Soyuz delivers (virtually) no supplies. that's the Cygnus and Progress mostly, and those are on schedule.
Progress flies on a Soyuz booster, so you can expect a stand-down while they analyze the problem.
But, as you say, there are other resupply spacecraft: Cygnus and Dragon. So they can keep up resupply even as they do the stand-down for failure analysis and recertify-for-flight.
the Soviet programme had a capsule-abort from a rocket once, one of the cosmonauts even credited the inventor of the American system that the Soviets duplicated with saving his life if I remember right.
Yes, the Soyuz T10-1 abort used an escape tower to pull the spacecraft away from the burning (soon to be exploding) rocket, 1983. They credited Maxime Faget for inventing the escape tower that was used in the abort (before Soyuz, Soviet manned spaceflight used ejection seats, which only are useful over a very limited range of altitudes. And they left off the ejection seats for some missions, where they needed the mass).
Tesla's autopilot is not self driving because Tesla specifically states that "autopilot" is not self driving, and drivers should not be considered it self-driving.
it is a different thing.
Staying in lane, staying a constant distance from cars ahead of you, and occasionally changing lanes on a straight expressway-- these are all useful as driver assist, but it's not self driving.
If you want to compare miles driven on self-driving to things that are not self-driving, then a lot of cars have put in more miles than either Tesla or Waymo.
Musk as smart enough to hire very capable people for Space X. Contrary to the Elon folklore among his fans, he did not design the rockets and he is not as hands on in the management of Space X as he is for Tesla. He had an idea for a private space flight company, hired great people and said, "Make it so." and became the rain maker for the business: he gets the business and his people do the rest.
And, most notably, went to NASA to fund his vision, who turned out to be the only organization who had the confidence in him and the funding to develop his rocket.
Gwynne Shotwell has more to do with Space X' success than Musk does. Just guess who is the Ari Force's go to person for Space X? Hint: It's not Elon.
I'll agree with this; Shotwell's contributions are underestimated because she stands in the shade thrown by the charismatic Musk, but she is critical to SpaceX's success
Even if they put 3 trillion miles on their system, if they confine it to just a few geographical areas, I don't trust it very much.
Not just geographical areas, I wonder if they try it out on multiple different types of streets in multiple different times of day. An automated driving system that works fine on freeways and on wide, relatively untrafficed suburban roads may be better than one in complex city exchanges in rush hour.
UK airports are using passport scanners instead of border guards as you land. Those are using biometrics, and do fail on photographs intended to subvert them. The fall-back process is to route the passenger through to a border guard. They can look at the photograph, confirm that it matches the person stood in front of them, and allow them into the country.
So the photograph wont prevent her from travelling,
...if the altered photo is enough like her that the human thinks they're the same even if the AI doesn't.
depends, I suppose, on how similar to her is the other person whose image she mixed in with hers to make the composite.
The face looks like her (to a human), but the biometrics don't match very well.
Well hopefully the border control isn't using biometrics to match the photo against the person.
Where the biometrics is going to come in is when the Border Patrol uses biometrics to compare the person traveling to the photo on the passport, to verify that the person on the passport is actually the person traveling.
Basically, the question here is whether she will be able to travel using that digitally-altered passport.
The advantage to her is that if passport photos are sent to a government database of faces that is distributed to facial-recognition systems (say, looking at images from security cameras), she won't be recognized, and thus her movements won't be picked up and tracked.
Hydrogen would cost close to $8/gallon equivalent....
Hard to say. This is very technology dependent, and better technologies for hydrogen production could possibly be extremely cheap... but whether or not this will become commercial depends on whether there is a pressing market need that pushes the technology toward low cost.
what part of the sentence "that's not what we're talking about here" are you finding hard to understand?
the kind of greenhouse that's made out of glass, the ones that you grow plants in, is not what we're discussing here. When we talk about the "greenhouse effect": that's not it.
I'm not sure why you think that climate scientists don't understand this. The original greenhouse model, Manabe and Wetherald 1967, was a convective/radiative model (it turns out that conduction is not a very large heat transfer effect over distances of kilometers in a low-thermal-conductivity atmosphere, so conduction and radiation are enough.)
