It wasn't just news reports. The British had managed to detect and turn nearly every German agent in Britain, and used them to funnel back reports saying that the V-1s were overshooting their targets. The Germans then adjusted the range a bit downwards, and the V-1s would then fall short.
Normally when the FBI or other agency busts a piracy ring, they're proud as hell about it. They talk about how many people they arrested, in however many countries they made the arrests, how many dollars in stolen software the pirates were responsible for, and so on, and so forth. Even when the FBI went after Skylarov at Adobe's request, the FBI was very proud of what they did, bringing such an eeeeeevul pirate to justice.
In this case, it's Valve, the company that did something very stupid that allowed their code to get stolen, and not an actual law-enforcement agency, that's releasing all the vague details of the arrests, whereas all the FBI has to say is that "Yes, we made some arrests." No details on who, or where.
Since you live in a country that has seen fit to disarm all potential victims and give criminals the benefit of a populace that's been rendered harmless, carrying a gun is right out.
However, carrying a gun is only one part of self-defense, and there are many others. Ideally, a gun backs them up, but in the less-than-ideal situation you're in, there's things you can still do.
What I would recommend is you immediately acquiring a copy of and reading Mossad Ayoob's book, The Truth About Self-Defense. It's an excellent comprehensive overview and guide on the subject. When it comes to specifics, it's more than a little bit dated, but the general stuff he goes into, like how to be observent, how to carry yourself, things to avoid, and so forth, are crucial to effective self-defense, even if you do carry a gun.
Imagine all this energy is coming from a point source at the center of the sun.
The sun is not a point source, which has the physical effect of limiting your maximum concentration factor, which in turn limits your maximum concentration temperature to 6000 degrees.
If the first step in your process is to assume a non-physical state, and then proceed on that basis, you're pretty much doomed. Imagining the sun as a point source doesn't make it one.
could you focus enough energy for use in a fusion reactor?
No. No matter how large your focusing array is, you can't get the temperature at the focus to exceed 6000 degrees, since that's the temperature of the sun itself. And you'd need a *really* big mirror or lens to get that hot.
Within a short time, the presence of a large hydrogen bubble in the dome of the pressure vessel, the container that holds the reactor core, stirred new worries. The concern was that the hydrogen bubble might burn or even explode and rupture the pressure vessel. In that event, the core would fall into the containment building and perhaps cause a breach of containment. The hydrogen bubble was a source of intense scrutiny and great anxiety, both among government authorities and the population, throughout the day on Saturday, March 31. The crisis ended when experts determined on Sunday, April 1, that the bubble could not burn or explode because of the absence of oxygen in the pressure vessel. Further, by that time, the utility had succeeded in greatly reducing the size of the bubble.
I also remember reading that the reactor core was just 500 degrees (not sure Celsius of Fahrenheit) below the meltdown temperature.
Incorrect. If that were the case, 60% of the core would not have melted.
Hydrogen explosion? What hydrogen explosion? There was no hydrogen explosion at TMI. There was a release of hydrogen gas due to the hot zirconium fuel rod cladding reacting with the water, but it was noticed, understood, contained, and dealt with. It didn't explode.
As an example, if R is 10 megaohms and C is 100 microfarads, then it will take 1000 seconds for the capacitor to discarge to 37% of its starting voltage.
Pretty sure there's a big math error there. Time constant is equal to R*C, so that's 10E6 * 100E-6, so that's 0.00001 seconds to discharge it to 37% if you put 10 Mohms across the terminals.
They don't discharge anywhere near that fast just sitting there unconnected, because the R is effectively infinite. Resistivity of dry air is *very* high.
What you will get, if the caps are charged to a high enough voltage, is corona discharge, with the charge just leaking away into the surrounding air. To power my senio EE project railgun, I used a bank of 430V capacitors, 8000 uF each. You could charge those babies up, leave them sitting in a storeroom for a year, and they'd still have almost a full charge. A smaller cap charged to a higher voltage would leak down to nothing considerably sooner than that.
