This has been exploited several ways. On the one hand, the high-pitched ringtone that teachers cannot hear when someone calls the kids in class. On the other hand, the annoying whine generated by a shopkeeper to keep the kids from hanging out outside his shop.
Not on the one I bought. Said "draft" on the outside of the box. I knew I was taking a risk when I bought it, but went ahead, and it worked brilliantly. The g connection which had been desperately dodgy became pretty solid with n (router and receiver from same manufacturer). Not rock solid, but dropping out only every day or two rather than several times an hour.
262.5 lines per field, interlaced scan, is 525 lines per frame - the current NTSC standard definition. This was 320 line non-interlaced, 10 fps. But modern digital processing can make a pretty good job of converting to any reasonable line standard and frame rate. It is going to look a lot better this time.
Since the lead times for experiments on ISS are at least five years, they are effectively saying, as you want, that it is "scientifically unnecessary". If there were useful work for it to do in 2016, outline planning for that useful work would be starting round about now - and it isn't. We know what we want the Mars rovers to do - more of the same. And the incremental cost for keeping them going is minute compared to the original cost. The cost to keep ISS going is billions per year, with regular resupply, refuelling, and crew change flights. That cost needs to deliver value. Show that value, and I am sure that minds will be changed.
No. It takes huge amounts of fuel to get out of the Earth's gravity well. That would certainly cost tens of billions, and possibly as much again as has already been spent. Left to itself, its orbit will decay and it will plummet unpredictably with a very few years. Boosted, expensively, to parking orbit, it will be a useless hunk embarrassingly visible, like a redneck's chocked up car in front of the house.
Hardly new. The Apollo missions took years to build, and had a total mission length of about two weeks. Military aircraft have a design life of 5000 or so hours, compares to the 70,000 or so of civil aircraft. Just because it is expensive doesn't mean it needs to be long life.
I simplified slightly. A mathematician would regard that only as the default behaviour, while accepting that such addition might not be possible in some circumstances. However, the circumstances require to be specified.
In your classified field, does that mean that a journalist who collects those pieces of information in good faith, made available independently from different unclassified sources, and publishes them together is now guilty of a criminal offence? That seems unreasonable to me. Which raises the question of how close the putter together of the two pieces of information has to be to be guilty.
Also, people who are "good at math" have a natural tendency to divide things up. That is one of the basic tricks of maths - to divide complicated things into simpler things which can, hopefully, be solved separately and the solutions then combined. So a mathematician will have no problem of seeing minor's head and adult's body as separate entities that have been brought into proximity. If neither of the two is itself illegal, then prima facie the combination is not illegal.
The micro-USB is superior to the mini-USB in that the springs which provide the retaining force are on the cable side and not on the phone side. If the spring breaks, you throw away the cable/charger, not the phone.
Not so, because of the change describe in the article. The Nokia 6500 has already switched to micro-USB. Not that it micro, not the mini that, for example, Motorola ue,
Poster suso was talking about Jacksons lifetime effect, not a short lived server hit. "Obviously the current young generation has no idea the impact MJ had on the world.". A transient peak on news servers is not a zero effect on the comic scale, but is it hardly history making.
The original discussion was whether he had a great effect on "the world", and his creation of the best selling record ever was quoted as an example. I just commented that this didn't affect those not interested in the music industry. It is not that the music industry is more or less important than all those other things, but that the music industry is not "the world" and all those other things exist. Jacksons death affects only the music industry, and not (as was said several posts up) the whole world. Which is not to denigrate the music industry, but it is to say that other things exist.
For what, other than his music? By which I include concerts as well as recordings, of course. He was, indeed, huge in worldwide music. But if he had not lived, how would the world be different other than in recording sold and concerts played? What effect did he have on politics, economics, the environment, diplomacy, transport, health...?
And to those of us not interested in the music industry, the biggest selling album ever is also supremely uninteresting. He may have had a huge effect on the music industry, but he didn't have much effect on the rest of the world - which amounts to quite a lot.
We need more details about what anti-competitive things IBM is doing. OK, it sells machines that seem to give customers more value for money, in their perception, while still making massive profits. Lucky IBM, but isn't that what business is all about? What have they been doing to stop others competing with them - if they can? Have they been saying that you cannot connect Windows machines to their mainframes? Have they been refusing to run Microsoft software (if you can get the appropriate license) on their virtual machines? Or what else?
The articles I saw suggested a relatively low power density, because the receiver was a 10km circle of desert or farmland. If the latter, the suggestion was that crops could be grown under the receiving mesh.
Speed of light to geostationary orbit and back? Fraction of a second. And the beam will not be intense enough to do any damage in many seconds. Underneath the receiving antenna, the energy level is small enough to grow crops and to drive agricultural vehicles with shielded cabs. It would probably require minutes to do permanent harm.
