The choice of the F-104 is by no accident. It's low altitude performance is well known.
Darryl Greenamyer's Red Baron F-104 did 998 mph (mach 1.30) officially and 1013 mph (mach 1.33) unofficially. At less than 300 ft, back in the '70's. The J79 has to be water/alcohol injected during runs like these, otherwise it will exceed it's maximum inlet operating temps.
Say what you want about the F-104, but it was built to fly straight and fast, intercept and shoot down bombers. Another work or artfrom Kelly Johnson and company IMHO. Especially considering the timeframe.
Too bad the North American Eagle team are having a hard time raising funding. It's interesting to see a J79 powered 104 go up against all this new radical technology. The F-104 was known for it's low altitude speed ability.
Darryl Greenamyer's Red Baron F-104 did 998 mph (mach 1.30) officially and 1013 mph (mach 1.33) unofficially. At less than 300 ft, back in the '70's. The J79 has to be water/alcohol injected during runs like these, otherwise it will exceed it's maximum inlet operating temps.
I made a lot of money back in the 90's repairing NTFS installs. The similarity with it, back then, and EXT4 is they are/were young file systems.
Give Ted and company a break. Let him get the damn thing fixed up (I have plenty of faith in Ted). Hell, I even remember losing an EXT3 file system back when it was fresh out of the gate. And I'm sure there's plenty who could say the same for all those you listed, including ZFS.
And your comment about extended data caching. Is your memory short? Remember "laptop mode", specifically setup this way to keep the hard drive from having to spin up...
And I used to make my living repairing NTFS filesystems back in the 90's. Back then the smart folks had their boot drive formatted FAT for a reason. Of course, NTFS is much more mature now than back then. The same argument applies here, EXT4 was just released for general use. We should all give it, and Ted and company, a break.
I've followed Ted's work for many years on the FOSS front. I fully expect him to make EXT4 work best in both scenarios (data safety and performance optimized).
True, most only really think of oil as being the next big thing to cause mass hysteria, but few realize that potable water is a dwindling resource in certain regions. Even the giant Ogallala aquifer in the central United States is showing increased rate of depletion (not to mention pollution).
SS-N-22s came online in 1984. Assuming the state of a lot of other Soviet tech, what level of combat readiness do you think they are in?
The fact that the Chinese are tweaking and modernizing them is really the biggest issue of threat.
The 60-70nm range of a 3K82 isn't a huge threat specifically. The BARCAP range around a carrier task group in a war time situation is much larger than that. Getting the SS-N-22 into a launching position might be difficult with an Aegis + SM-2ER umbrella.
That's not to say we're ignoring the threat. Upgrades such as the RIM-116 Block II are specifically targeted at threats like the SS-N-22 (flight testing began in 2008).
The simple fact that we have not fielded any super/hypersonic missiles in an offensive posture isn't a great concern. Having the offensive super/hypersonic cruise capability doesn't represent a _defense_ against a similar weapon fired in the opposite direction.
And if you're thinking Iranian? The last time they tangled with the USN the outcome wasn't pretty.
The scariest geo-political thing to come about, as of late, is the decoupling of US-China trade relations. This is putting China in hard economic situation as the US's consumer spending habits come back down to reality. It always seems like a good war breaks out whenever the world hits a large economic breakdown...
Was the decision to use the Taurus to keep launch costs down? Launching from Vandenberg, I'm assuming they were aiming for a steep inclination. Just wondering if anyone knows why they didn't go with a Delta II....
I'm not sure your definition of "cruise" in your post, but the idea that a 747 can't stay aloft on 2 engines isn't relatively true. You should be able to maintain FL150 or so, depending upong conditions and fuel load. And if things get hairy, dump fuel until you get below MLW.
Now, if by "cruise", you meant maintain 490 KTAS at FL350, you are correct. Not gonna happen on 2 engines. But you're talking double engine failures, I'd _much_ rather be on a 747 (4-2 = 2) than a 777 (2-2 = 0). 747's with double engine failures have returned safely on multiple occasions.
> So, a double engine failure on a 747 isn't > really much better than a double engine failure > on a 777.
I agree with the sentiment of your post. More parts/engines, more chances or failure. And high ETOPS rated twins are more economical to operate.
