close to their suns. fl = Other than Earth, none have been found. No indication that any other will be found has been found. fi = Other than Earth, none have been found. No indication that any other will be found has been found. fc = Other than Earth, none have been found. No indication that any other will be found has been found. L = Other than Earth, none have been found. No indication that any other will be found has been found.
If anything, the Drake equation is still sitting imperceptibly close to 0.
Geeks suffer as a whole when we spend all our energy arguing about a fringe political philosophy like libertarianism instead of focusing on issues that actually matter to us.
Issues like "Did Obama diss Hillary by not shaking her hand at the State of the Union Address?" Or maybe "Did Hillary really cry, or was it just for show?" No, I guess your talking about "Should our personal healthcare be controlled by a federal government, or by federal corporations?"
First, those look like low-bypass engines (yes, I know they are "normal" jet engines), which means very high exhaust velocities. The small wing also means high wing loading and high takeoff velocities. Those two facts seem to suggest a very loud plane which might run afoul of EU regs.
The wings look smaller than the Airbus 380 that they're comparing it to. You can't really tell the wing area from the pictures, but the aspect ratio is most definitely less. It is twice as long, and appears to have the same diameter. I'd say double the 380's weight, which would double the wing loading. Take-off would need more speed, by a factor of 1.4
L=Cl*V^2*S
Lift (L) would need to double. Lift co-efficient (Cl) will remain close unless they invent some new laws of physics. Being of such a low aspect ratio, Cl is likely to be much less than the 380. Surface area (S) will remain unchanged if the guess about wing area is valid. That only leaves the speed to increase to get the extra lift.
Now, look at the landing gear. Long, spindly legs compared to the 380. Any bump in the road on the way to takeoff will be absorbed at the end of a long lever arm, while carrying twice the weight. Unless the 380 engineers pulled a fast one on Airbus management in support of their landing gear manufacturing friends, one hard landing on those spindly legs will put the entire thing on it's belly (at 1.4 times the speed of a 380).
I say this is just concept drawings designed to ellicit matching research funds.
Would you please carry your straw men back to the cornfield they came from.
The Internet was developed as a military support system, not as basic research. A way to keep the nation and military running if the central switch was taken out (by a nuclear bomb, for instance). It was engineered with a clear goal in mind, which eliminates it from being 'basic research'. No one is arguing against the military funding military development. The fact that this one got away and was found to be useful elsewhere is just coincidence.
The WWW was not developed as part of federally funded research. It was developed because one physicist was irritated by impediments to his communications with colleagues. It wasn't developed as part of a federally funded research into information sharing, and it wasn't basic research. Again, it was engineered with a clear goal in mind. No doubt, something similar would have been developed somewhere else. The fact that it was developed at a facility receiving federal grants does nothing to support federal grants. Put this straw man next to the other one.
Colossus and ENIAC, again, were engineered to solve military problems. "ENIAC was designed and built to calculate artillery firing tables for the U.S. Army's Ballistic Research Laboratory." "The Colossus machines were electronic computing devices used by British codebreakers to read encrypted German messages during World War II." (Shamelessly stolen from Wikipedia.) No one is arguing against the US Federal government funding US Military research, because the US Constitution clearly lays that out as a responsibility of the US Federal government. What this any of this has to do with Colossus is anybodies guess. Colossus was a British project, after all.
No one is arguing against the military using its research division to investigate solution for military problems. The argument is against federal funds to investigate a cure for Parkinson's disease. If you're arguing that we need a cure for Parkinson's so that my 65yr old father can be drafted for Gulf War III, then you may have a point. Other good points would be developing drugs to make soldiers stronger/faster, or developing biological weapons; otherwise, it's getting awfully crowded in here with all these straw men.
