I completely agree with the spirt of your post although I have to disagree with the following on technical grounds:
Wings are totally useless (Shuttle's wings don't -- can't -- work until after reentry.) The reason you put wings on something is when you want to fly somewhere in an atmosphere. The CEV is a space vehicle- it won't be doing any flying.
Wings are not totally useless on a space vehicle. Wings on a re-entry vehicle are the only way to get significant lift-over-drag (L/D) which allows you to do some important things:
First, it allows for a much gentler deceleration of only about 3 g's compared with purely ballistic re-entries that can have periods as high as 10 g's.
Second, a large L/D lets you generate significant lift at much higher altitudes. In effect a winged re-entry vehicle is not simply limited to "flying within the atmosphere" as you suggest but can convert some of the energy lost during the deceleration of re-entry into cross-track acceleration. This is important because a large cross-range capability allows you to reach a larger number of landing sites on any given orbit. The alternative is waiting several orbits a suitable landing site to rotate under the re-entry path of the orbiter.
Now, don't get me wrong. These are important capabilities but neither is really necessary for our current use of the space shuttle. While a 3'g re-entry is more comfortable on the crew the Russians have been demonstrating for years that the crew holds up just fine during 7-9 g ballistic re-entries even after long-duration MIR/ISS missions. It also allows you to bring back payload (intact) that were not designed to survive a 9-g re-entry. This is somewhat irrelevant as I think you can count the number of times the shuttle has been used to retrieve a satellite (and return to Earth) with a bit or two. Furthermore, a high L/D re-entry requires a significantly longer (time-wise) re-entry with a significantly larger heat pulse. This of course requires a more massive thermal protection system to store/re-radiate the energy. And don't forget that wings imply control surfaces, which imply actuators and multiple hydraulics systems, not to mention auto-pilots and (redundant) control avionics, all of which take up mass that otherwise could be used for payload.
The second, bullet (cross-range capability) is nice from a safety point of view. Hypothetically, in the event of an on-orbit emergency the shuttle could re-enter and reach a safe landing site much more quickly than a purely ballistic vehicle which would be forced to either wait a few orbits for phasing or immediate re-enter and end up hundreds or thousands of miles from recovery personnel or medical care. Interestingly, the specific value of L/D and therefore configuration of the shuttle was driven largely by the Air Force, who wanted the capability to launch out of Vandenberg into polar orbit, deploy (or snatch) a sat and return to Edwards in one orbit. Guess how many times this has been done...
Everyone is blaming someone. Conservatives are blaming gay people for trying to destroy the sanctity of marriage and blaming liberals for aiding and abetting terrorists. Like I said, they're mostly the same. You can say one side is really better than the other on this.
I think you completely missed his point, and your examples further advance his point. He said that Dems blame the aberant actions of people on objects such as guns or video games. One can extrapolate that he believes the other side (presumably the Repubs) blame the actions of people on the individuals performing the actions. In the examples you give, conservatives are attacking individuals (or groups) and not for instance blaming terrorists on the availability of cheap tupperwear and explosives components.
I know this is a little off-topic but fits well with your line of reasoning on how Dems blame THINGS for the actions of PEOPLE. Someone here on slashdot has the funniest sig reflecting that same viewpoint... I don't recall his name so I'll paraphrase:
"Saying Guns are responsbile for crime is like saying spoons are responsible for making Rosie O'Donnel fat"
It talks about GTA, the decline in youth violence, and mentions that football actually encourages real aggression, causes real injuries, and is treated totally differently
The article makes a passing reference to real football encouraging real aggression, but the second two things you mention are fabricated. Here is the only reference to real football from the article:
I'd like to draw your attention to another game whose nonstop violence and hostility has captured the attention of millions of kids -- a game that instills aggressive thoughts in the minds of its players, some of whom have gone on to commit real-world acts of violence and sexual assault after playing.
The bulk of the article is actually about there really not being a problem with kids playing video games and that in many ways, modern, difficult games actually stimulate learning (at least more than watching professional sports). The author then cites many games such as Halo 2 and the Sims and Madden 2005 as proof of how beneficial these games can be. I happen to agree with him, however that is somewhat of a bait and switch,... weren't we talking about games like GTA? How do the benefits of Madden 2005 justify the perceived issues with GTA:SA?
PEOPLE, we are being enslaved... The USA is worse than all of Al Queda and Nazi germany put together. We are enslaving the world to "western values". I hope a nuke goes off in NYC, or should I say NYX.
Enslaved? By Disney? I want some of whatever you are smoking... besides Disney is a private corporation. They can do pretty much anything they want.
Here is a link to the US Constitution. Find for me the right to spend $50+ to spend two thirds of your day standing in line for one minute attractions. Or maybe you are concerned with your right to buy an $8 burger/fries/coke combo. When the federales line up behind you with cattle prods herding you through the finger scanners, then maybe you will have a point.