Standard cruise on a 747 is.85 Mach (567MPH) and a 777 is.84 Mach (560MPH).
Both of these planes are capable of much greater speeds, the limiting factor..... the sound barrier. They are not designed for the shock wave build up such speeds will generate.
If you were watching the NatGeo special on Air Force One, you'd of saw the interview with the Air Cap F-16 pilot who had to radio AF1 to actually slow down so he could limit his fuel burn. AF1 was cruising at.90 Mach at the time.
Don't think for a second these lumbering giants can't get up and move... Those cruise speeds are chosen for maximum efficiency and to limit air frame fatigue.
Namibia comes to mind. Few high profile CEO's are/were camping out there. Though they don't have an official extradition policy, it appears Interpol can nab you if it wants.
Current transmission losses are in the 7% range (averaged). Long haul lines are possible, but it doesn't seem any have been built that are ultra high capacity. From my perspective, yea, we may not be able to reach the far fringe consumers (Seattle, NYC) without a higher than average loss rate, but it can be done (coastal production could help offset this, tidal, wind, etc).
One of Picken's point is that this isn't the big bang solution. He says we need to get started somewhere and do something to 1) Just get the ball rolling and 2) Simply buy time for a complete solution. Waiting for a knee jerk reaction once oil hits $200 a barrel won't help.
Like i said, make your own judgements (due to his past). But he has ponied up the $58 million required to build the current farm under construction. And he also seems to not want to get into partisan squabbles over any of it (he only agreed to talk to McCain and Obama if they agree to meet together, not separately). So far his forums are very open, and he's taking his approach to both the media and washington.
Building wind facilities in the corridor that stretches from the Texas panhandle to North Dakota could produce 20% of the electricity for the United States at a cost of $1 trillion. It would take another $200 billion to build the capacity to transmit that energy to cities and towns.
That's a lot of money, but it's a one-time cost. And compared to the $700 billion we spend on foreign oil every year, it's a bargain.
Profit or not profit, $700 billion (and rising), is flowing right out of the country. Now,
of course he expects some return on his investment, but he knows he'll be long dead before it turns a dime of any real profit.
My view is, I'm still skeptical, but it is reassuring that someone it attempting to tackle it (and Pickens is a man that the conservatives might listen to) and is using his resources and influence to put boots on the ground _right now_ instead of bickering about it in congress.
T. Boone Pickens is the guy funding a lot of this. He's a retired oil tycoon (who now runs some hedge funds). Even if you can't agree with his past and his wealth, you can't disagree with the fact that this guy is stepping up and attempting to _do someting_ about the problem. And he's willing to use his wealth to try and make it happen. They are currently constructing the largest wind farm in the world in western Texas.
As for more drilling == more supply. That may not be the case. Mexico had an 8% decline last year. Their major fields hit peak. As they decline, they will hoard more and more oil for their own domestic use, meaning less to export to the US. Guwar in Saudi Arabia has been reported to be pumping 50% sea water, an indication that it may have, or will soon be, hitting peak.
I personally think we need drill more just to minimize the supply decline in the coming years. Perhaps enough to buy us time to get renewables in place.
The reason for this is cost. They have plenty of leases on public land, but:
1) The surveys show little or no oil possibility. 2) Surveys show reserves, but the cost to recover those reserves are negative.
Oil companies aren't here to extract the oil at a loss just so the United States can continue to drive our beloved SUVs.
Most wont believe, but the cost to recover oil is increasing greatly. A deep water rig can cost close to a million dollars a day to operate. Ever look at what it takes to extract oil from shale? Just the cost to extract is would make the oil worth $70 a barrel. Not to mention the fact that our energy consumption goes up by simply attempting to extract it.
Drill more isn't a solution. We need renewables. But, enough renewables to satisfy energy demand are decades away. Until then we still need fossil fuels to drive the trucks, trains, and planes in large quantities (the things that make an economy tick). We can move electrical and auto fuels over more quickly, but getting a 747 retrofitted for alternatives isn't cheap (and takes time). The answer is drill now and make serious investments into renewables.
I digress when i think of how much further we could be in renewables with the money sunk into the Iraq war....
In closing, if you want some good commentary on the financial impacts, listen to Jim Puplava:
I know these look pricey, but they're worth it (aka: save yourself the trouble of cheap indoor access points in a box). They have everything you need, all in a rugged outdoor enclosure. And yes, they run Linux.
