The Spruce Goose, even regarded as a WIGE vehicle (which I agree was its intended purpose), still had one major problem: it was grossly underpowered, and needed a huge stretch of calm water to haul itself airborne.
KM (the Russian built "Caspian Seamonster") has similar issues. It has 10 turbojet engines and needs all of them to take off. Once flying it can manage with 2. Even if you were to use modern aeroengines you still have the problem that water generates a lot more drag than air.
Essentially the same thing as halon, but hugs the ground better because it has a higher boiling point and a denser vapor.
Tetra-chloro-methane is also highly toxic and carcenogenic. At one time 1,1,1-tri-chloro-ethane was considered a safer alternative, but I think that has now been classified as highly toxic too.
I am not expert in aerodymnamisc but in general the turbulences above wings increases the lifting forces but also drag forces so you increase the fuel consumption (you can see that during plane landing where for lower velocities the wings are reshaped)/
The purposes of flaps (and leading edge slats) is to lower the stalling speed and increase lift at low speed. Otherwise you'd need much longer runways. (Though probably not quite as long as that at the KSC).
The mistake that caused the Hyatt disaster was not one of failing to consider human motion in the design, but failing to consider the effects of seemingly minor changes in design.
It certainly wasn't the first case where an apparently minor change made in construction caused a structure to collapse. Nor is it likely to be the last.
Human effects on bridges is hardly a surprise. Recall in 1981 when the Kansas City Hyatt's skywalk collapsed, killing 114, because the pedestrians were dancing (and the design was altered to ease construction).
Actually this wasn't a "human effect" the walkways would have collapsed anyway, as built, simply due to the force of gravity. Since the bolts holding the upper walkway were taking the load of both. (Also the bolts were right through where two pieces of metal were welded together. Thw whole thing simply wasn't built as designed.) The Millennium Bridge sway was due to people moving on it, it was, AFAIK, built according to the design. Just that the design was bad.
To remove it properly they'd need two legit copies. Who could be stuffed doing that? And the fear factor of being identified as having removed the known serial number would stop a lot of people.
This is only to be an issue for casual copying. A commercial pirate organisation isn't going to stopped by needing to get a few legit copies...
Instead of the serial number being in plaintext, and checked for validity, it should be a watermark entirely invisible for the end-user. Neither the hardware nor user would know the watermark was there.
If the "watermark" is invisible then it might easily completly disappear from a copy, especially one converted to a different format... Anyway simple comparison of multiple copies of the same work will indicate where the serial number is. With something like a CD you could probably use completly optical methods to do this.
In another/. story, we cave the case of the EULA being abused by a file swapping service that allows them to run arbitrary software on your computer and disable your anti-spyware software. While this software is free, it abusive to the consumer and morally repugnant.
Except that by doing this the software is no longer "free" (as in no charge to the end user) since it then uses a portion of their computer and bandwidth.
If I want to sell software on a per-machine basis, I can make you agree either in a paper contract or a EULA that you'll only install it on one machine. If you were to abolish the EULA, I as a developer, would refuse to grant you license to use the software unless you were to sign a paper contract.
Which is find, because then people can actually negotaite with you.Basically though, a good EULA is like any other good contract.
No it isn't, since you arn't letting one party even know what is in it, let alone negotiate it before they buy.
It clarifies the intent behind the sale
Sales don't need any clarification, they involve implied contracts which have been refined over thousands of years.
At the same time, the end user agrees not to try to burn 50 copies and sell them on the open market.
There is no need for any special EULA here. Bog standard copyright law applies...
Skiping commercials is theft? Then what about hitting mute? What about going to the bathroom? What about talking loudly to your loved ones during commercial?
For a long time electricity companies have had to plan for commercial breaks. Because then a lot of people watching the programme suddenly do things which use a lot more electricity, such as turning on lights, boiling water, etc. Even going to the toilet can use electricity, since water is often pumped by electric pumps.
Are they going to come and beat me now up if I flip the channel during a commercial. I almost always do.
A way TV companies have tried to counter this is synchronised commercial breaks, so that channel hopping will simply get another commercial, sometimes even the same commercial...