I always board first because we have a small child and I still choose the second or third-to-last row of the plane. Why? Because it is as far back as I can get (those seats are safer) while still being able to recline my seat and not being super close to the offensive odor of the lav.
And for those who don't wish to wait for "Step 1" may I direct your attention to this site... . Yeah, it isn't the current broadcast; it is more like pay-per-view of your favorite shows (except that it is free and probably a copyright violation)
You are right on. What people "want" or "prefer" is largely irrelevant. What they will pay for is all that matters.
For instance, almost everyone I know complains about Southwest Airlines - particularly the dreaded "Cattle Call" seating assignments... yet when push comes to shove (pun) their planes are full of paying passengers and they are the only major airline to post a profit every quarter since 9-11.
Actually, you can put a spacecraft at any of the L points and get it to stay there... it may just require a small amount of propellant. For instance, while the L1, L2 and L3 point are all unstable to varying degrees, there are periodic and quasi-periodic (Lissajous) orbits that exist around each of these unstable points. The radii of these halo-like orbits are quite small (at least compared with the distance between the two massive bodies) so they may as well be stationary at the respective L-point (from a mission utility point of view).
Fair enough,.. then it is like making local calls at no additional cost. You are still preventing the occupant from making full use of his bandwidth that he paid for. You are stealing that portion of bandwidth that he paid for but can not use do to your traffic.
No,... it is more like walking up to the phone junction you and your neighbor share (possibly on neutral territory), hooking up your lineman's handset to their phone line and making long distance calls.
Good idea, but unfortunately I have XP Home edition and you can't assign user rights like you can in Pro (at least not any easy way that I have found yet...)
I second that one... I have everyone in my family (myself included) setup as limited users but most of my games, my palm sync software, and every single childrens' educational game I have will not run unless admin. So every time my kids want to play Blue's Clues I have to come up, use "Run as..." and enter my admin password. Pain in the arse.
iCal is not only 100% less bloated, it's also much easier to track things like to-do lists, and have multiple, overlapping schedules. In combination with using an open standard, it's easy to publish your calenders and keep track of everything.
This is all very astonishing of you, considering that later in this thread you admit that you have never actually used Outlook2k3...
My two and half year old is similarly obsessed yet he hasn't seen any yet.. just the marketing (particularly the posters of Chewbacca at Burger King). I was thinking about ripping Ep 4 and editing out the few "Scary" scenes so he can watch it... how'd your 4 year old react?
Do you want an equal partnership or are you looking to 'buy' a wife?
I think the real issue is fighting 300 million years of evolution. Evolutionarily speaking, females want a powerful mate. Since in civilized society, butting heads like rams doesn't go over too well, modern women have adapted by preferring to select mates who are powerful economically. That ring on her finger is the equivalent of an enormous set of ram's horns on your head. Personally, I'd rather buy the ring.
Slashdot Mirror
You must be new here.
(yes, I know you are a three-digit but work with me...it's funny!)
You obviously don't read at threshold: -1.
You call that math? Now this, this is math!
</accent>
Wings are totally useless (Shuttle's wings don't -- can't -- work until after reentry.) The reason you put wings on something is when you want to fly somewhere in an atmosphere. The CEV is a space vehicle- it won't be doing any flying.
Wings are not totally useless on a space vehicle. Wings on a re-entry vehicle are the only way to get significant lift-over-drag (L/D) which allows you to do some important things:
- First, it allows for a much gentler deceleration of only about 3 g's compared with purely ballistic re-entries that can have periods as high as 10 g's.
- Second, a large L/D lets you generate significant lift at much higher altitudes. In effect a winged re-entry vehicle is not simply limited to "flying within the atmosphere" as you suggest but can convert some of the energy lost during the deceleration of re-entry into cross-track acceleration. This is important because a large cross-range capability allows you to reach a larger number of landing sites on any given orbit. The alternative is waiting several orbits a suitable landing site to rotate under the re-entry path of the orbiter.
Now, don't get me wrong. These are important capabilities but neither is really necessary for our current use of the space shuttle. While a 3'g re-entry is more comfortable on the crew the Russians have been demonstrating for years that the crew holds up just fine during 7-9 g ballistic re-entries even after long-duration MIR/ISS missions. It also allows you to bring back payload (intact) that were not designed to survive a 9-g re-entry. This is somewhat irrelevant as I think you can count the number of times the shuttle has been used to retrieve a satellite (and return to Earth) with a bit or two. Furthermore, a high L/D re-entry requires a significantly longer (time-wise) re-entry with a significantly larger heat pulse. This of course requires a more massive thermal protection system to store/re-radiate the energy. And don't forget that wings imply control surfaces, which imply actuators and multiple hydraulics systems, not to mention auto-pilots and (redundant) control avionics, all of which take up mass that otherwise could be used for payload.The second, bullet (cross-range capability) is nice from a safety point of view. Hypothetically, in the event of an on-orbit emergency the shuttle could re-enter and reach a safe landing site much more quickly than a purely ballistic vehicle which would be forced to either wait a few orbits for phasing or immediate re-enter and end up hundreds or thousands of miles from recovery personnel or medical care. Interestingly, the specific value of L/D and therefore configuration of the shuttle was driven largely by the Air Force, who wanted the capability to launch out of Vandenberg into polar orbit, deploy (or snatch) a sat and return to Edwards in one orbit. Guess how many times this has been done...