First off, sorry about the loss. Even if the person isn't close to you personally, seeing how it affects the family is bad enough.
My advice would be to start with the laptop. Boot it off a rescue cd or USB stick and grab all the personal account (including root) md5 hashes out of the/etc/shadow file.
Then run those hashes through a rainbow crack to try and get some clear text representations of the hashes. Info on Rainbow Tables, here, here, and here.
Boot the laptop to a prompt and try all the clear text representations for the accounts and see if any of them work. If they do, then great, you have the passwords.
The passwords themselves are worthless on the laptop (you've already demonstrated you can snoop it without them, as you had to to obtain the hashes). Their value is in the fact that they _may_ have used the same passwords for their email, online accounts, etc.
The propaganda that I find really funny is the DoD stating that it "nailed" the fuel tank. C'mon, the impact probably released over 100 megajoules of energy. Were they really aiming for the "fuel tank" or just trying to hit the damn thing? With that much energy, who cares?
Big Dick waiving, yes. Technical success, yes. Political success, TBD.
On a side note, I was reading a story written by a guy who was stationed at Thule AFB in Greenland where one of the first BMEWS (Ballistic Missle Early Warning System) Radars was deployed back in the late 50's early 60's. From a tech standpoint, it is quite fascinating what we could do back then with such limited technology and how it was accomplished. Read the intro through the epilog, I enjoyed it, so I'm passing it along...
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't tried a GIT build recently, but as of my last attempt, multi GPU was still broken. Xorg Bug 25593
The choice of the F-104 is by no accident. It's low altitude performance is well known.
Darryl Greenamyer's Red Baron F-104 did 998 mph (mach 1.30) officially and 1013 mph (mach 1.33) unofficially. At less than 300 ft, back in the '70's. The J79 has to be water/alcohol injected during runs like these, otherwise it will exceed it's maximum inlet operating temps.
Say what you want about the F-104, but it was built to fly straight and fast, intercept and shoot down bombers. Another work or artfrom Kelly Johnson and company IMHO. Especially considering the timeframe.
Gene patents are also big in the agriculture industry. And they actively sue to keep it that way.
Too bad the North American Eagle team are having a hard time raising funding. It's interesting to see a J79 powered 104 go up against all this new radical technology. The F-104 was known for it's low altitude speed ability.
Darryl Greenamyer's Red Baron F-104 did 998 mph (mach 1.30) officially and 1013 mph (mach 1.33) unofficially. At less than 300 ft, back in the '70's. The J79 has to be water/alcohol injected during runs like these, otherwise it will exceed it's maximum inlet operating temps.
The fact sheet [PDF Warning] on the current VHF system in use.
I just posted in the wrong thread. Synopsis:
I made a lot of money back in the 90's repairing NTFS installs. The similarity with it, back then, and EXT4 is they are/were young file systems.
Give Ted and company a break. Let him get the damn thing fixed up (I have plenty of faith in Ted). Hell, I even remember losing an EXT3 file system back when it was fresh out of the gate. And I'm sure there's plenty who could say the same for all those you listed, including ZFS.
And your comment about extended data caching. Is your memory short? Remember "laptop mode", specifically setup this way to keep the hard drive from having to spin up...
And I used to make my living repairing NTFS filesystems back in the 90's. Back then the smart folks had their boot drive formatted FAT for a reason. Of course, NTFS is much more mature now than back then. The same argument applies here, EXT4 was just released for general use. We should all give it, and Ted and company, a break.
I've followed Ted's work for many years on the FOSS front. I fully expect him to make EXT4 work best in both scenarios (data safety and performance optimized).
man mount
Look for data=journal
There's more than one mode of journaling in ext[3-4]...
Or if you're too lazy.
True, most only really think of oil as being the next big thing to cause mass hysteria, but few realize that potable water is a dwindling resource in certain regions. Even the giant Ogallala aquifer in the central United States is showing increased rate of depletion (not to mention pollution).
There are a few books on the subject.
Nice piece of sensationalist work.
SS-N-22s came online in 1984. Assuming the state of a lot of other Soviet tech, what level of combat readiness do you think they are in?
The fact that the Chinese are tweaking and modernizing them is really the biggest issue of threat.