Of course they didn't have a device to prevent political "corrections" like the severe beatings Gargarin was given after his flight was over (and there are in fact photos of him with his face beaten in).
There, of course, being no possibility that his injuries might have been caused by being subjected to high G forces...
Conventional rocket motors suffer from the need to carry their own oxidizer (O2) but if the first stage of flight used air-breathing engines then far less of this heavy fuel element would be required. The result would be a lighter "wet" vehicle that required less power to fly.
One possibly useful idea would be for the carrier (or even towing) vehicle to have a plant producing lox from the air it is flying through. Thus the oribital vehicle need only take off with fuel on board.
The design from Boeing is an interesting one. It looks like a smaller shuttle attached to a jumbo jet. It's then flown near the limits of space where the top ship would then come apart and finish it's journey into space on it's own.
Which is very much like the original design NASA didn't go with in the 1970's. Doubt the "Jumbo" would look exactly like a 747 though. Since it would need to be capable of supersonic high altitude flight.
Any hypothetical Mars bacteria, then, will be at a disadvantage insofar as they won't be adapted specifically to screw over Earth plants and animals. This means it's unlikely that they'll be doing anything really complex, like hijacking our own cellular systems to help them reproduce, or disguising themselves as something they're not. But they can still reproduce, reproduce, reproduce, consume nutrients (especially the super-rich nutrients you tend to find in a large plant or animal),
Assuming that bacterium has a biochemistry compatable with terrestial organisms. One single chiral carbon difference could mean it starving to death.
This can be plently deadly, especially if your immune system doesn't even notice the bacteria in question because it is totally unlike anything it's designed to deal with.
If it is so different that a mammalian immune system can't recongise it as something alien. Then that increase the possibility that it won't be able to do much with any of the sugars, amino acids, fatty acids, etc that it would find in a terrestial organism.
This idea is actually laughable. Earth's bacteria and plagues have been evolving for billions of years just to kill Earth organisms.
Actually they evolved to survive attempts by the host to kill them. Actually killing it's host dosn't really do the invading orgainsm much good. Hence you end up with many diseases which do not kill the host.
Goodness, let alone so-called Mars bacteria. Let's think about this - if Mars has bacteria on it at all, shouldn't it have evolved at roughly the same rate as Earth's?
You cannot compare. Since Martian bacteria would face different evolutionary preassures. On Mars surviving extremes to temperature is more important than on Earth. On Earth surviving in an oxygen rich environment is important, as is competition with all sorts of other organisms. (Including many which have sophisticated methods of killing bacteria.)
What if the astronauts get there, and some random bacteria is on their spacesuit? Or some other piece of equiptment for that matter? It 'd be like smallpox in the New World all over again. We could actually see life on Mars destroyed by our visit, before we ever actually get to see much of it.
The assumption here is that Terrestrial and Martian organisms are fundermentally the same. They could look similar but use different biochemistry (including different chirality). No way would the smallpox analogy hold. Since the smallpox vuirus had a long time to evolve methods of avoiding getting squashed by mammalian immune systems.
In the Hindenburg disaster, all of the hydrogen was gone with a pop. The ensuing fire, flames, and mayhem were the result of the paint- the zepplin was painted with a compound that was intended to reduce drag. Unfortunately, this paint was essentially jet fuel.
Not quite correct, the paint was effectivly rocket fuel. Similar to that used in SRBs. Another purpose of it was to be reflective and thus prevent solar heating of the gas, which would have ment needing to adjust vertical trim more between day and night. The other fuel on board was that for the engines.
Unlike traditional broadcasting, the cost of operation jumps for each listener tuned in.
You can help this with an infrastructure more complicated than a single server location. But they you have to pay out more, and be able to install "repeater" servers at short notice depending on your ongoing listener/viewer demographics.
The fact of the matter is that this country was founded as, and will always be, a pirate nation. As much as our government enjoys defaming China and like nations for the rampant piracy within their boundaries, from the beginning of copyright law in the United States the laws were purposefully worded in order to stimulate the society and promote the progress of the arts. Thomas Jefferson best explains the copyright clause of the Constitution in an 1813 letter.