Re:The advantage is...
on
Metal Velcro
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It's in the middle of a very tight join between a block of metal and a composite surface; if air and moisture could get to it, then maybe it will rust, if it's a metal susceptible to it.
You'd probably take care to design the joint so that air and moisture can't get to it.
This isn't simply "translucent windows." Hell, you can do that in WinXP and 2000 with third-party software. This is different:
"Information-bearing windows whose contents remain unchanged for a predetermined period of time become translucent. The translucency can be graduated so that, over time, if the window's contents remain unchanged, the window becomes more translucent. In addition to visual translucency, windows according to the present invention also have a manipulative translucent quality. Upon reaching a certain level of visual translucency, user input in the region of the window is interpreted as an operation on the underlying objects rather than the contents of the overlaying window."
If you're going to go looking for prior art, that's what you need to find: windows that become more translucent as more time passes where you're not doing anything to them, and that eventually become so translucent that when you go to click on them, you're instead able to click on desktop objects behind the window.
While I don't think that this is particularly deserving of a patent, it is neat, and so far as I can tell, novel. It's not just "translucent windows."
Besides, that simply sounds awful in concept. Very early in the morning, you've been driving all night, body functions are at their lowest ebb, and there's this shiny ribbon of light pulsing its way hyponotically up the road.
Sounds like a great way to encourage people leaving the road at high speed.
Don't make the mistake of assuming all nations operate under the same set of laws.
According to the Copyright Board of Canada, downloading copyright files from P2P networks is completely legal, provided that the copying is done for private and noncommercial use. You don't even need to own the song in another format.
So yes, over a rather large percentage of the earth's total land area, it is a legal download.
The question remains is what happens if Frame Dragging isn't observed.
Then they'd better figure out if their experiment was badly designed, because frame dragging has already been observed by other research platforms.
NASA's Rossi X-Ray Timing Explorer observed frame dragging in a distant system consisting of a binary pair of black holes. This was back in 1997.
Analysis of the motion of two earth-orbiting satellites, LAGEOS I and LAGEOS II, also reveals frame dragging going on. This was also over 4 years ago, and it's the result that this Einstein probe is supposed to refine.
Look, concentrate the mass of the earth to a point, and you're dealing with a black hole. You've got the entire mass of the Earth crammed into a mathematical point, which is, rest assured, smaller than the Earth's Schwartzchild radius.
Now, from a distance, a black hole is gravitationally no different than a non-black hole of equivalent mass.
But from close up, it's not, because of the gravitational gradient, which gets steeper as the radius of the gravitational body goes down.
You can only treat the gravitational effects of a sphere as a single point of mass M at the center of the body when you're working at a distance that is large compared to the actual diameter of the body.
Really, it's the truth. Go check Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler. I'll wait.
The gravitational field is dropping off with the inverse of the distance from the moon's center (i.e. the gravitational force going with the inverse square).
That only holds true when the gravitational body is small enough, or far enough away, to be dealt with as a point source. When you're close up, you can't do that and have to deal with messy integrations.
This was a BOTE envelope calculation. It's within an order of magnitude. If you want something more precise, knock yourself out.
Good question. 4000 mph ~= 1800mps, KE =.5(10)(1,800)^2 = 16 megajoules. Perfectly elastic collision gets you a PE = 16 MJ = 10 kilograms * 9.8/6 * height, so the height would be...damn, a million meters? That's pretty friggin' high.
What made the fire so catastrophic was not the mythical aluminum superstructure, but rather than the missile severed the fire mains, making shipboard firefight all but impossible.
Just because this is a Navy vessel doesn't mean it's a combat vessel. This is a technology evaluation and demonstration vessel. Nobody expects it to go into combat and take hits. It's so the Navy can play around with all this stuff, see what works, what doesn't work, and incorporate the bits that work into new warship designs. This thing ain't getting anywhere near a shooting war, so judging it on how it would stand up under fire is somewhat ridiculous.