No, they cause all the transmitters to drift out of phase, so that instead of a coherent beam, you have a wide-angle glow. Transmission is done by a phased-array antenna, as used on most modern radar systems. If these all transmit in a carefully calculated phase relationship, interference directs all the energy into a tight beam. If the phase between the transmitters is random, which it will become if not positively locked to a reference beam, all interference disappears and the energy is dissipated in all directions. All you have to do is ensure that the reference phase is derived not from on board, but from the ground: when the reference beam disappears the transmitters lose phase and the beam broadens into nothing. The transmitters will probably lose lock easily anyway, but you can deliberately unstable if you want. To start the system requires someone on the ground to fire a fairly powerful beam from the target area up to the satellite; to maintain it requires a well-aligned reflector.
The requisite reflector is probably several hundred square feet across, has to be precisely aligned, will take some seconds to set up the beam, and the beam when it arrives is only enough to make people uncomfortably warm.
Which is why you don't use cells, you use turbines. I am not sure you can say that they will "surely" muck up the transmitters, though that is a problem to be overcome.
200MW is a miniature , "proof of concept" system. Based on the capacity of the Wright Flyer, you will never fly the Atlantic. Real power stations would be multi-GW.
Blowing what up? The power source is in space, the receiver is an area of desert about 10km across covered in wire mesh. Any sane amount of explosive could only damage about 1% of it. And further downstream, it is no more nor less vulnerable than the rest of the distribution system.
But the global warming effect from CO2 dwarfs the actual heat emitted. If you add 1 unit of extra solar power beamed in, and save as little as 1000 units of solar energy trapped, you are well ahead of the game.
This resembles the protests against trains, that thirty miles an hour was too fast for the human frame to withstand. The off-target beam has been thought of and is quite simply fixed by bouncing the reference beam for the phased arrays back off the target area. If it goes off target, the beam de-coheres and becomes harmless.
The global warming caused by fossil fuels is not the energy cause by burning those fuels, it the many hundreds or thousands of times more of the incoming solar energy that is trapped because of the carbon dioxide created by the burning. If we use this energy to replace fossil fuels, we will leave the fossils in the ground, and we will create zero carbon dioxide. It therefore represents a very substantial win for global warming. It will not affect the weather any more (or less) than the heat our power stations already emit, which creates significant microclimates.
Slashdot Mirror
This has been exploited several ways. On the one hand, the high-pitched ringtone that teachers cannot hear when someone calls the kids in class. On the other hand, the annoying whine generated by a shopkeeper to keep the kids from hanging out outside his shop.
Not on the one I bought. Said "draft" on the outside of the box. I knew I was taking a risk when I bought it, but went ahead, and it worked brilliantly. The g connection which had been desperately dodgy became pretty solid with n (router and receiver from same manufacturer). Not rock solid, but dropping out only every day or two rather than several times an hour.
262.5 lines per field, interlaced scan, is 525 lines per frame - the current NTSC standard definition. This was 320 line non-interlaced, 10 fps. But modern digital processing can make a pretty good job of converting to any reasonable line standard and frame rate. It is going to look a lot better this time.
Since the lead times for experiments on ISS are at least five years, they are effectively saying, as you want, that it is "scientifically unnecessary". If there were useful work for it to do in 2016, outline planning for that useful work would be starting round about now - and it isn't. We know what we want the Mars rovers to do - more of the same. And the incremental cost for keeping them going is minute compared to the original cost. The cost to keep ISS going is billions per year, with regular resupply, refuelling, and crew change flights. That cost needs to deliver value. Show that value, and I am sure that minds will be changed.
No. It takes huge amounts of fuel to get out of the Earth's gravity well. That would certainly cost tens of billions, and possibly as much again as has already been spent. Left to itself, its orbit will decay and it will plummet unpredictably with a very few years. Boosted, expensively, to parking orbit, it will be a useless hunk embarrassingly visible, like a redneck's chocked up car in front of the house.
Hardly new. The Apollo missions took years to build, and had a total mission length of about two weeks. Military aircraft have a design life of 5000 or so hours, compares to the 70,000 or so of civil aircraft. Just because it is expensive doesn't mean it needs to be long life.
I simplified slightly. A mathematician would regard that only as the default behaviour, while accepting that such addition might not be possible in some circumstances. However, the circumstances require to be specified.
In your classified field, does that mean that a journalist who collects those pieces of information in good faith, made available independently from different unclassified sources, and publishes them together is now guilty of a criminal offence? That seems unreasonable to me. Which raises the question of how close the putter together of the two pieces of information has to be to be guilty.