Most likely were Mr Jefferson alive today he'd be arguing that since communication has much improvied in the last 200 years copyright terms should be getting shorter.
The framers understood that it is absolutely necessary to protect the ideas of an individual, for the purpose of encouraging the creators in society to create, but such protection should not, and must not be extended beyond the point where they are beneficial to society. This is why the Constitution portions out 'limited times' of protection as the sole enumerated power granted to the congress in order 'to promote the progress of science and useful arts.'
Whilst the definition of "limited time" has been stretched to mean "any finite time" the bit about promoting the progress of science and userful arts appears to have been much ignored. To the point where there is proposed legislation which directly opposes the progress of part of these.
Federal Circuit Judge Richard Posner noted, "creative works are both an input and an output in the creative process; if you raise the cost of the input, you get less output." It is easy to forget how much of the creative process depends on the works of others, for inspiration and motivation. Judge Posner eloquently posits the belief that at a certain point, protection of source material will begin to hinder more than help the arts which it attempts to nurture.
Which probably isn't an original idea. Quite possibly it's the reason the US constitution was written that way in the first place. Indeed "limited time" could just as easily cover the term of protection going down as well as up. Possibly with some kinds of work to a period better measured in weeks or months than years.
They don't seem to understand this point. Most digital consumers notice the irrelvancy of the "big record companies". What we want is direct support of the artist, and paying the artist for their work instead of the majority of a "CD" being used up in overhead.
This has always been the case whilst there are plenty of fans and fan organisations for singers, song writers and musicians has anyone ever heard of a fan club for a major record company? There might be fan clubs for certain record labels, but that is usually because they are strongly associated with specific artists, record producers, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
The Spruce Goose, even regarded as a WIGE vehicle (which I agree was its intended purpose), still had one major problem: it was grossly underpowered, and needed a huge stretch of calm water to haul itself airborne.
KM (the Russian built "Caspian Seamonster") has similar issues. It has 10 turbojet engines and needs all of them to take off. Once flying it can manage with 2.
Even if you were to use modern aeroengines you still have the problem that water generates a lot more drag than air.
Essentially the same thing as halon, but hugs the ground better because it has a higher boiling point and a denser vapor.
Tetra-chloro-methane is also highly toxic and carcenogenic. At one time 1,1,1-tri-chloro-ethane was considered a safer alternative, but I think that has now been classified as highly toxic too.
I am not expert in aerodymnamisc but in general the turbulences above wings increases the lifting forces but also drag forces so you increase the fuel consumption (you can see that during plane landing where for lower velocities the wings are reshaped)/
The purposes of flaps (and leading edge slats) is to lower the stalling speed and increase lift at low speed. Otherwise you'd need much longer runways. (Though probably not quite as long as that at the KSC).
The mistake that caused the Hyatt disaster was not one of failing to consider human motion in the design, but failing to consider the effects of seemingly minor changes in design.
It certainly wasn't the first case where an apparently minor change made in construction caused a structure to collapse. Nor is it likely to be the last.
In the old USSR (Stalin times), there was a standard bridge acceptance test: 1) put project managers, lead architects and engineers under the bridge;
More recently a Moscow court sentanced an architect to live in a building he designed. Most likely this is a Russian, rather than Soviet, principle.
Human effects on bridges is hardly a surprise. Recall in 1981 when the Kansas City Hyatt's skywalk collapsed, killing 114, because the pedestrians were dancing (and the design was altered to ease construction).
Actually this wasn't a "human effect" the walkways would have collapsed anyway, as built, simply due to the force of gravity. Since the bolts holding the upper walkway were taking the load of both. (Also the bolts were right through where two pieces of metal were welded together. Thw whole thing simply wasn't built as designed.)
The Millennium Bridge sway was due to people moving on it, it was, AFAIK, built according to the design. Just that the design was bad.
To remove it properly they'd need two legit copies. Who could be stuffed doing that? And the fear factor of being identified as having removed the known serial number would stop a lot of people.
This is only to be an issue for casual copying. A commercial pirate organisation isn't going to stopped by needing to get a few legit copies...
