It's always burned me that so many people see arithmetic and mathmatics as the same thing.
I have always SUCKED at aritmetic. But I've also had a talent for mathmatics. Had I not gotten a lucky break in 6th grade, I would almost certainly have ended up in shop instead of trig. My 6th grade teacher was very confused by my test scores and decided to take a chance...
Not all students are identical. I know that teachers have only so much time and energy, and that students (and parents) will soak up all that a teacher has to give (both my wife and my mother-in-law are teachers). That said applying the same formula to each and every student is a sure-fire way to achieve mediocrity (at best).
This is NOT about Hohman Minimum Energy Transfer Orbits.
A Hohman orbit assumes a starting orbit about a primary gravitational well and a destination orbit about the same well. The Hohman orbit is characterized by 2 burns. The first burn transitions the craft from it's original orbit into a transfer orbit that is tangential to both the original orbit and the destination orbit. The second burn occurs at the point where the transfer orbit meets the destination orbit and makes the transition into the destination orbit. A Hohman orbit totally neglects the interaction of the gravitational fields of the various bodies involved.
The Lagrange points are a first order effect of the interaction between the gravitational fields of moving objects.
This research is a result of the idea that there are larger regions of space where the combination of gravitational and coriolis forces more-or-less cancel out. It's not a new idea. In 1998 this technique was used to salvage satellite when it had insufficient fuel to make the straightforward Hohman transfer into the desired orbit. (See http://ecolloq.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/2000-Spring/a nnounce.belbruno.html)
The Interplanetary Superhighway is an outgrowth of that work.
The chaos theory angle is not bullshit... the development of chaos theory is what allowed this type of analysis to be done in the first place.
Many years ago I worked on a mission critical aircraft survivability system for combat aircraft. Before fielding the system we had to pass environmental testing, including running the system at -55C. At -55C the system would occassionally go deaf, dumb, and blind. The environmental chamber we had wasnt particularly large, not that I really wanted to climb inside for a debugging session. We ended up making extra long cables for our logic analyzer and soldering test leads to various points on the board. Needless to say things went very slowly. Every time we wanted to instrument a different test point, we had to warm up the chamber, change the test leads around and then wait for the chamber to cool off again. Eventually (after 6 weeks) we discovered that at low tempuratures the power line monitor circuit was passing glitches on it's own power supply line right through to the main CPU. The glitches weren't long enough to reset the CPU. However, at -55C the CPU would happily pass the glitches along and reset all the peripherals. We ended up scrapping a few thousand boards that had already been fabricated. The fancy power line monitor circuit got replaced with a pair of transistors and a few resistors.
Acceleration is not just what happens when you step on the gas. It's also what happens when you step on the brake, corner... any change in the magnitude or direction of the velocity vector.
However, I would still take issue if they police department was in fact leaving the car unlocked w/keys since I think it would pose a public safety risk to kids that might get in trouble if they had easy access to a car w/keys.
Never mind the fact that the police are watching the car and they have a kill switch. I can't think of a much safer situtation. Most kids I know do have access to car keys, their parent's. If a kid's going to take a car isn't it better that they do so under that watchful eye of the police?
I'm not sure why I'm posting a response to an AC's troll. Maybe I'm just in a bad mood and want to share.
"
I consider myself to be very technically inclined having programmed in VB for the last 8 years doing kernel level programming. I don't believe in C programming because contrary to popular belief, VB can go just as low level as C and the newest VB compiler generates code that's every bit as fast.
I started programming as student in 1974. I've been developing software professionally since 1984. I've developed applications in Java, Smalltalk, C++, C, Ada, FORTRAN, PASCAL, PL/M, Forth, Assembly, and other languages. I guess you could say that I have a fair amount of experience. Certainly enough to spot a (expletive deleted) self-important, know-nothing like yourself.
I will not admit to working in VB.
There are many applications where VB is totally inappropriate. Consider any real-time embedded system where all you have is bare metal and a compiler. I know you won't believe it but, such applications do exist. Most of the black-boxes on a modern aircraft would qualify.
Your enthusiastic lack of experience only makes me feel sorry for your clients. They are the ones getting the short end of the stick. Your difficulties configuring a few Linux machines highlights your inexperience.
It's probably a good thing you posted as an AC. Regardless, I can guarentee that you wouldn't have gotten hired on ANY team that I've ever worked with. You don't have the expertise or mind-set required (even in those cases where the team needed VB experience).