The fact that you can point to a few cherry-picked research programs and show societal benefit is also extremely specious. Can you point to all the programs that have been a complete waste of funds? Now can you point to the programs that were not carried out in the private sector, because all the money was sucked up by federal taxes? To make a long story short, the US Federal government has specific duties assigned to it. "Basic research" is not one of them. No one is saying that *WE* shouldn't fund basic research. We're simply saying that the big, dumb federalist should stay on task, and keep their nose out of places where it shouldn't be.
Engineer --- one trained and adept at deriving the most benefit from the least investment.
I was told that by a teacher a long time ago. Getting the most from the least requires that you understand what each component of a system does, and how they all interact. Software Engineering simply means that you choose from among the available algorithms, languages and libraries in order to optimize a certain set of parameters. Mortality rates have nothing to do with it.
But software is different, for some reason. For example, do you see that happen with engineers that work for Microsoft? Hell no! If Microsoft's engineers were held accountable for its software like Engineers are, the company would have been sued into oblivion and engineers that work for Bill Gates would be in jail for gross negligence. And so would the responsible parties of every other software company.
There, fixed that for you. It is a subtle distinction, but a clear one. A PE is responsible, not the company he works for. HIS (or her) name is on the drawings/report/design spec/etc. That will make a major difference in what a person is willing to toss over the wall on the eve of a marketing set deadline.
Rule #1 of the internet: If you don't want anyone to see something, don't fucking put it it on the internet!
Which is just an extension of the more general "Rule #1 of life: I you don't want your mother to read it, don't write it down." I've gone over this so many times with my two teenage boys that I sound like a broken record.
I hope you aren't suggesting that someone's loss in the business world is worse off than living in extreme poverty or with a sickness that has no known cure?
and is mostly given away with strings attached that perpetuate the mechanisms of that illegality and immorality.
Depending on how tightly the strings are tied, yes someone's business loss could be worse than the extreme poverty. If the poverty is perpetuated...
but just take comfort in the fact that someones life could be better because of this.
Or someone's life could be worse. The fact of the matter is that the money was obtained by illegal and immoral means, and is mostly given away with strings attached that perpetuate the mechanisms of that illegality and immorality.
Why the hell would I cheer for SpaceX? Are THEY going to enable me to get a joyride to the edge of space? Why would I cheer for the irrelevance of OTHER people going to space?
At least Scaled is the approaching the problem in a manner that won't subject me to an extended period of high G acceleration.
And if the main gear are moved very close to the center of gravity (CG), more than sufficient, and will reduce the need for high power breaks. Many airplanes still fly with a tailSKID, and many gliders still use skids.
This flies directly in the face of the early poster that claims SS2 doesn't push the state of the art. SOA applies not only to new materials or designs that have never been seen before. It also applies to using old techniques in new ways, or in places that they weren't used before. It's not only reaching out for new things, but includes reaching back to make the old new again.
NASA, SpaceX, et.al., all have one approach....payload on top of a huge roman candle. Scaled is exploring an alternative approach.
explain why you feel that a vehicle with this low delta-V, horrible ISP, and proportionally high mass that faces bare minimal reentry heating -- advances the state of the art.
1)Because they can turn it around and send it back up in days vs. months.
2)The SS1 program....the ENTIRE thing.....cost only $10 million. The cost was kept down by using off the shelf components where possible, instead of contracting everything out for a new design. The WK2/SS2 project should post similar numbers.
3)Rotary engines have been running commercially since the 60's. Those production rotaries started being used in homebuilt aircraft about 20years ago. The first Dyke Delta was built in 1962. The first Dyke Delta flew with a rotary about 5 years ago. Should I just give up on experimenting with what I feel will provide significant improvements power output and drag reduction, because 'it's already been done', even though it has never been done in this way?
You're idea of what constitutes a 'contribution' is extremely myopic, exacerbated by tunnel vision. There is advancing state of the art and there is applying the state of the art to useful ventures. 'Useful' being individually determined in a free society. Both are necessary for advancement, and both answer questions that the other can't. ISP and delta-V is NOT the only problem that needs to be conquered to make space flight possible, affordable, or useful to the general population. Thinking that it is will insure that we will only approach space from one angle, and guarantee that all the other issues are ignored. In other words, guarantee that humanity will eventually die out on this rock.