Instead of the serial number being in plaintext, and checked for validity, it should be a watermark entirely invisible for the end-user. Neither the hardware nor user would know the watermark was there.
If the "watermark" is invisible then it might easily completly disappear from a copy, especially one converted to a different format... Anyway simple comparison of multiple copies of the same work will indicate where the serial number is. With something like a CD you could probably use completly optical methods to do this.
In another /. story, we cave the case of the EULA being abused by a file swapping service that allows them to run arbitrary software on your computer and disable your anti-spyware software. While this software is free, it abusive to the consumer and morally repugnant.
Except that by doing this the software is no longer "free" (as in no charge to the end user) since it then uses a portion of their computer and bandwidth.
If I want to sell software on a per-machine basis, I can make you agree either in a paper contract or a EULA that you'll only install it on one machine. If you were to abolish the EULA, I as a developer, would refuse to grant you license to use the software unless you were to sign a paper contract.
Which is find, because then people can actually negotaite with you.Basically though, a good EULA is like any other good contract.
No it isn't, since you arn't letting one party even know what is in it, let alone negotiate it before they buy.
It clarifies the intent behind the sale
Sales don't need any clarification, they involve implied contracts which have been refined over thousands of years.
At the same time, the end user agrees not to try to burn 50 copies and sell them on the open market.
There is no need for any special EULA here. Bog standard copyright law applies...
Skiping commercials is theft? Then what about hitting mute? What about going to the bathroom? What about talking loudly to your loved ones during commercial?
For a long time electricity companies have had to plan for commercial breaks. Because then a lot of people watching the programme suddenly do things which use a lot more electricity, such as turning on lights, boiling water, etc. Even going to the toilet can use electricity, since water is often pumped by electric pumps.
Are they going to come and beat me now up if I flip the channel during a commercial. I almost always do.
A way TV companies have tried to counter this is synchronised commercial breaks, so that channel hopping will simply get another commercial, sometimes even the same commercial...
Of course they didn't have a device to prevent political "corrections" like the severe beatings Gargarin was given after his flight was over (and there are in fact photos of him with his face beaten in).
There, of course, being no possibility that his injuries might have been caused by being subjected to high G forces...
Conventional rocket motors suffer from the need to carry their own oxidizer (O2) but if the first stage of flight used air-breathing engines then far less of this heavy fuel element would be required. The result would be a lighter "wet" vehicle that required less power to fly.
One possibly useful idea would be for the carrier (or even towing) vehicle to have a plant producing lox from the air it is flying through. Thus the oribital vehicle need only take off with fuel on board.
The design from Boeing is an interesting one. It looks like a smaller shuttle attached to a jumbo jet. It's then flown near the limits of space where the top ship would then come apart and finish it's journey into space on it's own.
Which is very much like the original design NASA didn't go with in the 1970's.
Doubt the "Jumbo" would look exactly like a 747 though. Since it would need to be capable of supersonic high altitude flight.
Any hypothetical Mars bacteria, then, will be at a disadvantage insofar as they won't be adapted specifically to screw over Earth plants and animals. This means it's unlikely that they'll be doing anything really complex, like hijacking our own cellular systems to help them reproduce, or disguising themselves as something they're not. But they can still reproduce, reproduce, reproduce, consume nutrients (especially the super-rich nutrients you tend to find in a large plant or animal),
Assuming that bacterium has a biochemistry compatable with terrestial organisms. One single chiral carbon difference could mean it starving to death.
This can be plently deadly, especially if your immune system doesn't even notice the bacteria in question because it is totally unlike anything it's designed to deal with.
If it is so different that a mammalian immune system can't recongise it as something alien. Then that increase the possibility that it won't be able to do much with any of the sugars, amino acids, fatty acids, etc that it would find in a terrestial organism.
This idea is actually laughable. Earth's bacteria and plagues have been evolving for billions of years just to kill Earth organisms.
Actually they evolved to survive attempts by the host to kill them. Actually killing it's host dosn't really do the invading orgainsm much good. Hence you end up with many diseases which do not kill the host.
