The issue is not Microsoft updating WINE. It's Microsoft refusing to update copies of their own software because they are running under WINE rather than their own OS. Remember, these could be legitimately purchased copies of MS applications that MS refuses to update.
I saw some birds sitting on a stop sign. That is significant, because Mars is also red. If life can thrive on a red stop sign, it is that much more likely to thrive on Mars also.
"When 900 years old you reach, look as good, you will not." - Yoda
I always thought that was kind of a sick joke. Do you say to your dog "when 80 years old you reack, look as good, you will not"? Or do you find a terminal cancer patient and say the same to him?
Alternatively, you have to prove that lots of "possible" chess positions don't actually appear, no matter how the other player plays, on the way to the optimal win.
This statement is correct, and renders the rest of your post moot. It makes no sense to claim a problem is impossible to solve based on analysis of only the most naive possible solution.
Imagine a sphere of matter of a given fixed density D. Escape velocity is proportional to sqrt(M/r) for mass M and radius r. Since M=Dr^3, escape velocity is proportional to r*sqrt(D). Therefore, no matter how small D is, you can find a radius large enough to make the escape velocity exceed the speed of light.
Given estimates for the (very small) average density of the observed universe, you get a number like 10e10 light years, which indeed matches pretty closely (well within an order of magnitude) the size measured observationally.
A typical rifle bullet travels at maybe 0.6 km/s. The fastest tank guns can fire projectiles at about 1.8 km/s. When the Space Shuttle re-enters the atmosphere, and is going so fast that it makes a huge fireball, that's 8 km/s. Escape velocity from the Earth is 11 km/s. The Earth is travelling around the Sun at 30 km/s, and the escape velocity at this distance from the Sun is 42 km/s. At this point, we're already talking about speeds that are several times greater than current chemical rockets can achieve.
My back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate that the Sun travels around the galaxy at about 300 km/s. (30,000 ly / 200 My). That's ten times faster than the Earth hurtles around the Sun. The highest speed I can get for our own Solar System is the escape velocity from the surface of the Sun. Being 215 times closer to the Sun's center than the Earth makes the escape velocity about 617 km/s. That is a very high speed, but even that is not as fast as the ejected star is moving. The difference between the Sun's escape velocity and the ejected star's velocity is about 53 km/s, which is itself much greater than any other velocity I have mentioned in this article, outside of this paragraph.
The blurb says: Java creator James Gosling this week called Microsoft's decision to support C and C++ in the common language runtime in.NET one of the 'biggest and most offensive mistakes that they could have made.'
CowboyNeal says: Note that this isn't a particular vulnerability, just a system of typing that makes it easy to introduce vulnerabilities, which last time I checked, all C programmers deal with.
That's the point, genius. By making the.NET platform support C, they get the problems that all C programmers deal with. Java doesn't have those problems.
Using a unique noisy image source such as a crappy web cam taking a picture of a TV displaying white noise (to thwart a compressability test used for detecting images with hidden data), how could you detect this hidden message much less decode it without know specificaly how the algo works?
I'd start by running a scan on all web cam pictures of TVs displaying white noise.
Yeah, and they also have some pathological bent against scrolling. I have news for you: when the alternative is page-flipping, I'll take vertical scrolling any day.
20,000 light years is nothing, as far as gravitational distortion is concerned. You really only see that effect on galaxies 100 billion times more massive and 10,000 times farther away.
Speed change is not impulse, but specific impulse. Impulse is momentum change, and speed change is impulse divided by mass.
The fuel tanks would need to be 6.14 times larger than they are (not 6.4). The fuel mass goes from 14.5 to 89 times the Shuttle's mass, which is a factor of 6.14. However, note that this would also require larger (or more) rockets, because the existing ones couldn't lift that much fiel. The new rockets would add more mass, and (you guessed it) require even more fuel. Plus, the fuel tank itself would be more massive. Basically, a mass ratio of 90 is impossible.
A Google search turned up this paper on nanoscale circuits that appears to be related. It mentions HP's crossbar latch patent in particular. Interesting stuff.
One problem is that I can't see it reducing the speed of the Shuttle by 16000mph within 45 minutes. Hence, this seems to be only a new way to drop the craft's periapsis, not a replacement for aerobraking.
However, it does have the benefit of using no reaction mass (unless of course you use the ion engine, in which case it still reduces the reaction mass enormously), and with the Shuttle's mass ratio of 15, every ton of reaction mass in orbit is worth 15 on the ground.
If I'm wrong, and it can provide enough thrust to obviate aerobraking, then presumably it could also be used to help get the Shuttle into orbit (at least once it's outside the atmosphere) and could save even more reaction mass that way.