If you think CO2 is enough to change that balance, then you better believe altering the patterns of motion and conduction are as well.
Yes, that's exactly what Manabe and Wetherald did: they did the greenhouse calculation with accurate wavelength-dependent infrared absorption and a model of convection.
BTW a greenhouse works not so much because it stops radiation but because it prevents conduction and convection.
Uh... no. You may be thinking of the kind of greenhouse that's made out of glass, the ones that you grow plants in. That's not what we're talking about here (and even there, conduction is trivial-- look up the thermal conductivity of air some time.) The "greenhouse effect" we're talking about is due to infrared absorption.
Windpower does not add heat to the atmosphere of Earth, it just mixes around where it's hot and where it's cold.
Yes... and no.
I take it you didn't read the link. The study didn't say that the windpower "adds" heat to the atmosphere of the Earth. What it said was that it redistributes heat through the boundary layer (by increasing boundary layer mixing), and the net redistribution of heat can reduce the thermal emission, i.e., increases the temperature. You say " it just mixes around where it's hot and where it's cold", but mixing where it's hot and where it's cold can reduce the thermal emission. They state that this occurs primarily at night: by mixing cooler low-altitude air into higher altitudes, and bringing warmer high altitude air toward the surface.
My comment would be "I'll wait to hear if there's a consensus on this model result, since it seems somewhat disputed right now." But that's not the same as "it's complete bullshit."
(I'll also point out that the effect they're talking about is proportional to the wind power, whereas the warming by carbon-containing fuel burning to generate energy is proportional to the integral of the power. So over the long term, burning carbon adds a lot more heat: the heating effect of the carbon dioxide lingers for at least a hundred years, and, according to some analyses, much longer.)
Could it be that rampant, unchecked free market capitalism means that companies are employing less people to do the same amount or more work and customers are noticing?
I'd say that the unchecked free market capitalism means that companies are employing zero people to do the same amount of work: when I try to get support from a major company, it is pretty much impossible to get to an actual human being. Often the best I can do is to get shuffled off to a customer "support forum", where people post their problems, and other customers, working for free, post their workarounds to solve the issues.
What a great business strategy! Get your customers-- the people who pay you!-- to do your customer support work for free!
In most businesses, the things that reduce productivity are screw-ups by management, not by the people actually doing the work.
Oh please, I've been in many situations where it's very clear that it's the "doer" at the lowest level that is lazy and/or incompetent, both in software development and elsewhere
It is an amazing thing, but incompetent managers who screw up always put the blame on the people who work for them. Funny, they never admit they screwed up.
The phrase "the people who work for me were lazy and/or incompetent" is pretty much the signature of an incompetent manager.
Yes, indeed, people mostly prefer being told what they will make, instead of a "we will maybe pay you more if we feel like it, or maybe not, we'll let you know later" salary
Sorry to see him gone. He will be most remembered for his popularizing the term "the God particle" for the Higgs Boson. The term was a euphemism for the phrase "the god-damn particle," but the euphemism seems to have stuck.
Slashdot Mirror
Soyuz delivers (virtually) no supplies. that's the Cygnus and Progress mostly, and those are on schedule.
Progress flies on a Soyuz booster, so you can expect a stand-down while they analyze the problem.
But, as you say, there are other resupply spacecraft: Cygnus and Dragon. So they can keep up resupply even as they do the stand-down for failure analysis and recertify-for-flight.
The cosmonauts thought it just meant that the Russian space program had started outsourcing their rocket engines to the Czech republic to save money.
the Soviet programme had a capsule-abort from a rocket once, one of the cosmonauts even credited the inventor of the American system that the Soviets duplicated with saving his life if I remember right.
Yes, the Soyuz T10-1 abort used an escape tower to pull the spacecraft away from the burning (soon to be exploding) rocket, 1983. They credited Maxime Faget for inventing the escape tower that was used in the abort (before Soyuz, Soviet manned spaceflight used ejection seats, which only are useful over a very limited range of altitudes. And they left off the ejection seats for some missions, where they needed the mass).
https://web.archive.org/web/20030204073904/http://www.janes.com/aerospace/civil/news/jsd/jsd030203_3_n.shtml
it is a different thing.