The invention to be patented must NOT be obvious "to one of ordinary skill in the art."
This patent fails the test... as do most patents like it.
The patent office is clearly violating the public trust by awarding patents for "inventions" which which are clearly obvious "to one of ordinary skill in the art."
I've been in industry almost 20 years. I've survived many layoffs (including two within the last six months), and _never_ been laid off myself.
I'm not laughing... I'm shaking my head sadly.
I watched quietly as the dot-bombs boomed. I kept my head, my job, and my house.
I could say I told you so, but I never did tell you so. All my friends also kept their heads, jobs, and houses.
I can say I saw this coming. I didn't know exactly when or how it would come. But it was clear that the dot-bomb mentality was unstable and would eventually collapse.
For me,... things actually haven't changed at all.
I don't relish the idea of looking for a job in the current climate. But then, I don't have to.
I've certainly had jobs where my language knowledge was helpful in getting them. OTOH: I have not needed to know any particular language over the course of my career. Exposure to a variety of languages demonstrates:
1) that you can comprehend a variety of environments and are at least aware that there is more out there than just Java, or Ada, or Fortan, or C, or... ad nauseum.
2) that you at least have a chance of thinking 'outside' the box that any particular language might put you in.
3) That you can pick up a new language when it becomes necessary... and it will become necessary.
When I went to school, most of the languages we use today didn't exist. I've learned several languages during my career including: C++ (as opposed to C), Java, Smalltalk, Ada (yuch!), various assemblers,... Had I not been exposed to several languages when I was in school, I might not have been able to generalize and adapt as easily as I have.
Whoa...
Stealth is also known as Low-Observable, indicating that is more difficult to detect that traditional configurations (whatever the mission).
Were I a F-117 pilot, I'd want moonless or overcast nights for my missions. Optically tracking a black plane with clear skies during a full moon wouldn't be that much harder than tracking any other plane.
Neither the radar-absorptive coating or the shape is sufficient (by themselves) for the stealth mission.
It is true that the radar-absorptive coating attenuates the reflected image a greate deal.
It is also true that the shape of the F-117 is crafted to deflect radar energy away from the return path. That's why it has the weird faceted shape.
The B2 gets the same result from carefully crafted curves.
The difference is actually a sreult of advances in the modelling of radar relfection.
During some of the tests of the F-117, some of the fasteners weren't sealed properly. They didn't expose a significant amount of uncoated surface. However, as a result of the uncontrolled edges, those tests resulted in an observable radar cross-section.
Another significant feature of the F-117 and the B2 is the handling of hot exhaust gasses. Steps are taken to cool the exhaust and vent it over the wing to reduce the IR signature observable from the ground.
There are several techniques that can theoretically defeat current stealth technology. All of them require considerable expenditures of money and time. A large part of the cold war was (and is) economic. If you can decide where your potential oponents spend their money, you can also decicde where they don't spend their money.
Disclaimer: IANAL
I don't see that it's at all obvious that the company is trying to steal anything... it may be a simple coincidence. It may also be that the emplyee, given his intimate knowledge of the employers business could see the opportunity.
The only way I see to get clear of this is with complete disclosure. It may not be easy and might even begin a process that leads to the employee and employer going their separate ways.
OTOH: It's just possible that a win-win solution could be at hand. If both parties are amenable, and full disclosure is made up front, it conceivable that the employee and employer could reach an agreement to share the product. Presumably the company would bring a broader sales and marketing capability to the table, while the employee brings a nearly completed product.
Certainly, the first sane step would be to seek the advice of an attorney. Until you get the attorney's advice, you should do NO ADDITIONAL WORK on the product, paid or otherwise.
I do know of a couple of times this sort of thing has happened... IMHO: it usually works out to the employers benefit.
Free speech in the U.S. is limited when it presents a "Clear and Present Danger", such as yelling fire in a crowded theater. (Note: IANAL)
The assiant principal may have had a slander or liable case. However, the principal was clearly in no kind of danger (present or otherwise). Thus, the student's First Amendment Right remains in effect.
In all likelyhood, the jacobs ladder is in place as a safety device. Where I work, we use a jacobs ladder to disapate the energy if a newly constructed discharge lamp fails to light. Its also great for the kids when they come though on tours...
When subscription MS office comes presintalled, I will happily wipe the disk, install what I like and not miss a thing. I recall numerous machine that came to me, bundled with MS Works... I have thrown away every copy.