No, they wouldn't require the same amount of fuel to slow or change the direction of the craft from orbit.
I know. That's why I used N=4.5 instead of N=5.4. (You stopped reading my post after the first paragraph, didn't you?)
And yes, the shuttle DOES slow down some. It actually comes in completely turned around (IIRC) and starts with a breaking maneuver.
True, it expends a tiny quantity of propellant to nudge its periapsis down into the atmosphere. (See this.) I don't see how that relates to what I said.
The Orbiter's entire delta-v capability while in orbit (and for re-entry) is 700m/s. Remember that it's moving somewhere in the neighborhood of 7700m/s at the time. If it used the entire 700m/s to decelerate for re-entry, it would drop only 1% of its kinetic energy. The other 99% is left to the atmosphere.
The point is, you have two choices to do most of your braking: aerobraking or rockets; and the latter uses prohibitive quantities of fuel.
Why not just slow down a bit before entering the atmosphere?
Have you seen the rocket boosters they use to launch the shuttles? They'd need the same boosters to slow it down again. And then they'd need way, way bigger rockets just to lift those boosters into orbit in the first place. The total amount of fuel required is staggering.
Let me tell you the two most important things you need to know to get some idea of how staggeringly hard your proposal is to implement.
The first thing is the speeds involved. These guys are going 17,000 miles per hour. That's 7 times faster than a rifle bullet, and it weighs as much as 30 big SUVs. How do you propose to take this monster and make it "slow down a bit"? If they can't brake in the atmosphere, then need to use rocket power to slow back down to, say, 1,000 miles per hour (the speed of Earth's rotation at Florida plus a couple hundred mph) so they can land.
The second thing is even worse: the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation. It tells us how much propellant is needed to achieve a given speed change (impulse). This is not based on any particular rocket technology; it's a fundamental law derived directly from Newton's third law of motion (the equal-and-opposite-reaction one).
Tsiolkovsky's equation is calibrated to the exit velocity of the propellant. If you want your rocket's velocity to change by N times the propellant's exit velocity, its mass must reduce by a factor of e^N. In the case of the Shuttle going to orbit, N=2.7, and the "mass ratio" e^N=15.5, meaning that only about 1/15 of the vehicle makes it to orbit. The other 14/15 was rocket fuel.
If you want to deorbit the Shuttle using rockets, then you'll need to double your delta-V, because you must first go from zero to 17000, and then from 17000 back to zero. This gives N=2x2.7=5.4. However, this is too high, because you're not fighting air resistance and Earth's gravity when you're re-entering like you are when you're taking off. So let's be conservative and say it's only N=4.5. Then your mass ratio becomes 90, so the fuel tank needs to be 6.4 times larger than they already are! If you have seen the Shuttle's fuel tank, you know this is absurd.
The best thing about deorbiting in the presence of an atmosphere is that it costs no rocket fuel. However, it does have its dangers.
I'm out of my feild here, but I'm pretty sure DSP can't make up for aberration. Aberration causes images to go out of focus, which is equivalent to a low-pass filter on the image, which means fine detail information is lost, and no amount of DSP can put it back in.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, thanks for the cluestick. I didn't read what you said carefully enough either.
We must not be reading the same FA. Where did you see this stated?
The issue is not Microsoft updating WINE. It's Microsoft refusing to update copies of their own software because they are running under WINE rather than their own OS. Remember, these could be legitimately purchased copies of MS applications that MS refuses to update.
I saw some birds sitting on a stop sign. That is significant, because Mars is also red. If life can thrive on a red stop sign, it is that much more likely to thrive on Mars also.
5*5=25
361/25=14.44
QED
Imagine a sphere of matter of a given fixed density D. Escape velocity is proportional to sqrt(M/r) for mass M and radius r. Since M=Dr^3, escape velocity is proportional to r*sqrt(D). Therefore, no matter how small D is, you can find a radius large enough to make the escape velocity exceed the speed of light.
Given estimates for the (very small) average density of the observed universe, you get a number like 10e10 light years, which indeed matches pretty closely (well within an order of magnitude) the size measured observationally.
A typical rifle bullet travels at maybe 0.6 km/s. The fastest tank guns can fire projectiles at about 1.8 km/s. When the Space Shuttle re-enters the atmosphere, and is going so fast that it makes a huge fireball, that's 8 km/s. Escape velocity from the Earth is 11 km/s. The Earth is travelling around the Sun at 30 km/s, and the escape velocity at this distance from the Sun is 42 km/s. At this point, we're already talking about speeds that are several times greater than current chemical rockets can achieve.
