A google search for the phrase pulls up exactly one link that references Macs in the first page. Okay, there's an outlier in a page dominated by actually relevant results.
A bing search pulls up exactly one link that actually references windows itself being expensive. Okay, there's one real result in a page dominated by failures (excepting, I suppose, the one or two results that related to actual physical windows being expensive.)
I'm not talking about the mass of the launch vehicle- I'm talking about the mass of the satellite in general. If you look at each "TubeSat", it contains the main satellite body, the bus electronics, etc. These things are not mass-free- in particular, the body itself is probably several kilograms at a minimum. Your payload only resides within that body. Therefore, even if the entirety of the payload of 4 TubeSats is propellant, you may have less than a 1:1 fuel/mass ratio- which isn't going to get you out of earth orbit.
To be more specific- It's not like you can take on satellite, and strap 4 raw blocks of fuel next to it. There's some level of overhead, and that only makes an already less-than-feasible proposition *more* infeasible.
If you've got a dense reaction mass, you're not under your half-pound mass budget. That's the problem. There are probably ways to compress the necessary reactant into that amount of *volume*, but I don't think there's any way to do it in that amount of *mass*.
It's not just drag you're worried about- it's the simple amount of energy necessary to get you into higher orbits even ignoring drag- even worse if the request is (as dvice_null asked) to get *out* of orbit.
Well, to be honest, I think that matter/antimatter annihilation is going to be close to the only thing that would give you the appropriate energy density, unless you somehow managed to get a miniature (and featherweight) nuclear reactor on there. I don't see this being feasibly anytime soon.
That's true. However, I doubt that the half-pound payload is more than a small fraction of the total mass of the satellite, so strapping four together and giving you additional payload for thrust isn't really going to improve the payload/fuel balance very much. I still think it highly unlikely (if not impossible.)
Actually, I was really far to tentative with that response. I think the real answer is "no way in hell." Just too much energy that you'd need to store in that half pound somehow.
Doubtful in that mass budget. You couldn't just stick a thruster on it- you'd need a full attitude control system to make sure you were actually pointed in the right direction, and thruster(s), reaction wheels, etc would pretty rapidly use up all your mass.
I agree that the NASA administration has had problems, but what's your problem with this competition? If someone wins the competition, I'd say that's 1.5 million *very* well spent. Especially compared to NASA's overall budget.
Also- a lot of NASA's problems are due to how its budget is handled by congress. Space development is a thing of long term projects to make serious headway- but that's exactly what they never have the luxury of, since the budget fluctuates enormously.
That's not necessarily a correlation with intelligence, though. I can't quote sources at the moment (don't feel like looking them back up), but there's a strong argument that a good portion of the IQ test involves things that are really *knowledge*, not intelligence.
If true, that would explain all the correlations you mention without requiring the IQ test to actually be correlated with *intelligence*.
I still think it's complete bunk. Have you *taken* the test? Hell, there are parts on the test that measure hand-eye coordination more than anything else. Hope you didn't have enough coffee to make your hand shake that day...
And there you have it folks- a classical false argument by claiming that the other party said something they did not.
No one's saying the industrial revolution was a sin. Sin doesn't come into anything; this isn't religion.
The industrial revolution was the beginning of an upward swing in our carbon emissions. The emissions have had a warming effect. We can subsequently choose what we'd like to do about this, especially in light of technology available now which wasn't available at the beginning of the industrial revolution.
Earth doesn't particularly care if it gets warmer. We (and a number of other species) probably do. If we don't like the consequences of warming, we have the option to decide that they're bad enough for us to take action to change them.
But that's a little too logical, apparently, so you go on perverting arguments so that you can claim to "win" without actually standing on any remotely logical basis.
Because the scientists generally get paid for their results (or even just for doing the research regardless of the results), which are not copyrighted; the copyright on the papers is ancillary (except for where it prevents plagiarism and other academic dishonesty).
Other creative fields get paid based on individual copies of what they've created- books, music, etc. The model is entirely different.
Not really. There's a *very* large pool of regular investors and smaller houses that are trying the day-trading thing, and that's the group that's losing out to automated sub-millisecond trading. Day trading is *dangerous*, and better than half of the people who try lose a lot of money to it.