Sure, they can do this... but I plan on keeping all my old copies of SW around. They can have my CD collection when they pry it out of my cold dead fingers.
Slashdot Mirror
It's always burned me that so many people see arithmetic and mathmatics as the same thing.
I have always SUCKED at aritmetic. But I've also had a talent for mathmatics. Had I not gotten a lucky break in 6th grade, I would almost certainly have ended up in shop instead of trig. My 6th grade teacher was very confused by my test scores and decided to take a chance...
Not all students are identical. I know that teachers have only so much time and energy, and that students (and parents) will soak up all that a teacher has to give (both my wife and my mother-in-law are teachers). That said applying the same formula to each and every student is a sure-fire way to achieve mediocrity (at best).
This is NOT about Hohman Minimum Energy Transfer Orbits.
a nnounce.belbruno.html)
A Hohman orbit assumes a starting orbit about a primary gravitational well and a destination orbit about the same well. The Hohman orbit is characterized by 2 burns. The first burn transitions the craft from it's original orbit into a transfer orbit that is tangential to both the original orbit and the destination orbit. The second burn occurs at the point where the transfer orbit meets the destination orbit and makes the transition into the destination orbit. A Hohman orbit totally neglects the interaction of the gravitational fields of the various bodies involved.
The Lagrange points are a first order effect of the interaction between the gravitational fields of moving objects.
This research is a result of the idea that there are larger regions of space where the combination of gravitational and coriolis forces more-or-less cancel out. It's not a new idea. In 1998 this technique was used to salvage satellite when it had insufficient fuel to make the straightforward Hohman transfer into the desired orbit. (See http://ecolloq.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/2000-Spring/
The Interplanetary Superhighway is an outgrowth of that work.
The chaos theory angle is not bullshit... the development of chaos theory is what allowed this type of analysis to be done in the first place.
[BTW: Momentum is not a force... 'nuff said]
Many years ago I worked on a mission critical aircraft survivability system for combat aircraft. Before fielding the system we had to pass environmental testing, including running the system at -55C. At -55C the system would occassionally go deaf, dumb, and blind. The environmental chamber we had wasnt particularly large, not that I really wanted to climb inside for a debugging session. We ended up making extra long cables for our logic analyzer and soldering test leads to various points on the board. Needless to say things went very slowly. Every time we wanted to instrument a different test point, we had to warm up the chamber, change the test leads around and then wait for the chamber to cool off again. Eventually (after 6 weeks) we discovered that at low tempuratures the power line monitor circuit was passing glitches on it's own power supply line right through to the main CPU. The glitches weren't long enough to reset the CPU. However, at -55C the CPU would happily pass the glitches along and reset all the peripherals. We ended up scrapping a few thousand boards that had already been fabricated. The fancy power line monitor circuit got replaced with a pair of transistors and a few resistors.
Acceleration is not just what happens when you step on the gas. It's also what happens when you step on the brake, corner... any change in the magnitude or direction of the velocity vector.
Um... that's called acceleration. You slept through physics too.
What color is the sky in your world?
The concept of objective reporting has been nothing but fiction for at least 30 years.
Never mind the fact that the police are watching the car and they have a kill switch. I can't think of a much safer situtation. Most kids I know do have access to car keys, their parent's. If a kid's going to take a car isn't it better that they do so under that watchful eye of the police?
"...sir, it's a big ass sky"
Absolutely none.
I will not admit to working in VB.
There are many applications where VB is totally inappropriate. Consider any real-time embedded system where all you have is bare metal and a compiler. I know you won't believe it but, such applications do exist. Most of the black-boxes on a modern aircraft would qualify.
Your enthusiastic lack of experience only makes me feel sorry for your clients. They are the ones getting the short end of the stick. Your difficulties configuring a few Linux machines highlights your inexperience.
It's probably a good thing you posted as an AC. Regardless, I can guarentee that you wouldn't have gotten hired on ANY team that I've ever worked with. You don't have the expertise or mind-set required (even in those cases where the team needed VB experience).
The invention to be patented must NOT be obvious "to one of ordinary skill in the art."
This patent fails the test... as do most patents like it.
The patent office is clearly violating the public trust by awarding patents for "inventions" which which are clearly obvious "to one of ordinary skill in the art."
So... um...
You're not crazy?
And most of them don't know or care what day it is...