One beautifully clear day, I got an itch and called my flight instructor to see if there were any openings for a flight that day.
"What? It's pouring rain," was his response. The airport was about 30miles away.
Since Congress has seen fit to allow consolidation of broadcast TV, all the news channels are one big conglomeration. The guy doing your weather reporting is also doing it for a city a couple hundred miles away. What he reports is the overall weather pattern, and that may have very little to what is out your window.
The problem is exacerbated by mountains. They tend to mix the layers in the air, creating micro-weather systems that aren't see over a wider area. The best thing to do is to look at the RADAR and satellite systems for yourself, and integrate that with what you see out the window.
There's some technologies that everyone wants, and there's a solution that'll fit 90% of the populace. Examples would be hosted email, contact management, and calendaring.
To reinforce your point, the attribute that ties all of your examples together is that they all need to make use of the network to be useful in the first place. Latency and reliability are already tied to the network. Having to have the network operational to play my flight sim, write a thesis, update the accounts receivable or do a CAD drawing? That's just silly. Activities that rely on the network may be centralized onto the network, but not much more than that.
Excuse me. You obviously haven't been paying attention. It's *Home*land, not Motherland. Can't you even get that one point right with as often as it has been repeated. Sheesh!!
Or you could read about what the actual prosecutors had to say. Nawh, that would be 'un-Slashdot-like' wouldn't it?
How about the prosecutors needed Microsoft competitors to press the punishment phase of the trial, but none showed up to the party. That couldn't have anything to do with it, could it?
How is graft and corruption ever the have chance in this country if we make it so simple? What would the talking heads talk about if there was a Obviosly, your oblivious to the complication of the American electorate and our diverse needs. Jeesh, dude. Would you think of the CHILDREN?
That's strange. He seems to be beating Thompson and Guilliani in nearly every primary. Yet, I continue to see both those candidate receiving significant news coverage. Lots of face time, and constant reports that Guilliani is going to win in Florida (as if that one state can get him nominated). What's more, neither of those two seem to have anything significant to say. Voting for Paul is a least a call for doing things that are significantly different than the status quo.
I can only say that the major media have gone out of their way to actively ignore Ron Paul. When they have provided any modicum of coverage to his campaign, it has been in the form of slander or ridicule. Why did Paul get a derisive question about "electability", instead of the policy issue everyone else was sidestepping, when he had won more of the vote than the proclaimed 'winner' of the debate?
If they'd forgotten Thompson and Guilliani, I might agree, but given the evidence, there seems to be a concerted effort to keep Paul from running at all.
Good point, but try using Microsoft Word across a 2400baud modem. Where is it's usability then?
This is not a joke. Vi was not written with high-resolution graphic displays in mind. It was designed around a minimalist character display and keyboard that had less that 102 keys. One of the aspects of usability is that it has to actually work on the available hardware. The neatest features just aren't worth squat if they drag the machine to a halt. At least, that's what I hear from people trying to run Vista.
Slashdot Mirror
So, what this boils down to is a truth-in-advertising issue?
If Comcast wasn't lying in their advertisements there wouldn't be an issue here. But I guess "56kbps guaranteed service, but more when it's available" doesn't have that certain ring to it.
The Drake Equation is getting pretty close to 1.0 in a lot of categories.
Dude! That's funny.
R* = We have some guesses from a few years of observation, but nothing approaching mathematical certainty.
fp = We just recently learned how to find planets, and the number found is extremely low compared to the number of stars found. It would be silly to try to assert with any certainty what percentage of stars have planets.
ne = Other than Earth, none have been found. No indication that any other will be found has been found. Nearly everything found so far have been gas giants orbiting close to their suns.
fl = Other than Earth, none have been found. No indication that any other will be found has been found.
fi = Other than Earth, none have been found. No indication that any other will be found has been found.
fc = Other than Earth, none have been found. No indication that any other will be found has been found.