Goodness, let alone so-called Mars bacteria. Let's think about this - if Mars has bacteria on it at all, shouldn't it have evolved at roughly the same rate as Earth's?
You cannot compare. Since Martian bacteria would face different evolutionary preassures. On Mars surviving extremes to temperature is more important than on Earth. On Earth surviving in an oxygen rich environment is important, as is competition with all sorts of other organisms. (Including many which have sophisticated methods of killing bacteria.)
What if the astronauts get there, and some random bacteria is on their spacesuit? Or some other piece of equiptment for that matter? It 'd be like smallpox in the New World all over again. We could actually see life on Mars destroyed by our visit, before we ever actually get to see much of it.
The assumption here is that Terrestrial and Martian organisms are fundermentally the same. They could look similar but use different biochemistry (including different chirality).
No way would the smallpox analogy hold. Since the smallpox vuirus had a long time to evolve methods of avoiding getting squashed by mammalian immune systems.
In the Hindenburg disaster, all of the hydrogen was gone with a pop. The ensuing fire, flames, and mayhem were the result of the paint- the zepplin was painted with a compound that was intended to reduce drag. Unfortunately, this paint was essentially jet fuel.
Not quite correct, the paint was effectivly rocket fuel. Similar to that used in SRBs. Another purpose of it was to be reflective and thus prevent solar heating of the gas, which would have ment needing to adjust vertical trim more between day and night.
The other fuel on board was that for the engines.
What is the Access replacement of choice lately.
Has anyone developed a file based database whichc an read access files?
And don't say SQL Server!
You could get similar functionality from an SQL front end. Again, not sure if anyone has yet written one.
Does any one know of a way to convert office 95 files into something that could be used by either star office or open office.
Have you tried just opening them?
does any one know of anything which would fit my requirments ? I looked at open office before and I do not think it does
In what way does it not?
Unlike traditional broadcasting, the cost of operation jumps for each listener tuned in.
You can help this with an infrastructure more complicated than a single server location. But they you have to pay out more, and be able to install "repeater" servers at short notice depending on your ongoing listener/viewer demographics.
The fact of the matter is that this country was founded as, and will always be, a pirate nation. As much as our government enjoys defaming China and like nations for the rampant piracy within their boundaries, from the beginning of copyright law in the United States the laws were purposefully worded in order to stimulate the society and promote the progress of the arts. Thomas Jefferson best explains the copyright clause of the Constitution in an 1813 letter.
Most likely were Mr Jefferson alive today he'd be arguing that since communication has much improvied in the last 200 years copyright terms should be getting shorter.
The framers understood that it is absolutely necessary to protect the ideas of an individual, for the purpose of encouraging the creators in society to create, but such protection should not, and must not be extended beyond the point where they are beneficial to society. This is why the Constitution portions out 'limited times' of protection as the sole enumerated power granted to the congress in order 'to promote the progress of science and useful arts.'
Whilst the definition of "limited time" has been stretched to mean "any finite time" the bit about promoting the progress of science and userful arts appears to have been much ignored. To the point where there is proposed legislation which directly opposes the progress of part of these.
Federal Circuit Judge Richard Posner noted, "creative works are both an input and an output in the creative process; if you raise the cost of the input, you get less output." It is easy to forget how much of the creative process depends on the works of others, for inspiration and motivation. Judge Posner eloquently posits the belief that at a certain point, protection of source material will begin to hinder more than help the arts which it attempts to nurture.
Which probably isn't an original idea. Quite possibly it's the reason the US constitution was written that way in the first place. Indeed "limited time" could just as easily cover the term of protection going down as well as up. Possibly with some kinds of work to a period better measured in weeks or months than years.
They don't seem to understand this point. Most digital consumers notice the irrelvancy of the "big record companies". What we want is direct support of the artist, and paying the artist for their work instead of the majority of a "CD" being used up in overhead.
This has always been the case whilst there are plenty of fans and fan organisations for singers, song writers and musicians has anyone ever heard of a fan club for a major record company? There might be fan clubs for certain record labels, but that is usually because they are strongly associated with specific artists, record producers, etc.