I haven't figured out what law yet, but I get the feeling that blocking all functionality of a customer's electronic device out of spite, and specifically a device for access control to a dwelling, might not have been a legal act. There might be penalties under civil or criminal law.
I'd cut more slack for an Open Source developer who simply refused to help the user because of abusive language, since that developer isn't being paid and the user didn't pay anyone for the software or service. But to lock out a paid customer...
I wish Nissan would look at this and realize that the Leaf doesn't need those awful kermit-the-frog headlight assemblies that stick up out of the hood.
But someone must continue the legacy of the Citroen Deus Chevaux!:-)
Not all liberals are against nuclear power, and given that coal seems to be the conservative sweetheart at the moment it doesn't make much sense to blame liberals for this.
All of that said, there's really only one remaining reason to build a nuclear plant today rather than put up wind or solar power. And that's water desalination. It needs lots of power to work. Other than that, centralized power generation is dumb when it can be decentralized without high cost or poor environmental impact, and when solar and wind end up being less expensive than their nuclear equivalent and power storage seems to be becoming practical.
Or your job will move overseas. If your employer can get the necessary work done overseas (and this depends on the enterprise), your employer can pay even lower salaries there than if the workers came to live here.
So, this may drive your employer to consider exporting the jobs rather than paying more for US citizens.
The SRBs should not be judged on their own, they are a component of a larger reusable launching system that did not reach economical practicality. The big point here is that SpaceX has a really good chance of reaching economical practicality and lowering the cost per pound to LEO.
It's sort of like comparing the Wright Biplane to the Ford Trimotor, which is arguably the first practical passenger aircraft.
The only way to view this that makes sense is to view it as a cost proposition of dollars per pound lifted to a given orbit. An expendable Falcon 9 flight already costs less per pound to low earth orbit than the same flight using the Space Shuttle. SRBs alone could not complete the mission, it's the whole Shuttle system that you have to cost. A reusable Falcon 9 lowers that cost. The question becomes how great an economic efficiency SpaceX can develop, based on how low they can drive the cost of recovery and reuse and their fixed costs.
Recovery in orbit is an interesting proposition, you don't have to carry anything related to re-entry. But it turns out you do have to carry a lot of other stuff: you have to maintain the low-earth orbit, which decays, and you have to deal with one thing that's missing from the current Falcon 9 upper stage: a loiter capability. It doesn't have solar panels and it isn't set up to survive cold for more than a few hours. There is also the matter of getting upper stages to some common point (maybe could be done slowly with electric engines rather than fast with the main rockets) and getting fuel up to them so that they can be re-used.
Nope. You don't seem to understand the difference between maintenance and engineering. No amount of maintenance would have solved the problem of tiles falling off, because maintenance would have been re-doing the same failing materials and methods. It was necessary to re-engineer the tile system. The final version has an underlayment that protects the tiles from the thermal expansion of the metal shuttle skin, which would otherwise cause them to fall off, various tile compositions and coatings for areas of different stress, and some high-heat blankets, fabric panels, and felts for where tile would not conform to a shape.
Also, tile did not hit the wing of the shuttle. Foam from the external tank insulation did.
A pipe with some fuel in it, that goes to the same place at the same speed as 60 years ago? This is what excites you?
My direct flight to Australia from California in about 13 hours is just a boring rerun of Magellan's voyage, then? Except for the part where he got killed?
The SRBs fell, uncontrolled, into the ocean and were re-filled with firecracker stuff. It was always only marginally economical to reuse them. In contrast, the Falcon 9 is a liquid fueled rocket with on-board avionics, which soft-lands in a usable state. Its engine has been tested after landing, without any refurbishment at all.
The new goal is to turn around a booster and re-fly it in 24 hours.
But they skimped on the maintenance, allowing tiles to get loose.
The problems with tiles were not due to deferred maintenance. They were engineering problems with the adhesives, etc.
It also took a lot of work to refurbish the engines on the Shuttle. They had to be completely removed from the craft after each and every mission, disassembled, and a lot of parts replaced.
The plan is for 2 ground landings and one barge for the center booster, which is going to be way downrange. But there is always a delta-V cost for returning the boosters, and there could be a super-heavy mission that recovers them downrange or expends them.