L = Other than Earth, none have been found. No indication that any other will be found has been found.
If anything, the Drake equation is still sitting imperceptibly close to 0.
Geeks suffer as a whole when we spend all our energy arguing about a fringe political philosophy like libertarianism instead of focusing on issues that actually matter to us.
Issues like "Did Obama diss Hillary by not shaking her hand at the State of the Union Address?"
Or maybe "Did Hillary really cry, or was it just for show?"
No, I guess your talking about "Should our personal healthcare be controlled by a federal government, or by federal corporations?"
THOSE are the real issues, aren't they?
First, those look like low-bypass engines (yes, I know they are "normal" jet engines), which means very high exhaust velocities. The small wing also means high wing loading and high takeoff velocities. Those two facts seem to suggest a very loud plane which might run afoul of EU regs.
The wings look smaller than the Airbus 380 that they're comparing it to. You can't really tell the wing area from the pictures, but the aspect ratio is most definitely less. It is twice as long, and appears to have the same diameter. I'd say double the 380's weight, which would double the wing loading. Take-off would need more speed, by a factor of 1.4
L=Cl*V^2*S
Lift (L) would need to double. Lift co-efficient (Cl) will remain close unless they invent some new laws of physics. Being of such a low aspect ratio, Cl is likely to be much less than the 380. Surface area (S) will remain unchanged if the guess about wing area is valid. That only leaves the speed to increase to get the extra lift.
Now, look at the landing gear. Long, spindly legs compared to the 380. Any bump in the road on the way to takeoff will be absorbed at the end of a long lever arm, while carrying twice the weight. Unless the 380 engineers pulled a fast one on Airbus management in support of their landing gear manufacturing friends, one hard landing on those spindly legs will put the entire thing on it's belly (at 1.4 times the speed of a 380).
I say this is just concept drawings designed to ellicit matching research funds.
Would you please carry your straw men back to the cornfield they came from.
The Internet was developed as a military support system, not as basic research. A way to keep the nation and military running if the central switch was taken out (by a nuclear bomb, for instance). It was engineered with a clear goal in mind, which eliminates it from being 'basic research'. No one is arguing against the military funding military development. The fact that this one got away and was found to be useful elsewhere is just coincidence.
The WWW was not developed as part of federally funded research. It was developed because one physicist was irritated by impediments to his communications with colleagues. It wasn't developed as part of a federally funded research into information sharing, and it wasn't basic research. Again, it was engineered with a clear goal in mind. No doubt, something similar would have been developed somewhere else. The fact that it was developed at a facility receiving federal grants does nothing to support federal grants. Put this straw man next to the other one.
Colossus and ENIAC, again, were engineered to solve military problems. "ENIAC was designed and built to calculate artillery firing tables for the U.S. Army's Ballistic Research Laboratory." "The Colossus machines were electronic computing devices used by British codebreakers to read encrypted German messages during World War II." (Shamelessly stolen from Wikipedia.) No one is arguing against the US Federal government funding US Military research, because the US Constitution clearly lays that out as a responsibility of the US Federal government. What this any of this has to do with Colossus is anybodies guess. Colossus was a British project, after all.
No one is arguing against the military using its research division to investigate solution for military problems. The argument is against federal funds to investigate a cure for Parkinson's disease. If you're arguing that we need a cure for Parkinson's so that my 65yr old father can be drafted for Gulf War III, then you may have a point. Other good points would be developing drugs to make soldiers stronger/faster, or developing biological weapons; otherwise, it's getting awfully crowded in here with all these straw men.
The fact that you can point to a few cherry-picked research programs and show societal benefit is also extremely specious. Can you point to all the programs that have been a complete waste of funds? Now can you point to the programs that were not carried out in the private sector, because all the money was sucked up by federal taxes? To make a long story short, the US Federal government has specific duties assigned to it. "Basic research" is not one of them. No one is saying that *WE* shouldn't fund basic research. We're simply saying that the big, dumb federalist should stay on task, and keep their nose out of places where it shouldn't be.