My back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate that the Sun travels around the galaxy at about 300 km/s. (30,000 ly / 200 My). That's ten times faster than the Earth hurtles around the Sun. The highest speed I can get for our own Solar System is the escape velocity from the surface of the Sun. Being 215 times closer to the Sun's center than the Earth makes the escape velocity about 617 km/s. That is a very high speed, but even that is not as fast as the ejected star is moving. The difference between the Sun's escape velocity and the ejected star's velocity is about 53 km/s, which is itself much greater than any other velocity I have mentioned in this article, outside of this paragraph.
There's nothing worse than debatable fingerprints.
CowboyNeal says: Note that this isn't a particular vulnerability, just a system of typing that makes it easy to introduce vulnerabilities, which last time I checked, all C programmers deal with.
That's the point, genius. By making the .NET platform support C, they get the problems that all C programmers deal with. Java doesn't have those problems.
Yeah, and they also have some pathological bent against scrolling. I have news for you: when the alternative is page-flipping, I'll take vertical scrolling any day.
20,000 light years is nothing, as far as gravitational distortion is concerned. You really only see that effect on galaxies 100 billion times more massive and 10,000 times farther away.
It is strongly runtime typed.
A Google search turned up this paper on nanoscale circuits that appears to be related. It mentions HP's crossbar latch patent in particular. Interesting stuff.
One problem is that I can't see it reducing the speed of the Shuttle by 16000mph within 45 minutes. Hence, this seems to be only a new way to drop the craft's periapsis, not a replacement for aerobraking.
However, it does have the benefit of using no reaction mass (unless of course you use the ion engine, in which case it still reduces the reaction mass enormously), and with the Shuttle's mass ratio of 15, every ton of reaction mass in orbit is worth 15 on the ground.
If I'm wrong, and it can provide enough thrust to obviate aerobraking, then presumably it could also be used to help get the Shuttle into orbit (at least once it's outside the atmosphere) and could save even more reaction mass that way.
The Orbiter's entire delta-v capability while in orbit (and for re-entry) is 700m/s. Remember that it's moving somewhere in the neighborhood of 7700m/s at the time. If it used the entire 700m/s to decelerate for re-entry, it would drop only 1% of its kinetic energy. The other 99% is left to the atmosphere.
The point is, you have two choices to do most of your braking: aerobraking or rockets; and the latter uses prohibitive quantities of fuel.
Let me tell you the two most important things you need to know to get some idea of how staggeringly hard your proposal is to implement.
The first thing is the speeds involved. These guys are going 17,000 miles per hour. That's 7 times faster than a rifle bullet, and it weighs as much as 30 big SUVs. How do you propose to take this monster and make it "slow down a bit"? If they can't brake in the atmosphere, then need to use rocket power to slow back down to, say, 1,000 miles per hour (the speed of Earth's rotation at Florida plus a couple hundred mph) so they can land.
The second thing is even worse: the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation. It tells us how much propellant is needed to achieve a given speed change (impulse). This is not based on any particular rocket technology; it's a fundamental law derived directly from Newton's third law of motion (the equal-and-opposite-reaction one).
Tsiolkovsky's equation is calibrated to the exit velocity of the propellant. If you want your rocket's velocity to change by N times the propellant's exit velocity, its mass must reduce by a factor of e^N. In the case of the Shuttle going to orbit, N=2.7, and the "mass ratio" e^N=15.5, meaning that only about 1/15 of the vehicle makes it to orbit. The other 14/15 was rocket fuel.
If you want to deorbit the Shuttle using rockets, then you'll need to double your delta-V, because you must first go from zero to 17000, and then from 17000 back to zero. This gives N=2x2.7=5.4. However, this is too high, because you're not fighting air resistance and Earth's gravity when you're re-entering like you are when you're taking off. So let's be conservative and say it's only N=4.5. Then your mass ratio becomes 90, so the fuel tank needs to be 6.4 times larger than they already are! If you have seen the Shuttle's fuel tank, you know this is absurd.
The best thing about deorbiting in the presence of an atmosphere is that it costs no rocket fuel. However, it does have its dangers.
Uh, gee, I hope the people at NASA have given your points some thought. They're not the brightest bunch ... they're only rocket scientists.
Or, you could go get yourself a life.
I'm out of my feild here, but I'm pretty sure DSP can't make up for aberration. Aberration causes images to go out of focus, which is equivalent to a low-pass filter on the image, which means fine detail information is lost, and no amount of DSP can put it back in.