And the second best counterweight is...your space anchor. Adjust the altitude/orbit, and you change the overall energy to the system. Which can also be fed back out as electricity. Just attach your tether to a spool, and attach a motor/generator to that. Keeping the cars moving is a better option, though.
You really need to look into the theory before you start discussing this. I would recommend science fiction from A.C. Clarke, among others. And before you mock, he positted geostationary satellites before we had the capability to get anything up there accurately. First, the tension is greatest near the center (where gravity goes from 'up' to 'down' when you're geostationary). It's exact location depends on exactly what elevation they end the tether at - the further out you go, the less weight you need, but there is a greater risk of instability, IIRC. Also, the tension at the earth side is almost 0 (for large values of 'almost'). It's basically enough to keep tension and no more. As far as the mass of the object, it's kind of like worrying about the strength of the wall you're going to put your dresser beside - it's not really related. What matters is the outward force exerted by the space-side anchor. If the anchor was exactly at geosynchronous orbit, that would be 0. We obviously need more than that. How much force there is is dependent on the mass of the anchor and how far beyond geosync it is. I'm not interested in doing the exact math, but you can pretty much tailor any mass to work, given the right distance. Optimal solutions fall into a narrower range. The final issue you didn't really touch upon, but the gp mentioned, is net energy levels. If a bunch of mass is pulled up, the space anchor is pulled down. One of the methods described to deal with this is essentially a spool, which can be let in or out to compensate for changes in energy levels. Basically, pull the anchor closer or further to earth to net the energy levels to 0, with the extra being 'stored' in the spool. (Of course, the energy isn't in the spool, it's in the distance of the anchor from the earth, so this can be done as much as you like, so long as the center of gravity for the entire system doesn't fall below geosync.) If you start looking at issues more complicated than that, you'll want to talk to someone who's knowledgeable about orbital mechanics, i.e., a rocket scientist.
It is extremely hard to write a 30 second spot which not only pulls in your audience, but captivates them enough to work out subtle meanings. Hell, most 2 hour movies can't do this.
It can be done in a single sentence, if that's what your goal is. For instance, "I never let schooling get in the way of my education." Says a lot, doesn't it? This leaves only two options for the cause of what you wrote about. The content producers are stupid, or they don't want us to think. I suspect it's the latter.
It's hard to have any useful dialog when you start the conversation with YOU SUCK.
Well, there's my problem. I keep getting sucked into conversations I don't want to be a part of, and didn't know how to get out of them. From now on, I'll just start with YOU SUCK. Maybe it will all stop there. Thank you!
Next you're probably going to whine about how tax dollars might better be spent on education or some crap like that!
Frankly, I think tax dollars would be better spent regulating who could have computers. It would cut down on the idiot comments. At least with TV the idiots can't talk back.
Of course he should probably be then fired for failing to keep backups, conops, continuity planning, etc.
Of course, he was already fired, so that seems like a bit of a moot point. But thanks for joining in on the conversation without having a clue what you're talking about.
Re:you can't stop the doomsayers
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
/.ers? Jog? Even for sex, that's stretching credibility.
I hate this notion where ya can't do squat without some license from the government.
Yes! Just the other day, I wanted to take some kid's appendix out. But, the damn Nanny State government said I actually needed to have a medical license! What kind of fascist dictatorship are we living in, anyway?
Pfft. If you're going to be removing organs, you may as well do it for a profit. Go for a kidney instead - you (usually) only need one...
Re:you can't stop the doomsayers
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
You could always try this: Imagine you're walking down the street in a seedy part of town. You trip over your own feet and somehow, once you've landed, you're having sex with the most beautiful girl you've ever seen. Sure, it's possible, but you won't see anyone changing their jogging route on the off chance.
The irony here is that we routinely have people come back from the dead (as defined 2000 years ago), have people 'magically' appear and disappear in regions of the world (what else would a tribesman believe when someone shows up from nowhere and disappears without leaving any trail?), and have children without ever seeing the father or knowing what he looks like.
Yeah, those are crazy ideas, I can't conceive of a way to make them happen.
You need to read the link first. It includes the exclusion of moisture and corrosives. From what I'm seeing, though, thermal conduction is his big problem. You can get everything but that easily enough. In fact, the GP's link mentions silicone, which would be quite effective in a thin layer (say 0.5 to 1 cm), which would have very few issues with thermal expansion, but you'd have to expose thermal transfer points (heat sinks, etc.). And if your coating doesn't stick exceptionally well to your heat sinks, you'll get seepage, which will still ruin your system.
I wouldn't expect most photo printer paper to last 25 years.
So don't use photo printer paper. Get archival-quality photographic prints made at a professional photography shop. Some of those are rated to last for decades in a viewable format (where UV can damage them). I'm sure they'll be fine in a sealed container. I'd also make a point of looking over what the International Time Capsule Society has to say. I'm sure they've answered questions you haven't even thought to ask.