The 60-70nm range of a 3K82 isn't a huge threat specifically. The BARCAP range around a carrier task group in a war time situation is much larger than that. Getting the SS-N-22 into a launching position might be difficult with an Aegis + SM-2ER umbrella.
That's not to say we're ignoring the threat. Upgrades such as the RIM-116 Block II are specifically targeted at threats like the SS-N-22 (flight testing began in 2008).
The simple fact that we have not fielded any super/hypersonic missiles in an offensive posture isn't a great concern. Having the offensive super/hypersonic cruise capability doesn't represent a _defense_ against a similar weapon fired in the opposite direction.
And if you're thinking Iranian? The last time they tangled with the USN the outcome wasn't pretty.
The scariest geo-political thing to come about, as of late, is the decoupling of US-China trade relations. This is putting China in hard economic situation as the US's consumer spending habits come back down to reality. It always seems like a good war breaks out whenever the world hits a large economic breakdown...
Was the decision to use the Taurus to keep launch costs down? Launching from Vandenberg, I'm assuming they were aiming for a steep inclination. Just wondering if anyone knows why they didn't go with a Delta II....
I'm not sure your definition of "cruise" in your post, but the idea that a 747 can't stay aloft on 2 engines isn't relatively true. You should be able to maintain FL150 or so, depending upong conditions and fuel load. And if things get hairy, dump fuel until you get below MLW.
Now, if by "cruise", you meant maintain 490 KTAS at FL350, you are correct. Not gonna happen on 2 engines. But you're talking double engine failures, I'd _much_ rather be on a 747 (4-2 = 2) than a 777 (2-2 = 0). 747's with double engine failures have returned safely on multiple occasions.
> So, a double engine failure on a 747 isn't
> really much better than a double engine failure
> on a 777.
I agree with the sentiment of your post. More parts/engines, more chances or failure. And high ETOPS rated twins are more economical to operate.
That was Tex Johnston and he actually did it twice.
FYI,
Standard cruise on a 747 is .85 Mach (567MPH) and a 777 is .84 Mach (560MPH).
Both of these planes are capable of much greater speeds, the limiting factor..... the sound barrier. They are not designed for the shock wave build up such speeds will generate.
If you were watching the NatGeo special on Air Force One, you'd of saw the interview with the Air Cap F-16 pilot who had to radio AF1 to actually slow down so he could limit his fuel burn. AF1 was cruising at .90 Mach at the time.
Don't think for a second these lumbering giants can't get up and move... Those cruise speeds are chosen for maximum efficiency and to limit air frame fatigue.
Before you get your panties in a bunch over VM accounting you should read this on one of your linux boxes:
vi /usr/share/doc/kernel-doc-2.6.18/Documentation/vm/overcommit-accounting
Namibia comes to mind. Few high profile CEO's are/were camping out there. Though they don't have an official extradition policy, it appears Interpol can nab you if it wants.
Current transmission losses are in the 7% range (averaged). Long haul lines are possible, but it doesn't seem any have been built that are ultra high capacity. From my perspective, yea, we may not be able to reach the far fringe consumers (Seattle, NYC) without a higher than average loss rate, but it can be done (coastal production could help offset this, tidal, wind, etc).
One of Picken's point is that this isn't the big bang solution. He says we need to get started somewhere and do something to 1) Just get the ball rolling and 2) Simply buy time for a complete solution. Waiting for a knee jerk reaction once oil hits $200 a barrel won't help.
Like i said, make your own judgements (due to his past). But he has ponied up the $58 million required to build the current farm under construction. And he also seems to not want to get into partisan squabbles over any of it (he only agreed to talk to McCain and Obama if they agree to meet together, not separately). So far his forums are very open, and he's taking his approach to both the media and washington.
Building wind facilities in the corridor that stretches from the Texas panhandle to North Dakota could produce 20% of the electricity for the United States at a cost of $1 trillion. It would take another $200 billion to build the capacity to transmit that energy to cities and towns.
That's a lot of money, but it's a one-time cost. And compared to the $700 billion we spend on foreign oil every year, it's a bargain.
Profit or not profit, $700 billion (and rising), is flowing right out of the country. Now,
of course he expects some return on his investment, but he knows he'll be long dead before it turns a dime of any real profit.
