I have no problem with the way you mod. That's your business. I just don't like your self-riteous sig, but come to think of it, that's really not my business either.
Interesting point. From a technical point of view, transferring mass affects the orbit of the object only to the extent that the rocket exhaust pushes against the object to accelerate it. You can avoid a net acceleration by having equal numbers of rockets taking off in two diametrically-opposed directions, using just enough thrust to escape the object (which would necessarily be a very small amount of thrust). The rockets drift until they are far enough from the object that their exhaust doesn't significantly affect it. Then they do the real burn that puts them on the trajectory they want.
Re:When did the Communists take over outer space?
on
Lawyers In Space...
·
· Score: 1
Nice start, but that's kind of dumb for several reasons, not the least of which is, who owns all those increasingly tiny slivers between all these circles?
For interest's sake, here are some 0th-order approximations of the Hohmann transfer orbit patched-conic calculations...
Low-earth orbit requires about 7.8kps
Hohmann transfer from Earth to Mercury requires an apehelion delta-V of 7.5kps relative to Earth. Relative to low-Earth orbit, that becomes about 5.5kps.
A circular near-Mercury orbit requires 70% of surface escape velocity (which is 4.3kps), or 3kps.
The Hohmann transfer requires a perihelion delta-V of 8kps relative to Mercury. Relative to low-Mercury orbit, that becomes about 6kps.
Adding these delta-Vs: 7.8 + 5.5 + 6 = 19.3kps. That is pretty large. (The last 6kph represents how much you need to slow down when you reach Mercury.)
You're still wrong. If you can find just one single person who thinks aa* is elegant then I will concede the point. I don't care how academic you are; aa* is not elegant.
It's a staw-man argument: you're claiming that some fictitious set of people possess some absurd belief, and then proving them wrong. Well, sorry, but academics are not idiots.
First, I got this Slashdot account years ago when I was in school. I am no longer in school, so your speculations about the tax I pay are moot.
Second, I said "almost 50% income tax", which I think any reasonable reader could interpret to mean that we have a tax bracket well over 40% occupied by people without egregiously large incomes (which is, in fact, what I meant).
What is "well over 40%"? Given that this was said in the context of comparing Canadian taxes against American, I don't think it's too unreasonable to say that residents of a province with a tax bracket over 43% would quality, since that puts them at 47% total tax when the GST (a tax Americans don't pay) is included, and that's "almost 50%". With this criterion, 8 of the 10 provinces qualify. If we consider only a reasonable income for a junior software developer (say, $65000/yr) then three provinces still qualify: Quebec, Nowfoundland, and Manitoba. As for the other 5 provinces, their top tax bracket starts at CDN$104648, which is certainly a reasonable salary for someone with a.edu email address.
So, while you may disagree with some of the above logic, does it at least absolve me of "stupidest person in the world" status?:-)
As an ideal, software should make simple things simple, and complex things possible. Both of these require talent, but the former is certainly the less glorious and more thankless. If you are highly skilled, and design your software meticulously with usability in mind, you can make a software task appear so simple that users wonder why it took you so long to write.
Slashdot Mirror
(Hint: Canada is in North America.)
Think about hills for a minute. The energy needed to climb a hill is mgh. Double the mass, and you need double the energy to get over the hill.
"Lamping"? Is there no noun that is safe from being verbed?
I have no problem with the way you mod. That's your business. I just don't like your self-riteous sig, but come to think of it, that's really not my business either.
Nice timing. I was just getting ready to mod down any pompous ass with moderation threads in his sig.
Interesting point. From a technical point of view, transferring mass affects the orbit of the object only to the extent that the rocket exhaust pushes against the object to accelerate it. You can avoid a net acceleration by having equal numbers of rockets taking off in two diametrically-opposed directions, using just enough thrust to escape the object (which would necessarily be a very small amount of thrust). The rockets drift until they are far enough from the object that their exhaust doesn't significantly affect it. Then they do the real burn that puts them on the trajectory they want.
Nice start, but that's kind of dumb for several reasons, not the least of which is, who owns all those increasingly tiny slivers between all these circles?
Sorry, that was a bit obscure. What I'm trying to say is that MESSENGER makes for a pretty contrived acronym.
-
Low-earth orbit requires about 7.8kps
-
Hohmann transfer from Earth to Mercury requires an apehelion delta-V of 7.5kps relative to Earth. Relative to low-Earth orbit, that becomes about 5.5kps.
-
A circular near-Mercury orbit requires 70% of surface escape velocity (which is 4.3kps), or 3kps.
-
The Hohmann transfer requires a perihelion delta-V of 8kps relative to Mercury. Relative to low-Mercury orbit, that becomes about 6kps.
Adding these delta-Vs: 7.8 + 5.5 + 6 = 19.3kps. That is pretty large. (The last 6kph represents how much you need to slow down when you reach Mercury.)Meanwhile, MERCURY itself stands for Mineral Encrusted Round Conglomeration that is Uneven and ReallY hot.
You must be a riot at parties.
Yeah, I saw half of that turkey. It starts of so-bad-it's-funny, but soon becomes so painfully terrible that I just couldn't watch it any more.
Ah, I see. Your humour is much too subtle for me.
It's a staw-man argument: you're claiming that some fictitious set of people possess some absurd belief, and then proving them wrong. Well, sorry, but academics are not idiots.
Executive summary: because IE can't handle text/xhtml+xml.
I don't know any jackass dumb enough to think that aa* is elegant, since "a" could actually be arbitrarly long and complex.
Have you missed every single SCO-lawsuit article ever posted on Slashdot?
Not cool. You should do your own Google search before telling someone to do theirs.
Second, I said "almost 50% income tax", which I think any reasonable reader could interpret to mean that we have a tax bracket well over 40% occupied by people without egregiously large incomes (which is, in fact, what I meant).
What is "well over 40%"? Given that this was said in the context of comparing Canadian taxes against American, I don't think it's too unreasonable to say that residents of a province with a tax bracket over 43% would quality, since that puts them at 47% total tax when the GST (a tax Americans don't pay) is included, and that's "almost 50%". With this criterion, 8 of the 10 provinces qualify. If we consider only a reasonable income for a junior software developer (say, $65000/yr) then three provinces still qualify: Quebec, Nowfoundland, and Manitoba. As for the other 5 provinces, their top tax bracket starts at CDN$104648, which is certainly a reasonable salary for someone with a .edu email address.
So, while you may disagree with some of the above logic, does it at least absolve me of "stupidest person in the world" status? :-)
Score: -1 (missed the joke)
Good point. I have added "necessarily". :-)
As an ideal, software should make simple things simple, and complex things possible. Both of these require talent, but the former is certainly the less glorious and more thankless. If you are highly skilled, and design your software meticulously with usability in mind, you can make a software task appear so simple that users wonder why it took you so long to write.