They have more chance of being able to reuse a wet fiberglass fairing than a wet engine. It'll be interesting to see whether they go to in-air recovery.
I'd be the first to encourage people to innovate. But you're painting your portrayal of politicians with a rather wide brush. While we have some deplorable examples of politicians, we also have some who made a major positive contribution to the world.
Then we can talk about lawyers. You might not like them, but the alternative to using them is that we duke everything out or have shooting feuds to settle our disputes.
Reports are that they did recover one fairing half. I don't know why they didn't get both. The fairing costs several Million and the recovery is supposed to be an in-air capture after the fairing deploys a parafoil.
No, this is not promoting race hatred, it's an explanation of the political differences between two parties and what they mean to the little people.
It's not only the Blacks who are having their chains forged right now. Loss of privacy, loss of social safety-nets, loss of ecological protection (so that people who breathe bad air or drink polluted water get sick all of the time), each one of those is a link in a chain.
Uhm... okay, so care to explain to me how you know all the kids at the library are rich?
It's the designer sneakers, iPhones, and the glow of good nutrition and medical care.
Go out on the street and see what you can tell about the people who walk by from what they wear and the appearance of nutrition and medical care. It's pretty easy.
Allowing states to block issuance of lifeline broadband to the poor influences how they vote, whether they get jobs, and many other aspects of their lives.
Some providers just got ordered to disconnect their poor customers and let those customers wait for the states to provide them another way to connect - or more likely for the states to not provide them a way to connect.
The problem with your math is that 99.6% of the people being served are not all of the people who need to be served, only the ones that states have gotten to.
Yes. If you had some variant of Condorcet as the voting process, you would have cast a valid first choice for Stein and a second choice for Clinton, and perhaps Clinton would have gotten the same number of votes overall but not more, and Stein would have had a fair chance
The proposition here that I have a problem with, however, is that Trump would have gotten more votes if some people were convinced that those votes did not matter. He would at best have gotten the same amount of votes, and other conservative candidates would have had at least a fair chance against him if they didn't win.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't figured out what law yet, but I get the feeling that blocking all functionality of a customer's electronic device out of spite, and specifically a device for access control to a dwelling, might not have been a legal act. There might be penalties under civil or criminal law.
I'd cut more slack for an Open Source developer who simply refused to help the user because of abusive language, since that developer isn't being paid and the user didn't pay anyone for the software or service. But to lock out a paid customer...
But someone must continue the legacy of the Citroen Deus Chevaux! :-)
Not all liberals are against nuclear power, and given that coal seems to be the conservative sweetheart at the moment it doesn't make much sense to blame liberals for this.
All of that said, there's really only one remaining reason to build a nuclear plant today rather than put up wind or solar power. And that's water desalination. It needs lots of power to work. Other than that, centralized power generation is dumb when it can be decentralized without high cost or poor environmental impact, and when solar and wind end up being less expensive than their nuclear equivalent and power storage seems to be becoming practical.
Or your job will move overseas. If your employer can get the necessary work done overseas (and this depends on the enterprise), your employer can pay even lower salaries there than if the workers came to live here.
So, this may drive your employer to consider exporting the jobs rather than paying more for US citizens.
The SRBs should not be judged on their own, they are a component of a larger reusable launching system that did not reach economical practicality. The big point here is that SpaceX has a really good chance of reaching economical practicality and lowering the cost per pound to LEO.
It's sort of like comparing the Wright Biplane to the Ford Trimotor, which is arguably the first practical passenger aircraft.
The only way to view this that makes sense is to view it as a cost proposition of dollars per pound lifted to a given orbit. An expendable Falcon 9 flight already costs less per pound to low earth orbit than the same flight using the Space Shuttle. SRBs alone could not complete the mission, it's the whole Shuttle system that you have to cost. A reusable Falcon 9 lowers that cost. The question becomes how great an economic efficiency SpaceX can develop, based on how low they can drive the cost of recovery and reuse and their fixed costs.