Staying in lane, staying a constant distance from cars ahead of you, and occasionally changing lanes on a straight expressway-- these are all useful as driver assist, but it's not self driving.
If you want to compare miles driven on self-driving to things that are not self-driving, then a lot of cars have put in more miles than either Tesla or Waymo.
Musk as smart enough to hire very capable people for Space X. Contrary to the Elon folklore among his fans, he did not design the rockets and he is not as hands on in the management of Space X as he is for Tesla. He had an idea for a private space flight company, hired great people and said, "Make it so." and became the rain maker for the business: he gets the business and his people do the rest.
And, most notably, went to NASA to fund his vision, who turned out to be the only organization who had the confidence in him and the funding to develop his rocket.
Gwynne Shotwell has more to do with Space X' success than Musk does. Just guess who is the Ari Force's go to person for Space X? Hint: It's not Elon.
I'll agree with this; Shotwell's contributions are underestimated because she stands in the shade thrown by the charismatic Musk, but she is critical to SpaceX's success
Man, just now I realised. That BFR is a homage to the BFG in Doom. BFR in reality means Big F*cking Rocket.
Uh, you only had to say the phrase "Big Falcon Rocket" fast and you get it.
(or in a Scottish accent)
I'm ashamed to have took so long to get it.
Um, huh? Tesla's Autopilot had driven 1,2 billion miles as of July. Two orders of magnitude more than Waymo.
Uh, Tesla's "autopilot" is a driver assist, not a self-driving vehicle. And it racks up the miles on expressways-- that's the easy kind of driving.
So, no, not the same thing.
10 million miles is really nothing. In the US, there's only one fatal accident per 86 million miles on average.
Indeed, that's the metric to compare to. But not all miles driven are the same.
Even if they put 3 trillion miles on their system, if they confine it to just a few geographical areas, I don't trust it very much.
Not just geographical areas, I wonder if they try it out on multiple different types of streets in multiple different times of day. An automated driving system that works fine on freeways and on wide, relatively untrafficed suburban roads may be better than one in complex city exchanges in rush hour.
UK airports are using passport scanners instead of border guards as you land. Those are using biometrics, and do fail on photographs intended to subvert them. The fall-back process is to route the passenger through to a border guard. They can look at the photograph, confirm that it matches the person stood in front of them, and allow them into the country.
So the photograph wont prevent her from travelling,
...if the altered photo is enough like her that the human thinks they're the same even if the AI doesn't.
depends, I suppose, on how similar to her is the other person whose image she mixed in with hers to make the composite.
just delay her at border control.
We were smarter in the 1950's
IQ-wise, no question.
Turns out not. IQ-wise, we are much smarter now. They have to continuously recalibrate IQ tests to keep the average at 100. (Google the Flynn Effect)
China and India are still busily building new coal plants
China and India are building new coal plants to meet rapidly growing demand for power.
According to the article, this is in the process of changing because solar is becoming the lower cost alternative.
The face looks like her (to a human), but the biometrics don't match very well.
Well hopefully the border control isn't using biometrics to match the photo against the person.
Where the biometrics is going to come in is when the Border Patrol uses biometrics to compare the person traveling to the photo on the passport, to verify that the person on the passport is actually the person traveling.
Basically, the question here is whether she will be able to travel using that digitally-altered passport.
The advantage to her is that if passport photos are sent to a government database of faces that is distributed to facial-recognition systems (say, looking at images from security cameras), she won't be recognized, and thus her movements won't be picked up and tracked.
Hydrogen would cost close to $8/gallon equivalent....