The only way Apple could reasonably sell OS X for generic x86 or x86_64 hardware is to have a huge list of requirements similar to the "Vista Capable" debacle. And it would cost a lot more than the $129 it costs now. Prices would be similar to what you pay for the latest boxed version of Windows, because currently OS X is subsidized by the premium you paid on Apple's hardware to run it in the first place.
Wrong. If Apple is selling the software for a reasonable price (which the OSS community tends to say approaches $0), then the costs of development would be covered. The issue is support. So don't include support for non-Apple-approved hardware configurations. Or sell support for the real cost of that support (which would probably make genuine Macs a lot more attractive). Or tie the support contract to the hardware and not the software ("all Mac models come with customer support for Mac OS X"). This does two things. First, it makes it clear where the true cost of the hardware is - most of the typical bugs have been ironed out on the standard configurations, but not necessarily on all possible PC configurations. Second, it makes it possible for Apple to clearly disassociate themselves with the user experience on non-Apple PCs ("We test OS X extensively for our Mac configurations, but we make no guarantees about third-party computers").
Where can I buy one of these key warmers? I live in a cold climate, and this could help me get into my car in the morning. Sure, I could use alcohol, but that doesn't sound nearly as fun.
Here comes a raging global warming debate... haven't seen this on the Internet in 5 seconds. Hopefully for this one we'll get some cashiers, makeup artists and puppeteers to weigh in with their expert environmental opinion, just to mix things up.
I think even if the Puppeteers had an opinion that they'd keep it very much under wraps. Sneaky bastards.
I went through Wikipedia and there were only 2 references (in the in-flight fires category) to aircraft crashes due to smoking. In fact, from what I read in there, it's much more likely for a cargo fire to get out of control and cause the plane to crash. There were two other notable in-flight fires: the one set by the flight personnel who didn't want to be on that flight, and the Chinese guy who set the passenger area on fire with some gasoline he brought on. The second one is full of WTF material in just that sentence alone.:P
But it was actually pretty useful stuff, and I've been surprised at the number of places that knowledge has come in useful. Particularly in the areas of data analysis, structure, and storage.
I find that is true about most knowledge. A little generalization and suddenly something that seems pretty obscure is touching upon all kinds of things in your daily life.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd vote it in just to legalize curb-stomping puppies!
And the second best counterweight is...your space anchor. Adjust the altitude/orbit, and you change the overall energy to the system. Which can also be fed back out as electricity. Just attach your tether to a spool, and attach a motor/generator to that.
Keeping the cars moving is a better option, though.
You really need to look into the theory before you start discussing this. I would recommend science fiction from A.C. Clarke, among others. And before you mock, he positted geostationary satellites before we had the capability to get anything up there accurately.
First, the tension is greatest near the center (where gravity goes from 'up' to 'down' when you're geostationary). It's exact location depends on exactly what elevation they end the tether at - the further out you go, the less weight you need, but there is a greater risk of instability, IIRC. Also, the tension at the earth side is almost 0 (for large values of 'almost'). It's basically enough to keep tension and no more.
As far as the mass of the object, it's kind of like worrying about the strength of the wall you're going to put your dresser beside - it's not really related. What matters is the outward force exerted by the space-side anchor. If the anchor was exactly at geosynchronous orbit, that would be 0. We obviously need more than that. How much force there is is dependent on the mass of the anchor and how far beyond geosync it is. I'm not interested in doing the exact math, but you can pretty much tailor any mass to work, given the right distance. Optimal solutions fall into a narrower range.
The final issue you didn't really touch upon, but the gp mentioned, is net energy levels. If a bunch of mass is pulled up, the space anchor is pulled down. One of the methods described to deal with this is essentially a spool, which can be let in or out to compensate for changes in energy levels. Basically, pull the anchor closer or further to earth to net the energy levels to 0, with the extra being 'stored' in the spool. (Of course, the energy isn't in the spool, it's in the distance of the anchor from the earth, so this can be done as much as you like, so long as the center of gravity for the entire system doesn't fall below geosync.)
If you start looking at issues more complicated than that, you'll want to talk to someone who's knowledgeable about orbital mechanics, i.e., a rocket scientist.
It is extremely hard to write a 30 second spot which not only pulls in your audience, but captivates them enough to work out subtle meanings. Hell, most 2 hour movies can't do this.
It can be done in a single sentence, if that's what your goal is. For instance, "I never let schooling get in the way of my education." Says a lot, doesn't it?
This leaves only two options for the cause of what you wrote about. The content producers are stupid, or they don't want us to think. I suspect it's the latter.
It's hard to have any useful dialog when you start the conversation with YOU SUCK.
Well, there's my problem. I keep getting sucked into conversations I don't want to be a part of, and didn't know how to get out of them. From now on, I'll just start with YOU SUCK. Maybe it will all stop there. Thank you!
Oh, and YOU SUCK!
Um, hello?
Apparently the lack of documentation...was (is) standard practice there.
And...
Of course he should probably be then fired for failing to keep backups, conops, continuity planning, etc.
Sounds like you need to pick one. Was he following SOP or not? Also, I don't see how not maintaining planning logs is a civil or criminal offense.