Actually, why don't we call it what it is, a Kupiter object and while we are at it, call Pluto and Charon one too.
I think you completely missed his point, and your examples further advance his point. He said that Dems blame the aberant actions of people on objects such as guns or video games. One can extrapolate that he believes the other side (presumably the Repubs) blame the actions of people on the individuals performing the actions. In the examples you give, conservatives are attacking individuals (or groups) and not for instance blaming terrorists on the availability of cheap tupperwear and explosives components.
"Saying Guns are responsbile for crime is like saying spoons are responsible for making Rosie O'Donnel fat"
The article makes a passing reference to real football encouraging real aggression, but the second two things you mention are fabricated. Here is the only reference to real football from the article:
I'd like to draw your attention to another game whose nonstop violence and hostility has captured the attention of millions of kids -- a game that instills aggressive thoughts in the minds of its players, some of whom have gone on to commit real-world acts of violence and sexual assault after playing.
The bulk of the article is actually about there really not being a problem with kids playing video games and that in many ways, modern, difficult games actually stimulate learning (at least more than watching professional sports). The author then cites many games such as Halo 2 and the Sims and Madden 2005 as proof of how beneficial these games can be. I happen to agree with him, however that is somewhat of a bait and switch,... weren't we talking about games like GTA? How do the benefits of Madden 2005 justify the perceived issues with GTA:SA?
Enslaved? By Disney? I want some of whatever you are smoking... besides Disney is a private corporation. They can do pretty much anything they want.
Here is a link to the US Constitution. Find for me the right to spend $50+ to spend two thirds of your day standing in line for one minute attractions. Or maybe you are concerned with your right to buy an $8 burger/fries/coke combo. When the federales line up behind you with cattle prods herding you through the finger scanners, then maybe you will have a point.
You're of course forgetting Prom night and Valentine's Day.
I always board first because we have a small child and I still choose the second or third-to-last row of the plane. Why? Because it is as far back as I can get (those seats are safer) while still being able to recline my seat and not being super close to the offensive odor of the lav.
And for those who don't wish to wait for "Step 1" may I direct your attention to this site... . Yeah, it isn't the current broadcast; it is more like pay-per-view of your favorite shows (except that it is free and probably a copyright violation)
For instance, almost everyone I know complains about Southwest Airlines - particularly the dreaded "Cattle Call" seating assignments... yet when push comes to shove (pun) their planes are full of paying passengers and they are the only major airline to post a profit every quarter since 9-11.
Was it a haiku?
Actually, you can put a spacecraft at any of the L points and get it to stay there... it may just require a small amount of propellant. For instance, while the L1, L2 and L3 point are all unstable to varying degrees, there are periodic and quasi-periodic (Lissajous) orbits that exist around each of these unstable points. The radii of these halo-like orbits are quite small (at least compared with the distance between the two massive bodies) so they may as well be stationary at the respective L-point (from a mission utility point of view).
Fair enough,.. then it is like making local calls at no additional cost. You are still preventing the occupant from making full use of his bandwidth that he paid for. You are stealing that portion of bandwidth that he paid for but can not use do to your traffic.
No,... it is more like walking up to the phone junction you and your neighbor share (possibly on neutral territory), hooking up your lineman's handset to their phone line and making long distance calls.
Don't think this is what they had in mind but it is my favorite :)
Good idea, but unfortunately I have XP Home edition and you can't assign user rights like you can in Pro (at least not any easy way that I have found yet...)
I second that one... I have everyone in my family (myself included) setup as limited users but most of my games, my palm sync software, and every single childrens' educational game I have will not run unless admin. So every time my kids want to play Blue's Clues I have to come up, use "Run as..." and enter my admin password. Pain in the arse.
I call BS here as well. My system is a P4 1.8 GHz with 1 GB of memory. Loaded MS Word three times, all in approximately one second (each).
This is all very astonishing of you, considering that later in this thread you admit that you have never actually used Outlook2k3...
My two and half year old is similarly obsessed yet he hasn't seen any yet.. just the marketing (particularly the posters of Chewbacca at Burger King). I was thinking about ripping Ep 4 and editing out the few "Scary" scenes so he can watch it... how'd your 4 year old react?
Good point... I should have said "most crash-surviavable" row of seats.
I think the real issue is fighting 300 million years of evolution. Evolutionarily speaking, females want a powerful mate. Since in civilized society, butting heads like rams doesn't go over too well, modern women have adapted by preferring to select mates who are powerful economically. That ring on her finger is the equivalent of an enormous set of ram's horns on your head. Personally, I'd rather buy the ring.