My view is, I'm still skeptical, but it is reassuring that someone it attempting to tackle it (and Pickens is a man that the conservatives might listen to) and is using his resources and influence to put boots on the ground _right now_ instead of bickering about it in congress.
T. Boone Pickens is the guy funding a lot of this. He's a retired oil tycoon (who now runs some hedge funds). Even if you can't agree with his past and his wealth, you can't disagree with the fact that this guy is stepping up and attempting to _do someting_ about the problem. And he's willing to use his wealth to try and make it happen. They are currently constructing the largest wind farm in the world in western Texas.
Check it out for yourself and make your own judgements...
We're definitely on the same page. Regards.
As for more drilling == more supply. That may not be the case. Mexico had an 8% decline last year. Their major fields hit peak. As they decline, they will hoard more and more oil for their own domestic use, meaning less to export to the US. Guwar in Saudi Arabia has been reported to be pumping 50% sea water, an indication that it may have, or will soon be, hitting peak.
I personally think we need drill more just to minimize the supply decline in the coming years. Perhaps enough to buy us time to get renewables in place.
Nobody knows for sure, only time will tell....
The reason for this is cost. They have plenty of leases on public land, but:
1) The surveys show little or no oil possibility.
2) Surveys show reserves, but the cost to recover those reserves are negative.
Oil companies aren't here to extract the oil at a loss just so the United States can continue to drive our beloved SUVs.
Most wont believe, but the cost to recover oil is increasing greatly. A deep water rig can cost close to a million dollars a day to operate. Ever look at what it takes to extract oil from shale? Just the cost to extract is would make the oil worth $70 a barrel. Not to mention the fact that our energy consumption goes up by simply attempting to extract it.
Drill more isn't a solution. We need renewables. But, enough renewables to satisfy energy demand are decades away. Until then we still need fossil fuels to drive the trucks, trains, and planes in large quantities (the things that make an economy tick). We can move electrical and auto fuels over more quickly, but getting a 747 retrofitted for alternatives isn't cheap (and takes time). The answer is drill now and make serious investments into renewables.
I digress when i think of how much further we could be in renewables with the money sunk into the Iraq war....
In closing, if you want some good commentary on the financial impacts, listen to Jim Puplava:
Financial sense news hour, specifically the "Third Hour: Big Picture".
This episode specifically covers what we're talking here.
I know these look pricey, but they're worth it (aka: save yourself the trouble of cheap indoor access points in a box). They have everything you need, all in a rugged outdoor enclosure. And yes, they run Linux.
SMC2891W-AG Wireless Outdoor Bridge
Data Sheet
Manual
First off, sorry about the loss. Even if the person isn't close to you personally, seeing how it affects the family is bad enough.
/etc/shadow file.
My advice would be to start with the laptop. Boot it off a rescue cd or USB stick and grab all the personal account (including root) md5 hashes out of the
Then run those hashes through a rainbow crack to try and get some clear text representations of the hashes. Info on Rainbow Tables, here, here, and here.
Boot the laptop to a prompt and try all the clear text representations for the accounts and see if any of them work. If they do, then great, you have the passwords.
The passwords themselves are worthless on the laptop (you've already demonstrated you can snoop it without them, as you had to to obtain the hashes). Their value is in the fact that they _may_ have used the same passwords for their email, online accounts, etc.
HTH
ZoneMinder It has some really nice features.
Ship that took the shot:
USS Lake Erie
Missle Used:
SM-3 with kinetic interceptor
Tracking was probably provided by the SBX amongst other sensors.
Previous intercept videos of importance:
Japan Defence SM-3 test
Prior shot from USS Lake Erie
The propaganda that I find really funny is the DoD stating that it "nailed" the fuel tank. C'mon, the impact probably released over 100 megajoules of energy. Were they really aiming for the "fuel tank" or just trying to hit the damn thing? With that much energy, who cares?
Big Dick waiving, yes. Technical success, yes. Political success, TBD.
On a side note, I was reading a story written by a guy who was stationed at Thule AFB in Greenland where one of the first BMEWS (Ballistic Missle Early Warning System) Radars was deployed back in the late 50's early 60's. From a tech standpoint, it is quite fascinating what we could do back then with such limited technology and how it was accomplished. Read the intro through the epilog, I enjoyed it, so I'm passing it along...