Take the number of modern-navy ships sunk by battle damage post-Vietnam. Now take the number damaged post-Vietnam. The latter is considerably greater than the former. I'll work backwards a bit here, but I might get a few transposed.
USS Cole: Kamikaze floating bomb. Sealifted home, repaired.
USS Princeton: Mine impact, with sympathetic detonation of a second nearby mine. Severe structural damage, fires, cracked superstructure, flooded magazine. Ship was capable of conducting air action within two hours, stayed on station as local AAW command vessel for an additional 30 hours until relieved.
USS Samuel B. Roberts: Mine impact. Sealifted home and repaired.
USS Stark: Two Exocet strikes, with one missile detonation. Sailed home under her own power, and repaired.
Damage control is the difference between the Stark, which took two Exocets and sailed home, and the HMS Sheffield, which took a single dud Exocet, burned from stem to stern, and sunk under tow. It is taken *exteremely* seriously by the US Navy, and while we don't plate ships with inches of steel armor any more, rest assured that a lot of money is spent on redundant systems, DC training, shock-hardening, and "armor of form" to allow ships to continue fighting after they get hit, and to make it home for repairs. Even if we're not talking about combat, there are all sorts of Bad Things that can happen to ships. Take a look at the Belknap(collided with the Kennedy, fuel spill, fire, basically burned down to the waterline), the Forrestal, or the Enterprise for examples.
It's accidents like those that drove home how unbelieveably important damage control is. Yes, if a Mach 2+ SS-N-19 delivers its 750 kilogram warhead successfully, the ship's a definite mission-kill at the least. But there are a whole host of less-destructive situations that can result in disaster with bad DC, so DC is considered somewhat...important. No, damage control isn't what it was in WW2: It's a helluva lot better.
Slashdot Mirror
It wasn't just news reports. The British had managed to detect and turn nearly every German agent in Britain, and used them to funnel back reports saying that the V-1s were overshooting their targets. The Germans then adjusted the range a bit downwards, and the V-1s would then fall short.
Normally when the FBI or other agency busts a piracy ring, they're proud as hell about it. They talk about how many people they arrested, in however many countries they made the arrests, how many dollars in stolen software the pirates were responsible for, and so on, and so forth. Even when the FBI went after Skylarov at Adobe's request, the FBI was very proud of what they did, bringing such an eeeeeevul pirate to justice.
In this case, it's Valve, the company that did something very stupid that allowed their code to get stolen, and not an actual law-enforcement agency, that's releasing all the vague details of the arrests, whereas all the FBI has to say is that "Yes, we made some arrests." No details on who, or where.
That's very unusual. What's up with that?
Since you live in a country that has seen fit to disarm all potential victims and give criminals the benefit of a populace that's been rendered harmless, carrying a gun is right out.
However, carrying a gun is only one part of self-defense, and there are many others. Ideally, a gun backs them up, but in the less-than-ideal situation you're in, there's things you can still do.
What I would recommend is you immediately acquiring a copy of and reading Mossad Ayoob's book, The Truth About Self-Defense. It's an excellent comprehensive overview and guide on the subject. When it comes to specifics, it's more than a little bit dated, but the general stuff he goes into, like how to be observent, how to carry yourself, things to avoid, and so forth, are crucial to effective self-defense, even if you do carry a gun.
Imagine all this energy is coming from a point source at the center of the sun.
The sun is not a point source, which has the physical effect of limiting your maximum concentration factor, which in turn limits your maximum concentration temperature to 6000 degrees.
If the first step in your process is to assume a non-physical state, and then proceed on that basis, you're pretty much doomed. Imagining the sun as a point source doesn't make it one.
could you focus enough energy for use in a fusion reactor?
No. No matter how large your focusing array is, you can't get the temperature at the focus to exceed 6000 degrees, since that's the temperature of the sun itself. And you'd need a *really* big mirror or lens to get that hot.
From a summary:
I also remember reading that the reactor core was just 500 degrees (not sure Celsius of Fahrenheit) below the meltdown temperature.
Incorrect. If that were the case, 60% of the core would not have melted.