Engineer --- one trained and adept at deriving the most benefit from the least investment.
I was told that by a teacher a long time ago. Getting the most from the least requires that you understand what each component of a system does, and how they all interact. Software Engineering simply means that you choose from among the available algorithms, languages and libraries in order to optimize a certain set of parameters. Mortality rates have nothing to do with it.
But software is different, for some reason. For example, do you see that happen with engineers that work for Microsoft? Hell no! If Microsoft's engineers were held accountable for its software like Engineers are, the company would have been sued into oblivion and engineers that work for Bill Gates would be in jail for gross negligence. And so would the responsible parties of every other software company.
There, fixed that for you. It is a subtle distinction, but a clear one. A PE is responsible, not the company he works for. HIS (or her) name is on the drawings/report/design spec/etc. That will make a major difference in what a person is willing to toss over the wall on the eve of a marketing set deadline.
You were trying to be to exact in adjusting the valve lash. The proper way to do it was to just tighten it until it stops clicking.
I have a 2000 Dodge Dakota Quad Cab.
To change the oil filter, you have to reach through and across the exhaust pipe!
Keep in mind, the proper way to change the oil is to warm up the engine first so that the oil flows freely. Warm engine == hot exhaust.
Rule #1 of the internet: If you don't want anyone to see something, don't fucking put it it on the internet!
Which is just an extension of the more general "Rule #1 of life: I you don't want your mother to read it, don't write it down." I've gone over this so many times with my two teenage boys that I sound like a broken record.
I hope you aren't suggesting that someone's loss in the business world is worse off than living in extreme poverty or with a sickness that has no known cure?
and is mostly given away with strings attached that perpetuate the mechanisms of that illegality and immorality.
Depending on how tightly the strings are tied, yes someone's business loss could be worse than the extreme poverty. If the poverty is perpetuated...
but just take comfort in the fact that someones life could be better because of this.
Or someone's life could be worse. The fact of the matter is that the money was obtained by illegal and immoral means, and is mostly given away with strings attached that perpetuate the mechanisms of that illegality and immorality.
Why the hell would I cheer for SpaceX? Are THEY going to enable me to get a joyride to the edge of space? Why would I cheer for the irrelevance of OTHER people going to space?
At least Scaled is the approaching the problem in a manner that won't subject me to an extended period of high G acceleration.
And if the main gear are moved very close to the center of gravity (CG), more than sufficient, and will reduce the need for high power breaks. Many airplanes still fly with a tailSKID, and many gliders still use skids.
This flies directly in the face of the early poster that claims SS2 doesn't push the state of the art. SOA applies not only to new materials or designs that have never been seen before. It also applies to using old techniques in new ways, or in places that they weren't used before. It's not only reaching out for new things, but includes reaching back to make the old new again.
NASA, SpaceX, et.al., all have one approach....payload on top of a huge roman candle. Scaled is exploring an alternative approach.
And doing it with STYLE, I might add.
explain why you feel that a vehicle with this low delta-V, horrible ISP, and proportionally high mass that faces bare minimal reentry heating -- advances the state of the art.
1)Because they can turn it around and send it back up in days vs. months.
2)The SS1 program....the ENTIRE thing.....cost only $10 million. The cost was kept down by using off the shelf components where possible, instead of contracting everything out for a new design. The WK2/SS2 project should post similar numbers.
3)Rotary engines have been running commercially since the 60's. Those production rotaries started being used in homebuilt aircraft about 20years ago. The first Dyke Delta was built in 1962. The first Dyke Delta flew with a rotary about 5 years ago. Should I just give up on experimenting with what I feel will provide significant improvements power output and drag reduction, because 'it's already been done', even though it has never been done in this way?
