But support is one of those things that ought not be something that ought to be sought "hard". Support should be easily purchased from service companies dedicated to the task.
Not really. The Mars Direct plan calls for a maximum of 130 contiguous days in space (on the return trip) with three other people, using chemical rockets, in a relatively large habitation module which (if I recall) is not much smaller than my apartment. If I reorganized my apartment specifically for the purpose, I'm sure four of us could spend 5 months in there without going batty.
Actually the important thing is that modern x86 implementations are RISC. They just have a CISC instruction set that's translated to RISC "micro-ops" very early in the pipeline.
Most new designs will be RISC or post-RISC so over time we'll see a move away from CISC...
Better tell that to the ARM folks who created the Thumb2 instruction set.
Your conclusions are not warranted based on the report you cite. Figure 3 shows a downward trend in the rate of fatal accidents, but you can't separate the speeding factor from the improved vehicle safety factor. Over time, cars get safer while limits get higher. Just because higher speeds correlate with lower accidents on Figure 3 doesn't mean you won't be a lot safer if you slow down.
Figure 5 is also misleading. The decreased number of accidents over 60 could easily be just because there are fewer freeways with speed limits that high.
The only thing consistent in these charts is that speeding is more fatal than not speeding. However, you could argue that this is just because speeders have a higher speed differential than non-speeders, relative to the flow of traffic. And that would be a good argument.
Basically, the reports you cite are worthless to evaluate the impact of increased speed limits on safety.
BTW... going different speeds, accelerating and decelerating cause an unneccessary amount of exhost fumes... so do automatic transmitions. Going one consistant speed for as long as possible yields the best benifit in fuel consumotion and the least amount of fume production.
Driving to minimize gas usage is nontrivial, but here are some of the things I consider:
First, the amount of gas you waste is highly correlated to how often you brake. (This includes engine braking.) If you drive in a style that requires less braking, you will use less gas.
Next, the fewer revolutions your engine performs, the less gas you will use. A typical internal combustion engine is 30% efficient, meaning 70% of the energy in gas directly into heat. This indicates that the actual propulsion of the car is minor compared to the turning of the engine. Therefore, getting from A to B with the fewest engine revolutions tends to save gas. That means (1) idle the engine by standing on the clutch whenever that is practical (eg. going down a long hill), and (2) use the highest gear that can give you the speed/acceleration you want. #2 needs some qualification: I'm no expert, but I suspect that being in too high a gear will put you low on your engine's torque curve, and will actually harm efficiency.
Also, from experience, when I have a hole in my muffler, I get astonishing gas mileage (eg. 52 mpg in a '95 Civic DX). I suspect that is mostly because the exhaust flow improves, but I like to think it's also partly because it makes me drive in a style that minimizes engine noise, and that this corresponds to fuel efficiency.
Nope, that's not it. How close two planets are doesn't matter. What matters is that the trajectory you plan to use must intersect the planet you're trying to reach.
However, even that is not pertinent here. When launching a spacecraft, it is beneficial always to launch eastward, because then you get an extra 400m/s boost due to the Earth's rotation, which can save a considerable amount of rocket fuel. (Fuel is exponential in the speed boost you need.) The 1.5 hour-per-day launch window represents the time during each day when your launch location is moving in such a way as to give that 400m/s boost in roughly the right direction to get to the trajectory you want to use to get to Mars.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you actually tried this experiment?
Uh, hey... Good post, but they were German rocket scientists, not Nazis. Big difference.
Thanks for taking the karma hit on this one. It had to be said.
...why would you need to send your system to someone else for servicing?
- The clueless ZosX
- The well-intentioned Cid Highwind
- The rather piteous Anonymous Coward
Thank you.I think orbit requires more like 30 times the energy required for a parabolic hop to 100 km.
Nobody's claiming that nuclear rockets wouldn't provide better performance than chemical ones.
Yes. And so will warp drive.
Not really. The Mars Direct plan calls for a maximum of 130 contiguous days in space (on the return trip) with three other people, using chemical rockets, in a relatively large habitation module which (if I recall) is not much smaller than my apartment. If I reorganized my apartment specifically for the purpose, I'm sure four of us could spend 5 months in there without going batty.
And NmH are the batteries used in space probes, so I'm sure they do ok in cold temperatures.
Something to think about.
Ok but let's compare apples to apples. How many CISC architectures are still alive and kicking? x86, 390, ...?
Sincerely,
An IBM employee
Processors always used to control memory directly. (Think 68000 or 6502.) This north-bridge gunk is a relatively recent misfeature.
Judging by his hotmal address, I guess it's Thitiwang.
Figure 5 is also misleading. The decreased number of accidents over 60 could easily be just because there are fewer freeways with speed limits that high.
The only thing consistent in these charts is that speeding is more fatal than not speeding. However, you could argue that this is just because speeders have a higher speed differential than non-speeders, relative to the flow of traffic. And that would be a good argument.
Basically, the reports you cite are worthless to evaluate the impact of increased speed limits on safety.
First, the amount of gas you waste is highly correlated to how often you brake. (This includes engine braking.) If you drive in a style that requires less braking, you will use less gas.
Next, the fewer revolutions your engine performs, the less gas you will use. A typical internal combustion engine is 30% efficient, meaning 70% of the energy in gas directly into heat. This indicates that the actual propulsion of the car is minor compared to the turning of the engine. Therefore, getting from A to B with the fewest engine revolutions tends to save gas. That means (1) idle the engine by standing on the clutch whenever that is practical (eg. going down a long hill), and (2) use the highest gear that can give you the speed/acceleration you want. #2 needs some qualification: I'm no expert, but I suspect that being in too high a gear will put you low on your engine's torque curve, and will actually harm efficiency.
Also, from experience, when I have a hole in my muffler, I get astonishing gas mileage (eg. 52 mpg in a '95 Civic DX). I suspect that is mostly because the exhaust flow improves, but I like to think it's also partly because it makes me drive in a style that minimizes engine noise, and that this corresponds to fuel efficiency.
Does anyone else have any hints?
However, even that is not pertinent here. When launching a spacecraft, it is beneficial always to launch eastward, because then you get an extra 400m/s boost due to the Earth's rotation, which can save a considerable amount of rocket fuel. (Fuel is exponential in the speed boost you need.) The 1.5 hour-per-day launch window represents the time during each day when your launch location is moving in such a way as to give that 400m/s boost in roughly the right direction to get to the trajectory you want to use to get to Mars.
My mistake... See this.
Sorry, my mistake. I was comparing a mortgage against renting an apartment, not a house.
Dude, try the other link in the article.