This is why there are rules about how much money you have to keep in reserve if you get classified as a day trader, to try to keep people from seeing their entire life savings vanish. Currently, day-trade flagged accounts have to keep at least 25k in the account.
For most long-term investors, the rapid trading really has very little effect, because they're not really playing the same game, so they're not the ones paying such a price.
Rapid day-trading has very little effect on long-term-held investments. One is looking at long term trends; one is exploiting intraday volatility. They're not mutually exclusive. It's very possible to make money from repeatedly shorting a stock that's still going up over the long term.
These rapid-traders are mostly playing a game against each other, not against long-term investors.
The ISS doesn't have the power budget to get out of earth orbit. De-orbit will definitely mean controlled re-rentry. It really won't be that hard, since they'll surely be able to do it in pieces.
You need to get yourself better KVMs. My USB KVM has basically instant response for input devices- they're done before the monitor switches.
The one I'm currently using is by Zonet, model KVM3324, if you've just had bad luck so far- I admit I've gone through some craptastic ones in the past.
Not the same situation. A single car can only be used by a single driver at any given time during the day. If you make use of the car for free, you are depriving the owner of the ability to rent that car for a period of time.
On the other hand, if you could wave a magic wand and make an instant copy of the car, your driving of that copy would not deprive the owner of the ability to rent the original in the meantime. It might decrease the value of said rental due to the availability of a free alternative, but it does not, in fact, deprive the owner of any property or any period of time.
You *can*. What you're complaining about is that the DB is giving you back too much information to deal with all at once. Okay, fine- then ask it for smaller chunks of data by making several queries.
If you ask it for a lot of data and it gives it all back to you, that's hardly the DB's fault. Tell it what you want (ie, a smaller subset) and you'll get that.
If you want to make only one query and still get small subsets at a time, use a cursor.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know what search you did, but:
A google search for the phrase pulls up exactly one link that references Macs in the first page. Okay, there's an outlier in a page dominated by actually relevant results.
A bing search pulls up exactly one link that actually references windows itself being expensive. Okay, there's one real result in a page dominated by failures (excepting, I suppose, the one or two results that related to actual physical windows being expensive.)
I'm not talking about the mass of the launch vehicle- I'm talking about the mass of the satellite in general. If you look at each "TubeSat", it contains the main satellite body, the bus electronics, etc. These things are not mass-free- in particular, the body itself is probably several kilograms at a minimum. Your payload only resides within that body. Therefore, even if the entirety of the payload of 4 TubeSats is propellant, you may have less than a 1:1 fuel/mass ratio- which isn't going to get you out of earth orbit.
To be more specific- It's not like you can take on satellite, and strap 4 raw blocks of fuel next to it. There's some level of overhead, and that only makes an already less-than-feasible proposition *more* infeasible.
If you've got a dense reaction mass, you're not under your half-pound mass budget. That's the problem. There are probably ways to compress the necessary reactant into that amount of *volume*, but I don't think there's any way to do it in that amount of *mass*.
It's not just drag you're worried about- it's the simple amount of energy necessary to get you into higher orbits even ignoring drag- even worse if the request is (as dvice_null asked) to get *out* of orbit.
Well, to be honest, I think that matter/antimatter annihilation is going to be close to the only thing that would give you the appropriate energy density, unless you somehow managed to get a miniature (and featherweight) nuclear reactor on there. I don't see this being feasibly anytime soon.
Getting out of orbit is *hard*.
That's true. However, I doubt that the half-pound payload is more than a small fraction of the total mass of the satellite, so strapping four together and giving you additional payload for thrust isn't really going to improve the payload/fuel balance very much. I still think it highly unlikely (if not impossible.)
Actually, I was really far to tentative with that response. I think the real answer is "no way in hell." Just too much energy that you'd need to store in that half pound somehow.
Doubtful in that mass budget. You couldn't just stick a thruster on it- you'd need a full attitude control system to make sure you were actually pointed in the right direction, and thruster(s), reaction wheels, etc would pretty rapidly use up all your mass.
I agree that the NASA administration has had problems, but what's your problem with this competition? If someone wins the competition, I'd say that's 1.5 million *very* well spent. Especially compared to NASA's overall budget.