It's hard to tell, given the blatant and bald-faced misinformation that shows up on radiation-related /. threads.
Hydrogen explosion? What hydrogen explosion? There was no hydrogen explosion at TMI. There was a release of hydrogen gas due to the hot zirconium fuel rod cladding reacting with the water, but it was noticed, understood, contained, and dealt with. It didn't explode.
Ignore that. What the fuck did *I* do?
/. after a full evening of tossing back black sambuca.
Lesson: Never post to
As an example, if R is 10 megaohms and C is 100 microfarads, then it will take 1000 seconds for the capacitor to discarge to 37% of its starting voltage.
Pretty sure there's a big math error there. Time constant is equal to R*C, so that's 10E6 * 100E-6, so that's 0.00001 seconds to discharge it to 37% if you put 10 Mohms across the terminals.
They don't discharge anywhere near that fast just sitting there unconnected, because the R is effectively infinite. Resistivity of dry air is *very* high.
What you will get, if the caps are charged to a high enough voltage, is corona discharge, with the charge just leaking away into the surrounding air. To power my senio EE project railgun, I used a bank of 430V capacitors, 8000 uF each. You could charge those babies up, leave them sitting in a storeroom for a year, and they'd still have almost a full charge. A smaller cap charged to a higher voltage would leak down to nothing considerably sooner than that.
It's in the middle of a very tight join between a block of metal and a composite surface; if air and moisture could get to it, then maybe it will rust, if it's a metal susceptible to it.
You'd probably take care to design the joint so that air and moisture can't get to it.
This isn't simply "translucent windows." Hell, you can do that in WinXP and 2000 with third-party software. This is different:
"Information-bearing windows whose contents remain unchanged for a predetermined period of time become translucent. The translucency can be graduated so that, over time, if the window's contents remain unchanged, the window becomes more translucent. In addition to visual translucency, windows according to the present invention also have a manipulative translucent quality. Upon reaching a certain level of visual translucency, user input in the region of the window is interpreted as an operation on the underlying objects rather than the contents of the overlaying window."
If you're going to go looking for prior art, that's what you need to find: windows that become more translucent as more time passes where you're not doing anything to them, and that eventually become so translucent that when you go to click on them, you're instead able to click on desktop objects behind the window.
While I don't think that this is particularly deserving of a patent, it is neat, and so far as I can tell, novel. It's not just "translucent windows."
Besides, that simply sounds awful in concept. Very early in the morning, you've been driving all night, body functions are at their lowest ebb, and there's this shiny ribbon of light pulsing its way hyponotically up the road.
Sounds like a great way to encourage people leaving the road at high speed.
if we can produce enough ethanol from ag waste and yard clippings
That falls into the "While we're wishing, could I have a pony?" category of ifs.
We can't. Not even close.
That's not a legal download.
Bullshit.
Don't make the mistake of assuming all nations operate under the same set of laws.
According to the Copyright Board of Canada, downloading copyright files from P2P networks is completely legal, provided that the copying is done for private and noncommercial use. You don't even need to own the song in another format.
So yes, over a rather large percentage of the earth's total land area, it is a legal download.
The question remains is what happens if Frame Dragging isn't observed.
Then they'd better figure out if their experiment was badly designed, because frame dragging has already been observed by other research platforms.
NASA's Rossi X-Ray Timing Explorer observed frame dragging in a distant system consisting of a binary pair of black holes. This was back in 1997.
Analysis of the motion of two earth-orbiting satellites, LAGEOS I and LAGEOS II, also reveals frame dragging going on. This was also over 4 years ago, and it's the result that this Einstein probe is supposed to refine.
It's not going to be even close to within an order of magnitude. That much is clear.
It's so clear you can't even provide a single number to back it up?
*Sigh*. You're neglecting tides.
Look, concentrate the mass of the earth to a point, and you're dealing with a black hole. You've got the entire mass of the Earth crammed into a mathematical point, which is, rest assured, smaller than the Earth's Schwartzchild radius.