Recovery in orbit is an interesting proposition, you don't have to carry anything related to re-entry. But it turns out you do have to carry a lot of other stuff: you have to maintain the low-earth orbit, which decays, and you have to deal with one thing that's missing from the current Falcon 9 upper stage: a loiter capability. It doesn't have solar panels and it isn't set up to survive cold for more than a few hours. There is also the matter of getting upper stages to some common point (maybe could be done slowly with electric engines rather than fast with the main rockets) and getting fuel up to them so that they can be re-used.
I don't think you understood the issue you were replying to.
Nope. Technicians do maintenance work according to instructions prepared for them by engineers. Engineers design. Re-design was necessary.
Not ice. Insulating foam.
Cold was a factor in the failure of the SRB o-rings in the first shuttle disaster, maybe that's what you are thinking of.
Nope. You don't seem to understand the difference between maintenance and engineering. No amount of maintenance would have solved the problem of tiles falling off, because maintenance would have been re-doing the same failing materials and methods. It was necessary to re-engineer the tile system. The final version has an underlayment that protects the tiles from the thermal expansion of the metal shuttle skin, which would otherwise cause them to fall off, various tile compositions and coatings for areas of different stress, and some high-heat blankets, fabric panels, and felts for where tile would not conform to a shape. Also, tile did not hit the wing of the shuttle. Foam from the external tank insulation did.
My direct flight to Australia from California in about 13 hours is just a boring rerun of Magellan's voyage, then? Except for the part where he got killed?
The SRBs fell, uncontrolled, into the ocean and were re-filled with firecracker stuff. It was always only marginally economical to reuse them. In contrast, the Falcon 9 is a liquid fueled rocket with on-board avionics, which soft-lands in a usable state. Its engine has been tested after landing, without any refurbishment at all.
The new goal is to turn around a booster and re-fly it in 24 hours.
The problems with tiles were not due to deferred maintenance. They were engineering problems with the adhesives, etc.
It also took a lot of work to refurbish the engines on the Shuttle. They had to be completely removed from the craft after each and every mission, disassembled, and a lot of parts replaced.
The plan is for 2 ground landings and one barge for the center booster, which is going to be way downrange. But there is always a delta-V cost for returning the boosters, and there could be a super-heavy mission that recovers them downrange or expends them.
They have more chance of being able to reuse a wet fiberglass fairing than a wet engine. It'll be interesting to see whether they go to in-air recovery.
I'd be the first to encourage people to innovate. But you're painting your portrayal of politicians with a rather wide brush. While we have some deplorable examples of politicians, we also have some who made a major positive contribution to the world.
Then we can talk about lawyers. You might not like them, but the alternative to using them is that we duke everything out or have shooting feuds to settle our disputes.
Reports are that they did recover one fairing half. I don't know why they didn't get both. The fairing costs several Million and the recovery is supposed to be an in-air capture after the fairing deploys a parafoil.
There are a lot of little milestones. Like this mission was supposed to include fairing recovery, but nothing of that was mentioned.
No, this is not promoting race hatred, it's an explanation of the political differences between two parties and what they mean to the little people.
It's not only the Blacks who are having their chains forged right now. Loss of privacy, loss of social safety-nets, loss of ecological protection (so that people who breathe bad air or drink polluted water get sick all of the time), each one of those is a link in a chain.
It's the designer sneakers, iPhones, and the glow of good nutrition and medical care.
Go out on the street and see what you can tell about the people who walk by from what they wear and the appearance of nutrition and medical care. It's pretty easy.
Allowing states to block issuance of lifeline broadband to the poor influences how they vote, whether they get jobs, and many other aspects of their lives.
Some providers just got ordered to disconnect their poor customers and let those customers wait for the states to provide them another way to connect - or more likely for the states to not provide them a way to connect.
The problem with your math is that 99.6% of the people being served are not all of the people who need to be served, only the ones that states have gotten to.
s/did not matter/did matter/
Yes. If you had some variant of Condorcet as the voting process, you would have cast a valid first choice for Stein and a second choice for Clinton, and perhaps Clinton would have gotten the same number of votes overall but not more, and Stein would have had a fair chance
The proposition here that I have a problem with, however, is that Trump would have gotten more votes if some people were convinced that those votes did not matter. He would at best have gotten the same amount of votes, and other conservative candidates would have had at least a fair chance against him if they didn't win.