Also- a lot of NASA's problems are due to how its budget is handled by congress. Space development is a thing of long term projects to make serious headway- but that's exactly what they never have the luxury of, since the budget fluctuates enormously.
That's not necessarily a correlation with intelligence, though. I can't quote sources at the moment (don't feel like looking them back up), but there's a strong argument that a good portion of the IQ test involves things that are really *knowledge*, not intelligence.
If true, that would explain all the correlations you mention without requiring the IQ test to actually be correlated with *intelligence*.
You've never heard of a rhetorical question?
Yeah. I know what the test is. I've tested a 163.
I still think it's complete bunk. Have you *taken* the test? Hell, there are parts on the test that measure hand-eye coordination more than anything else. Hope you didn't have enough coffee to make your hand shake that day...
Of course. But *he* clearly does. I found the contradiction amusing.
A tested IQ of 151... and you think IQ is related to intelligence?
*citation needed
And there you have it folks- a classical false argument by claiming that the other party said something they did not.
No one's saying the industrial revolution was a sin. Sin doesn't come into anything; this isn't religion.
The industrial revolution was the beginning of an upward swing in our carbon emissions. The emissions have had a warming effect. We can subsequently choose what we'd like to do about this, especially in light of technology available now which wasn't available at the beginning of the industrial revolution.
Earth doesn't particularly care if it gets warmer. We (and a number of other species) probably do. If we don't like the consequences of warming, we have the option to decide that they're bad enough for us to take action to change them.
But that's a little too logical, apparently, so you go on perverting arguments so that you can claim to "win" without actually standing on any remotely logical basis.
Because the scientists generally get paid for their results (or even just for doing the research regardless of the results), which are not copyrighted; the copyright on the papers is ancillary (except for where it prevents plagiarism and other academic dishonesty).
Other creative fields get paid based on individual copies of what they've created- books, music, etc. The model is entirely different.
Just tried this on "differential evolution". The Google result set was the best of the choices.
That said, I would rate Bing higher than Yahoo; the yahoo set was quite poor.
Not really. There's a *very* large pool of regular investors and smaller houses that are trying the day-trading thing, and that's the group that's losing out to automated sub-millisecond trading. Day trading is *dangerous*, and better than half of the people who try lose a lot of money to it.
This is why there are rules about how much money you have to keep in reserve if you get classified as a day trader, to try to keep people from seeing their entire life savings vanish. Currently, day-trade flagged accounts have to keep at least 25k in the account.
For most long-term investors, the rapid trading really has very little effect, because they're not really playing the same game, so they're not the ones paying such a price.
Rapid day-trading has very little effect on long-term-held investments. One is looking at long term trends; one is exploiting intraday volatility. They're not mutually exclusive. It's very possible to make money from repeatedly shorting a stock that's still going up over the long term.
These rapid-traders are mostly playing a game against each other, not against long-term investors.
The ISS doesn't have the power budget to get out of earth orbit. De-orbit will definitely mean controlled re-rentry. It really won't be that hard, since they'll surely be able to do it in pieces.
If you can break it with a hammer remotely, you should really be selling that capability- pretty sure someone would want to buy it.
Until then, the self destruct does work remotely.
You need to get yourself better KVMs. My USB KVM has basically instant response for input devices- they're done before the monitor switches.
The one I'm currently using is by Zonet, model KVM3324, if you've just had bad luck so far- I admit I've gone through some craptastic ones in the past.
Not the same situation. A single car can only be used by a single driver at any given time during the day. If you make use of the car for free, you are depriving the owner of the ability to rent that car for a period of time.
On the other hand, if you could wave a magic wand and make an instant copy of the car, your driving of that copy would not deprive the owner of the ability to rent the original in the meantime. It might decrease the value of said rental due to the availability of a free alternative, but it does not, in fact, deprive the owner of any property or any period of time.
Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll use XML." Now they have two problems.
You *can*. What you're complaining about is that the DB is giving you back too much information to deal with all at once. Okay, fine- then ask it for smaller chunks of data by making several queries.
If you ask it for a lot of data and it gives it all back to you, that's hardly the DB's fault. Tell it what you want (ie, a smaller subset) and you'll get that.
If you want to make only one query and still get small subsets at a time, use a cursor.