Hard to say. This is very technology dependent, and better technologies for hydrogen production could possibly be extremely cheap... but whether or not this will become commercial depends on whether there is a pressing market need that pushes the technology toward low cost.
the purpose is to discredit ALL news, so people don't pay attention to actual facts.
https://stephenking.com/
what part of the sentence "that's not what we're talking about here" are you finding hard to understand?
the kind of greenhouse that's made out of glass, the ones that you grow plants in, is not what we're discussing here. When we talk about the "greenhouse effect": that's not it.
MIT has a cozy relationship with Nuclear, and remember all the wealthy Cape Codders who don't want wind power off their shores...
You're aware that the authors of this study were Harvard scientists, right? Harvard is not MIT.
(https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(18)30446-X , if you missed the link in the summary)
If you think CO2 is enough to change that balance, then you better believe altering the patterns of motion and conduction are as well.
Yes, that's exactly what Manabe and Wetherald did: they did the greenhouse calculation with accurate wavelength-dependent infrared absorption and a model of convection.
BTW a greenhouse works not so much because it stops radiation but because it prevents conduction and convection.
Uh... no. You may be thinking of the kind of greenhouse that's made out of glass, the ones that you grow plants in. That's not what we're talking about here (and even there, conduction is trivial-- look up the thermal conductivity of air some time.) The "greenhouse effect" we're talking about is due to infrared absorption.
Windpower does not add heat to the atmosphere of Earth, it just mixes around where it's hot and where it's cold.
Yes... and no.
I take it you didn't read the link. The study didn't say that the windpower "adds" heat to the atmosphere of the Earth. What it said was that it redistributes heat through the boundary layer (by increasing boundary layer mixing), and the net redistribution of heat can reduce the thermal emission, i.e., increases the temperature. You say " it just mixes around where it's hot and where it's cold", but mixing where it's hot and where it's cold can reduce the thermal emission. They state that this occurs primarily at night: by mixing cooler low-altitude air into higher altitudes, and bringing warmer high altitude air toward the surface.
My comment would be "I'll wait to hear if there's a consensus on this model result, since it seems somewhat disputed right now." But that's not the same as "it's complete bullshit."
(I'll also point out that the effect they're talking about is proportional to the wind power, whereas the warming by carbon-containing fuel burning to generate energy is proportional to the integral of the power. So over the long term, burning carbon adds a lot more heat: the heating effect of the carbon dioxide lingers for at least a hundred years, and, according to some analyses, much longer.)
Looks like they heard that the U.S. was doing an emergency broadcast text to everybody in the country, and decided that they wanted to do one, too.
Could it be that rampant, unchecked free market capitalism means that companies are employing less people to do the same amount or more work and customers are noticing?
I'd say that the unchecked free market capitalism means that companies are employing zero people to do the same amount of work: when I try to get support from a major company, it is pretty much impossible to get to an actual human being. Often the best I can do is to get shuffled off to a customer "support forum", where people post their problems, and other customers, working for free, post their workarounds to solve the issues.
What a great business strategy! Get your customers-- the people who pay you!-- to do your customer support work for free!
In most businesses, the things that reduce productivity are screw-ups by management, not by the people actually doing the work.
Oh please, I've been in many situations where it's very clear that it's the "doer" at the lowest level that is lazy and/or incompetent, both in software development and elsewhere
It is an amazing thing, but incompetent managers who screw up always put the blame on the people who work for them. Funny, they never admit they screwed up.
The phrase "the people who work for me were lazy and/or incompetent" is pretty much the signature of an incompetent manager.
Someday soon, someone is going to make a killing selling Guillotines!
I see what you did there.
Everyone gets paid the same regardless of productivity? This should be good news for those advocating the $15/hr minimum wage.
Yep. Defining "productivity" is at the whim of the employer, and "paying for productivity" is a well-proven strategy for lowering wages.
In most businesses, the things that reduce productivity are screw-ups by management, not by the people actually doing the work.
Yes, indeed, people mostly prefer being told what they will make, instead of a "we will maybe pay you more if we feel like it, or maybe not, we'll let you know later" salary
Sorry to see him gone. He will be most remembered for his popularizing the term "the God particle" for the Higgs Boson. The term was a euphemism for the phrase "the god-damn particle," but the euphemism seems to have stuck.