You misunderstand. 'Better spent' implied 'spent in a way that's better for me'.
Next you're probably going to whine about how tax dollars might better be spent on education or some crap like that!
Frankly, I think tax dollars would be better spent regulating who could have computers. It would cut down on the idiot comments. At least with TV the idiots can't talk back.
P.S. Yes, I know you're joking. I think.
Of course he should probably be then fired for failing to keep backups, conops, continuity planning, etc.
Of course, he was already fired, so that seems like a bit of a moot point. But thanks for joining in on the conversation without having a clue what you're talking about.
/.ers? Jog? Even for sex, that's stretching credibility.
Yes! Just the other day, I wanted to take some kid's appendix out. But, the damn Nanny State government said I actually needed to have a medical license! What kind of fascist dictatorship are we living in, anyway?
Pfft. If you're going to be removing organs, you may as well do it for a profit. Go for a kidney instead - you (usually) only need one...
You could always try this:
Imagine you're walking down the street in a seedy part of town. You trip over your own feet and somehow, once you've landed, you're having sex with the most beautiful girl you've ever seen. Sure, it's possible, but you won't see anyone changing their jogging route on the off chance.
The irony here is that we routinely have people come back from the dead (as defined 2000 years ago), have people 'magically' appear and disappear in regions of the world (what else would a tribesman believe when someone shows up from nowhere and disappears without leaving any trail?), and have children without ever seeing the father or knowing what he looks like.
Yeah, those are crazy ideas, I can't conceive of a way to make them happen.
You need to read the link first. It includes the exclusion of moisture and corrosives.
From what I'm seeing, though, thermal conduction is his big problem. You can get everything but that easily enough. In fact, the GP's link mentions silicone, which would be quite effective in a thin layer (say 0.5 to 1 cm), which would have very few issues with thermal expansion, but you'd have to expose thermal transfer points (heat sinks, etc.). And if your coating doesn't stick exceptionally well to your heat sinks, you'll get seepage, which will still ruin your system.
I wouldn't expect most photo printer paper to last 25 years.
So don't use photo printer paper. Get archival-quality photographic prints made at a professional photography shop. Some of those are rated to last for decades in a viewable format (where UV can damage them). I'm sure they'll be fine in a sealed container.
I'd also make a point of looking over what the International Time Capsule Society has to say. I'm sure they've answered questions you haven't even thought to ask.
The only way Apple could reasonably sell OS X for generic x86 or x86_64 hardware is to have a huge list of requirements similar to the "Vista Capable" debacle. And it would cost a lot more than the $129 it costs now. Prices would be similar to what you pay for the latest boxed version of Windows, because currently OS X is subsidized by the premium you paid on Apple's hardware to run it in the first place.
Wrong. If Apple is selling the software for a reasonable price (which the OSS community tends to say approaches $0), then the costs of development would be covered. The issue is support. So don't include support for non-Apple-approved hardware configurations. Or sell support for the real cost of that support (which would probably make genuine Macs a lot more attractive). Or tie the support contract to the hardware and not the software ("all Mac models come with customer support for Mac OS X").
This does two things. First, it makes it clear where the true cost of the hardware is - most of the typical bugs have been ironed out on the standard configurations, but not necessarily on all possible PC configurations. Second, it makes it possible for Apple to clearly disassociate themselves with the user experience on non-Apple PCs ("We test OS X extensively for our Mac configurations, but we make no guarantees about third-party computers").
[...] runs to the sink, empties it, and returns it to the dresser. The problem has now been reduced to one that has been previously solved.
This is the software engineer way too.
The code monkey method is to make a new bucket that looks similar to a bucket you've used before, but probably leaks.
Where can I buy one of these key warmers? I live in a cold climate, and this could help me get into my car in the morning.
Sure, I could use alcohol, but that doesn't sound nearly as fun.
I though you were just another crazy until I saw your 5-digit /. ID. Well said!
Here comes a raging global warming debate... haven't seen this on the Internet in 5 seconds.
Hopefully for this one we'll get some cashiers, makeup artists and puppeteers to weigh in with their expert environmental opinion, just to mix things up.
I think even if the Puppeteers had an opinion that they'd keep it very much under wraps. Sneaky bastards.
Ah, I hadn't read this one well enough. The fire started near the lavatory, but there's nothing to suggest it was started by smoking.
I went through Wikipedia and there were only 2 references (in the in-flight fires category) to aircraft crashes due to smoking. In fact, from what I read in there, it's much more likely for a cargo fire to get out of control and cause the plane to crash. :P
There were two other notable in-flight fires: the one set by the flight personnel who didn't want to be on that flight, and the Chinese guy who set the passenger area on fire with some gasoline he brought on. The second one is full of WTF material in just that sentence alone.
But it was actually pretty useful stuff, and I've been surprised at the number of places that knowledge has come in useful. Particularly in the areas of data analysis, structure, and storage.
I find that is true about most knowledge. A little generalization and suddenly something that seems pretty obscure is touching upon all kinds of things in your daily life.
Seems only fair, since they keep wanting to screw us...
If only I had mod points...