I've been in industry almost 20 years. I've survived many layoffs (including two within the last six months), and _never_ been laid off myself.
... things actually haven't changed at all.
I'm not laughing... I'm shaking my head sadly.
I watched quietly as the dot-bombs boomed. I kept my head, my job, and my house.
I could say I told you so, but I never did tell you so. All my friends also kept their heads, jobs, and houses.
I can say I saw this coming. I didn't know exactly when or how it would come. But it was clear that the dot-bomb mentality was unstable and would eventually collapse.
For me,
I don't relish the idea of looking for a job in the current climate. But then, I don't have to.
I've certainly had jobs where my language knowledge was helpful in getting them. OTOH: I have not needed to know any particular language over the course of my career. Exposure to a variety of languages demonstrates:
... ad nauseum.
... Had I not been exposed to several languages when I was in school, I might not have been able to generalize and adapt as easily as I have.
1) that you can comprehend a variety of environments and are at least aware that there is more out there than just Java, or Ada, or Fortan, or C, or
2) that you at least have a chance of thinking 'outside' the box that any particular language might put you in.
3) That you can pick up a new language when it becomes necessary... and it will become necessary.
When I went to school, most of the languages we use today didn't exist. I've learned several languages during my career including: C++ (as opposed to C), Java, Smalltalk, Ada (yuch!), various assemblers,
Money = Work / Knowledge
... a lot.
Money increases without bound as knowledge approaches zero. This explains
> MBA's: Can't live with 'em. Can't legally > torture them to death Damn!
Whoa... Stealth is also known as Low-Observable, indicating that is more difficult to detect that traditional configurations (whatever the mission). Were I a F-117 pilot, I'd want moonless or overcast nights for my missions. Optically tracking a black plane with clear skies during a full moon wouldn't be that much harder than tracking any other plane. Neither the radar-absorptive coating or the shape is sufficient (by themselves) for the stealth mission. It is true that the radar-absorptive coating attenuates the reflected image a greate deal. It is also true that the shape of the F-117 is crafted to deflect radar energy away from the return path. That's why it has the weird faceted shape. The B2 gets the same result from carefully crafted curves. The difference is actually a sreult of advances in the modelling of radar relfection. During some of the tests of the F-117, some of the fasteners weren't sealed properly. They didn't expose a significant amount of uncoated surface. However, as a result of the uncontrolled edges, those tests resulted in an observable radar cross-section. Another significant feature of the F-117 and the B2 is the handling of hot exhaust gasses. Steps are taken to cool the exhaust and vent it over the wing to reduce the IR signature observable from the ground. There are several techniques that can theoretically defeat current stealth technology. All of them require considerable expenditures of money and time. A large part of the cold war was (and is) economic. If you can decide where your potential oponents spend their money, you can also decicde where they don't spend their money.
UPS?
Disclaimer: IANAL I don't see that it's at all obvious that the company is trying to steal anything... it may be a simple coincidence. It may also be that the emplyee, given his intimate knowledge of the employers business could see the opportunity. The only way I see to get clear of this is with complete disclosure. It may not be easy and might even begin a process that leads to the employee and employer going their separate ways. OTOH: It's just possible that a win-win solution could be at hand. If both parties are amenable, and full disclosure is made up front, it conceivable that the employee and employer could reach an agreement to share the product. Presumably the company would bring a broader sales and marketing capability to the table, while the employee brings a nearly completed product. Certainly, the first sane step would be to seek the advice of an attorney. Until you get the attorney's advice, you should do NO ADDITIONAL WORK on the product, paid or otherwise. I do know of a couple of times this sort of thing has happened... IMHO: it usually works out to the employers benefit.
Free speech in the U.S. is limited when it presents a "Clear and Present Danger", such as yelling fire in a crowded theater. (Note: IANAL) The assiant principal may have had a slander or liable case. However, the principal was clearly in no kind of danger (present or otherwise). Thus, the student's First Amendment Right remains in effect.
In all likelyhood, the jacobs ladder is in place as a safety device. Where I work, we use a jacobs ladder to disapate the energy if a newly constructed discharge lamp fails to light. Its also great for the kids when they come though on tours...
When subscription MS office comes presintalled, I will happily wipe the disk, install what I like and not miss a thing. I recall numerous machine that came to me, bundled with MS Works... I have thrown away every copy.
Sure, they can do this... but I plan on keeping all my old copies of SW around. They can have my CD collection when they pry it out of my cold dead fingers.