You're idea of what constitutes a 'contribution' is extremely myopic, exacerbated by tunnel vision. There is advancing state of the art and there is applying the state of the art to useful ventures. 'Useful' being individually determined in a free society. Both are necessary for advancement, and both answer questions that the other can't. ISP and delta-V is NOT the only problem that needs to be conquered to make space flight possible, affordable, or useful to the general population. Thinking that it is will insure that we will only approach space from one angle, and guarantee that all the other issues are ignored. In other words, guarantee that humanity will eventually die out on this rock.
One beautifully clear day, I got an itch and called my flight instructor to see if there were any openings for a flight that day.
"What? It's pouring rain," was his response. The airport was about 30miles away.
Since Congress has seen fit to allow consolidation of broadcast TV, all the news channels are one big conglomeration. The guy doing your weather reporting is also doing it for a city a couple hundred miles away. What he reports is the overall weather pattern, and that may have very little to what is out your window.
The problem is exacerbated by mountains. They tend to mix the layers in the air, creating micro-weather systems that aren't see over a wider area. The best thing to do is to look at the RADAR and satellite systems for yourself, and integrate that with what you see out the window.
If the voting system is more complicated than a basic 4-function calculator, you're doing something waaaaaaay wrong.
If it is more complicated than a ONE function calculator, something is waaaaaaay wrong.
There's some technologies that everyone wants, and there's a solution that'll fit 90% of the populace. Examples would be hosted email, contact management, and calendaring.
To reinforce your point, the attribute that ties all of your examples together is that they all need to make use of the network to be useful in the first place. Latency and reliability are already tied to the network. Having to have the network operational to play my flight sim, write a thesis, update the accounts receivable or do a CAD drawing? That's just silly. Activities that rely on the network may be centralized onto the network, but not much more than that.
If you were implanted with special hearing aids that gave you 30% better hearing than others you would see things differently.
Only if you're batman.
I think they should return to original intent and force the athletes to participate in the nude. THEN the Olympics would be interesting.
Hell, Marion Jones lives not to far from me. I'd show up just to watch her practice.
Excuse me. You obviously haven't been paying attention. It's *Home*land, not Motherland. Can't you even get that one point right with as often as it has been repeated. Sheesh!!
Other than that, you're bang on.
Or you could read about what the actual prosecutors had to say. Nawh, that would be 'un-Slashdot-like' wouldn't it?
How about the prosecutors needed Microsoft competitors to press the punishment phase of the trial, but none showed up to the party. That couldn't have anything to do with it, could it?
How is graft and corruption ever the have chance in this country if we make it so simple? What would the talking heads talk about if there was a Obviosly, your oblivious to the complication of the American electorate and our diverse needs. Jeesh, dude. Would you think of the CHILDREN?
That's strange. He seems to be beating Thompson and Guilliani in nearly every primary. Yet, I continue to see both those candidate receiving significant news coverage. Lots of face time, and constant reports that Guilliani is going to win in Florida (as if that one state can get him nominated). What's more, neither of those two seem to have anything significant to say. Voting for Paul is a least a call for doing things that are significantly different than the status quo.
I can only say that the major media have gone out of their way to actively ignore Ron Paul. When they have provided any modicum of coverage to his campaign, it has been in the form of slander or ridicule. Why did Paul get a derisive question about "electability", instead of the policy issue everyone else was sidestepping, when he had won more of the vote than the proclaimed 'winner' of the debate?
If they'd forgotten Thompson and Guilliani, I might agree, but given the evidence, there seems to be a concerted effort to keep Paul from running at all.
Good point, but try using Microsoft Word across a 2400baud modem. Where is it's usability then?
This is not a joke. Vi was not written with high-resolution graphic displays in mind. It was designed around a minimalist character display and keyboard that had less that 102 keys. One of the aspects of usability is that it has to actually work on the available hardware. The neatest features just aren't worth squat if they drag the machine to a halt. At least, that's what I hear from people trying to run Vista.