GPS satellites are not geostationary... they're actually in a fairly low orbit. There's just a lot of them, so there should always be 3 or so of them above the horizon wherever you are.
Actually I saw a documentary the other day on wrongful convictions obtained using fingerprint evidence in the USA. They came up with some staggering numbers.
There is a professional certification for fingerprint examiners. You can't take the test unless you are already employed as a fingerprint examiner.
Around 50% of those checking fingerprints in their day-to-day work have not passed the certification.
The problem is particularly bad in small Police Departments where a full time fingerprint examiner is not required.
Fully automated checking of fingerprints is not yet a reality, in particular because most crime scene prints are only partial prints and very often of poor quality.
It's hard to see how Hormel could claim ownership of SPAM for every possible industry classification anyway. Normally a trademark is tied to a particular type of product.
APCP propellant will generally extinguish if the pressure in the motor is suddenly dropped, as you say by blowing out one end of the motor. It certainly ceases to burn in a thrust producing manner once the pressure is dropped. Even if the propellant continued to burn it would be at a much reduced rate.
ill give this one to you; but challenger didnt blow up; the right-side SRB (sold rocket booster) did. a faulty o-ring let the SRB go wild and blow up; the resulting shockwave disentigrating Challenger. again, challenger didnt blow up, the SRB did. but technically you are right..
The SRB didn't blow up... as a result of a faulty o-ring in generated thrust in a sideways direction causing it to break free and poke a hole in the high pressure liquid hydrogen tank at the front of the main fuel tank. The resulting explosion was partly the rupture of the hydrogen and oxygen tanks and partly the combustion of the hydrogen. The SRBs continued flying until mission control fired explosive devices which depressurised the motor causing the propellent to exinguish. The type of propellent in SRB's doesn't really explode terribly well in it's finished form.
The fact that it was a high pressure pure oxygen environment was the problem..... from what i remember the capsule was supposed to operate at an internal air pressure of 4psi. To simulate being in space (ie internal air pressure 4psi greater than outside) it was pressurised to normal air-pressure (14ish) + 4psi. Pure oxygen at 4psi may not have been a problem but the effect of pure oxygen at 18+ psi would be to start a fire out of almost anything, static sparks from clothing, bad wiring etc..
An issue here is whether the RIAA can go into court claiming to be an injured party when they've been found to be operating an illegal price control system.
The disclaimer actually refers to privileged material not copyrighted material. This is a standard law firm email disclaimer. It is actually only applicable to attorney-client communications which are legally protected, but is usually attached to all email coming from a lawfirm as a CYA measure. It is not intended to prevent publication of a letter.
Contracts generally don't claim to be legal under any particular law. I think what you are referring to is the clause that specifies the jurisidiction for any court actions arising under the contract. You are right that stating that it would be governed by British law wouldn't be worth anything. However it wouldn't necessarily invalidate the rest of the contract as there are other means of determining jurisdiction for lawsuts (such as where the contract was signed for example). Usually any bad wording in a contract leaves you wide open to having that part essentially rewritten by a judge who would try to determine what the parties intended when they entered into the contract.
No the BBC's charter makes it very clear that it has editorial independence from the government. It is correct to say that it is publicly funded. The BBC has had no qualms in the past about taking up a position contrary to the government.
...and increase your propellant mass by 25-50%, add and additional level of complexity
As do the the turbopumped liquid fueled mail engines. One study of the space shuttle design concluded that the only reason for burning the main engines between liftoff and booster separation was to lift the extra mass required for the turbopumps which wouldn't be required if the main engines were ignited at / around booster separation.
There's all kinds of ways governments subsidize these businesses... whether it's loans, government contracts with guaranteed profit, tax breaks etc. Everybody does it, Airbus is far from unique.
I live in Washington State where they're currently talking about passing massive tax cuts just for Boeing... no other business would benefit from this.
And the US government paying Boeing billions of dollars to completely half-ass the operation of the space shuttle fleet isn't a subsidy ? When they can even collect their contract bonuses after the shuttle is destroyed. Give me a break.... look at some of those deals and tell me they're not just a great big gift of government cash to a private corporation.
Assuming they had every detail the same, including complier, code optimizations etc...etc... But I was thinking more about their "proof" shown to the press... I've heard nothing to substantiate their claim that was they are exhibiting as their own code is their own. Without contextual information, the comparison is basically meaningless.
Exactly.... I was wondering the other day... if the code examples Sco are showing are identical... how do they prove who had it first... or even which is which.
SCO would also have a hard time winning the case if Novell (the owner of the copyright) says that it doesn't infringe on their copyright. Then the argument about breach of contract is lame because you would have to prove the code was misappropriated to win the breach of contract claim.
Slashdot Mirror
GPS satellites are not geostationary ... they're actually in a fairly low orbit. There's just a lot of them, so there should always be 3 or so of them above the horizon wherever you are.
Actually I saw a documentary the other day on wrongful convictions obtained using fingerprint evidence in the USA. They came up with some staggering numbers.
There is a professional certification for fingerprint examiners. You can't take the test unless you are already employed as a fingerprint examiner.