Also, people who are "good at math" have a natural tendency to divide things up. That is one of the basic tricks of maths - to divide complicated things into simpler things which can, hopefully, be solved separately and the solutions then combined. So a mathematician will have no problem of seeing minor's head and adult's body as separate entities that have been brought into proximity. If neither of the two is itself illegal, then prima facie the combination is not illegal.
The micro-USB is superior to the mini-USB in that the springs which provide the retaining force are on the cable side and not on the phone side. If the spring breaks, you throw away the cable/charger, not the phone.
Not so, because of the change describe in the article. The Nokia 6500 has already switched to micro-USB. Not that it micro, not the mini that, for example, Motorola ue,
Poster suso was talking about Jacksons lifetime effect, not a short lived server hit. "Obviously the current young generation has no idea the impact MJ had on the world.". A transient peak on news servers is not a zero effect on the comic scale, but is it hardly history making.
The original discussion was whether he had a great effect on "the world", and his creation of the best selling record ever was quoted as an example. I just commented that this didn't affect those not interested in the music industry. It is not that the music industry is more or less important than all those other things, but that the music industry is not "the world" and all those other things exist. Jacksons death affects only the music industry, and not (as was said several posts up) the whole world. Which is not to denigrate the music industry, but it is to say that other things exist.
For what, other than his music? By which I include concerts as well as recordings, of course. He was, indeed, huge in worldwide music. But if he had not lived, how would the world be different other than in recording sold and concerts played? What effect did he have on politics, economics, the environment, diplomacy, transport, health...?
And to those of us not interested in the music industry, the biggest selling album ever is also supremely uninteresting. He may have had a huge effect on the music industry, but he didn't have much effect on the rest of the world - which amounts to quite a lot.
We need more details about what anti-competitive things IBM is doing. OK, it sells machines that seem to give customers more value for money, in their perception, while still making massive profits. Lucky IBM, but isn't that what business is all about? What have they been doing to stop others competing with them - if they can? Have they been saying that you cannot connect Windows machines to their mainframes? Have they been refusing to run Microsoft software (if you can get the appropriate license) on their virtual machines? Or what else?
The articles I saw suggested a relatively low power density, because the receiver was a 10km circle of desert or farmland. If the latter, the suggestion was that crops could be grown under the receiving mesh.
Speed of light to geostationary orbit and back? Fraction of a second. And the beam will not be intense enough to do any damage in many seconds. Underneath the receiving antenna, the energy level is small enough to grow crops and to drive agricultural vehicles with shielded cabs. It would probably require minutes to do permanent harm.
No, they cause all the transmitters to drift out of phase, so that instead of a coherent beam, you have a wide-angle glow. Transmission is done by a phased-array antenna, as used on most modern radar systems. If these all transmit in a carefully calculated phase relationship, interference directs all the energy into a tight beam. If the phase between the transmitters is random, which it will become if not positively locked to a reference beam, all interference disappears and the energy is dissipated in all directions. All you have to do is ensure that the reference phase is derived not from on board, but from the ground: when the reference beam disappears the transmitters lose phase and the beam broadens into nothing. The transmitters will probably lose lock easily anyway, but you can deliberately unstable if you want. To start the system requires someone on the ground to fire a fairly powerful beam from the target area up to the satellite; to maintain it requires a well-aligned reflector.
The requisite reflector is probably several hundred square feet across, has to be precisely aligned, will take some seconds to set up the beam, and the beam when it arrives is only enough to make people uncomfortably warm.
Which is why you don't use cells, you use turbines. I am not sure you can say that they will "surely" muck up the transmitters, though that is a problem to be overcome.
200MW is a miniature , "proof of concept" system. Based on the capacity of the Wright Flyer, you will never fly the Atlantic. Real power stations would be multi-GW.
Blowing what up? The power source is in space, the receiver is an area of desert about 10km across covered in wire mesh. Any sane amount of explosive could only damage about 1% of it. And further downstream, it is no more nor less vulnerable than the rest of the distribution system.
But the global warming effect from CO2 dwarfs the actual heat emitted. If you add 1 unit of extra solar power beamed in, and save as little as 1000 units of solar energy trapped, you are well ahead of the game.
This resembles the protests against trains, that thirty miles an hour was too fast for the human frame to withstand. The off-target beam has been thought of and is quite simply fixed by bouncing the reference beam for the phased arrays back off the target area. If it goes off target, the beam de-coheres and becomes harmless.
The global warming caused by fossil fuels is not the energy cause by burning those fuels, it the many hundreds or thousands of times more of the incoming solar energy that is trapped because of the carbon dioxide created by the burning. If we use this energy to replace fossil fuels, we will leave the fossils in the ground, and we will create zero carbon dioxide. It therefore represents a very substantial win for global warming. It will not affect the weather any more (or less) than the heat our power stations already emit, which creates significant microclimates.