Now, from a distance, a black hole is gravitationally no different than a non-black hole of equivalent mass.
But from close up, it's not, because of the gravitational gradient, which gets steeper as the radius of the gravitational body goes down.
You can only treat the gravitational effects of a sphere as a single point of mass M at the center of the body when you're working at a distance that is large compared to the actual diameter of the body.
Really, it's the truth. Go check Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler. I'll wait.
It's a mathematical theorem that a sphere can indeed be treated as a point source in the case of inverse-square relationship.
Christ. That's only true when the diameter of the sphere is than the distance of the object from the sphere.
Go look it up. I'll wait.
The gravitational field is dropping off with the inverse of the distance from the moon's center (i.e. the gravitational force going with the inverse square).
That only holds true when the gravitational body is small enough, or far enough away, to be dealt with as a point source. When you're close up, you can't do that and have to deal with messy integrations.
This was a BOTE envelope calculation. It's within an order of magnitude. If you want something more precise, knock yourself out.
That means that the ball will be hitting the surface in excess of negative escape velocity.
No, it won't. 4000mph is about 1800 meters per second. Lunar escape velocity is 2400 meters per second.
I mean, c'mon, you can Google this stuff.
Good question. 4000 mph ~= 1800mps, KE = .5(10)(1,800)^2 = 16 megajoules. Perfectly elastic collision gets you a PE = 16 MJ = 10 kilograms * 9.8/6 * height, so the height would be...damn, a million meters? That's pretty friggin' high.
Please, do not mod popular misunderstanding as "informative."
The Sheffield's superstructure was not aluminum, it was solid steel, like her hull, and like the superstructure and hull of all Type 42s.
And, no, the missile did not detonate.
What made the fire so catastrophic was not the mythical aluminum superstructure, but rather than the missile severed the fire mains, making shipboard firefight all but impossible.
I think y'all are missing something.
Just because this is a Navy vessel doesn't mean it's a combat vessel. This is a technology evaluation and demonstration vessel. Nobody expects it to go into combat and take hits. It's so the Navy can play around with all this stuff, see what works, what doesn't work, and incorporate the bits that work into new warship designs. This thing ain't getting anywhere near a shooting war, so judging it on how it would stand up under fire is somewhat ridiculous.
Absolute and total bollocks.
Take the number of modern-navy ships sunk by battle damage post-Vietnam. Now take the number damaged post-Vietnam. The latter is considerably greater than the former. I'll work backwards a bit here, but I might get a few transposed.
USS Cole: Kamikaze floating bomb. Sealifted home, repaired.
USS Princeton: Mine impact, with sympathetic detonation of a second nearby mine. Severe structural damage, fires, cracked superstructure, flooded magazine. Ship was capable of conducting air action within two hours, stayed on station as local AAW command vessel for an additional 30 hours until relieved.
USS Samuel B. Roberts: Mine impact. Sealifted home and repaired.
USS Stark: Two Exocet strikes, with one missile detonation. Sailed home under her own power, and repaired.
Damage control is the difference between the Stark, which took two Exocets and sailed home, and the HMS Sheffield, which took a single dud Exocet, burned from stem to stern, and sunk under tow. It is taken *exteremely* seriously by the US Navy, and while we don't plate ships with inches of steel armor any more, rest assured that a lot of money is spent on redundant systems, DC training, shock-hardening, and "armor of form" to allow ships to continue fighting after they get hit, and to make it home for repairs. Even if we're not talking about combat, there are all sorts of Bad Things that can happen to ships. Take a look at the Belknap(collided with the Kennedy, fuel spill, fire, basically burned down to the waterline), the Forrestal, or the Enterprise for examples.
It's accidents like those that drove home how unbelieveably important damage control is. Yes, if a Mach 2+ SS-N-19 delivers its 750 kilogram warhead successfully, the ship's a definite mission-kill at the least. But there are a whole host of less-destructive situations that can result in disaster with bad DC, so DC is considered somewhat...important. No, damage control isn't what it was in WW2: It's a helluva lot better.