Around 50% of those checking fingerprints in their day-to-day work have not passed the certification.
The problem is particularly bad in small Police Departments where a full time fingerprint examiner is not required.
Fully automated checking of fingerprints is not yet a reality, in particular because most crime scene prints are only partial prints and very often of poor quality.
It's hard to see how Hormel could claim ownership of SPAM for every possible industry classification anyway. Normally a trademark is tied to a particular type of product.
APCP propellant will generally extinguish if the pressure in the motor is suddenly dropped, as you say by blowing out one end of the motor. It certainly ceases to burn in a thrust producing manner once the pressure is dropped. Even if the propellant continued to burn it would be at a much reduced rate.
2. Challenger - blew up in the air
... as a result of a faulty o-ring in generated thrust in a sideways direction causing it to break free and poke a hole in the high pressure liquid hydrogen tank at the front of the main fuel tank. The resulting explosion was partly the rupture of the hydrogen and oxygen tanks and partly the combustion of the hydrogen. The SRBs continued flying until mission control fired explosive devices which depressurised the motor causing the propellent to exinguish. The type of propellent in SRB's doesn't really explode terribly well in it's finished form.
ill give this one to you; but challenger didnt blow up; the right-side SRB (sold rocket booster) did. a faulty o-ring let the SRB go wild and blow up; the resulting shockwave disentigrating Challenger. again, challenger didnt blow up, the SRB did. but technically you are right..
The SRB didn't blow up
The fact that it was a high pressure pure oxygen environment was the problem ..... from what i remember the capsule was supposed to operate at an internal air pressure of 4psi. To simulate being in space (ie internal air pressure 4psi greater than outside) it was pressurised to normal air-pressure (14ish) + 4psi. Pure oxygen at 4psi may not have been a problem but the effect of pure oxygen at 18+ psi would be to start a fire out of almost anything, static sparks from clothing, bad wiring etc..
It seems to me that the two are very closely related ... the RIAA is asking a court to enforce a right which it has been found to have abused.
An issue here is whether the RIAA can go into court claiming to be an injured party when they've been found to be operating an illegal price control system.
The disclaimer actually refers to privileged material not copyrighted material. This is a standard law firm email disclaimer. It is actually only applicable to attorney-client communications which are legally protected, but is usually attached to all email coming from a lawfirm as a CYA measure. It is not intended to prevent publication of a letter.
I'm pretty sure that SMP development was done by Alan Cox using Caldera provided hardware. I'm sure Alan will correct me if I'm wrong.
Contracts generally don't claim to be legal under any particular law. I think what you are referring to is the clause that specifies the jurisidiction for any court actions arising under the contract. You are right that stating that it would be governed by British law wouldn't be worth anything. However it wouldn't necessarily invalidate the rest of the contract as there are other means of determining jurisdiction for lawsuts (such as where the contract was signed for example). Usually any bad wording in a contract leaves you wide open to having that part essentially rewritten by a judge who would try to determine what the parties intended when they entered into the contract.
No the BBC's charter makes it very clear that it has editorial independence from the government. It is correct to say that it is publicly funded. The BBC has had no qualms in the past about taking up a position contrary to the government.
I think a better question is whether a programmers ability is affected by the length of his beard.
...and increase your propellant mass by 25-50%, add and additional level of complexity
As do the the turbopumped liquid fueled mail engines. One study of the space shuttle design concluded that the only reason for burning the main engines between liftoff and booster separation was to lift the extra mass required for the turbopumps which wouldn't be required if the main engines were ignited at / around booster separation.
Replace the SRB's with hybrids that can be throttled or shut down and even restarted.
There's all kinds of ways governments subsidize these businesses ... whether it's loans, government contracts with guaranteed profit, tax breaks etc. Everybody does it, Airbus is far from unique.
... no other business would benefit from this.
I live in Washington State where they're currently talking about passing massive tax cuts just for Boeing
yes genetic as in descended from the original unix.
And the US government paying Boeing billions of dollars to completely half-ass the operation of the space shuttle fleet isn't a subsidy ? When they can even collect their contract bonuses after the shuttle is destroyed. Give me a break .... look at some of those deals and tell me they're not just a great big gift of government cash to a private corporation.
Assuming they had every detail the same, including complier, code optimizations etc...etc... But I was thinking more about their "proof" shown to the press ... I've heard nothing to substantiate their claim that was they are exhibiting as their own code is their own. Without contextual information, the comparison is basically meaningless.
Exactly .... I was wondering the other day ... if the code examples Sco are showing are identical ... how do they prove who had it first... or even which is which.
Yeah the comments at the top of both files say :
(C)Copyright 19xx Regents of the University of California.
I believe it's the reassignment of an already registered work that must be registered with the copyright office.
The replay is available now .... just dialled in on that number.
They have 30 days to stop using the popups.
SCO would also have a hard time winning the case if Novell (the owner of the copyright) says that it doesn't infringe on their copyright. Then the argument about breach of contract is lame because you would have to prove the code was misappropriated to win the breach of contract claim.