And look at how now you've changed from defending your point to calling me a troll-- when it's obvious that you didn't know what you were talking about. This is the best evidence of someone with a weak argument.
No. The "best evidence" is evidence relating to the subject, not how I react to your personal slights. Please feel free to have the last word, I won't respond to you further.
No it doesn't. Vodka is generally only 40% alcohol. The remaining 60% is non-flammable. Vodka makes a piss-poor molotov.
Hmm... I was mislead by the "Molotov -> Russian -> vodka inference. I see that the usual recipe is "usually gasoline (petrol) or alcohol and a rag stuffed in the mouth of the bottle....Sometimes, if available, self-inflammatory materials (such as white phosphorus), could also be used to guarantee the bottle's explosion as it hits the target surface. Tar is often added to the composition in order to make the burning fluid stick to the target. Sometimes acid is added to the mix to increase the damaging potential."
And checking up on vodka reveals that it goes up to about 50% alcohol; being distilled to about 95% and then diluted before bottling.
But lacking personal experience, is there any normal drink that would be suitable as an explosive?
You're not allowed to bring flammable "fuels" in either carry on or check in; whihc would include pure alcohol. But no mention of alcoholic drinks. A bottle of vodka makes a nice Molotov cocktail, but there's no way they're going to ban all those lucrative airport and on board alochol sales.
Many years ago when going to Tasmania on a camping trip I had an aluminium fuel bottle in my luggage full of alcohol. No way was I going to declare it and lose it, considering that it was much safer than a glasss bottle of spirits that was perfectly acceptable. Of course now I'd empty it out in fear of being imprisoned or worse.
Nah, I'm just the kind of person who doesn't like people making authoritative statements about stuff they know nothing about.
If actually did want to educate people, you wouldn't gratuitously insult them. Even if you happen to be correct, no one listens to a self-righteous asshole.
The delta-V to get to Venus is much less than to go to Mars. Results is less acceleration load on the probes
Shuttle peak acceleration during launch...
Fine. My figure for launch g were wrong; the exact number wasn't the point, (though planetary probes aren't launched by shuttles) only that it's the same wherever you're going. My point on your "delta v" argument remains.
There is so much more wrong with your post that I prefer not to comment any further
Because it's not wrong? Feel free to demolish it in detail. I'd especially like to hear about how much nicer for electronics Venus is than Mars.
1) The delta-V to get to Venus is much less than to go to Mars. Results is less acceleration load on the probes
The acceleration to get into earth orbit is the same wherever you're going, and that's the massive 8 or more g's you see astronauts training for in centrifuges. Then you can boost at low accleration, for as long as your fuel allows, to get the required delta v. Or do a gravitational boost, which creates no acceleration stress, if orbits and time allow.
2) The thermal cycle of daily heating/cooling is less extreme on Venus than on Mars. Yes, you do have pressure to worry about on Venus... but the thermal cycle is what beats the hell out of electrical connections.
The atmosphere of Venus is very high pressure, hot and acidic and most probes survived only minutes on the surface -- certainly the early ones did, and I don't think the later ones did much better. The Mars probes that survived landing lasted as long as their power did, four months for Pathfinder, through the steep diurnal temperature cycles.
If they've not read the other posts, why on earth would they start with my mid-stream reply?
If that's so, why on earth do you quote the other posts at all? Just post your own reply.
The reaon I get annoyed at top posters is that when I see a page of text under a message, I imagine that it must have been put there for a reason, so I scan through it to find the author's comments. But if there aren't any, by not bothering to think or edit the quoted text, he's wasted my time and an uncounted number of peopl'e bandwidth and storage for text that is completely redundant.
I've just never understood why those who are against top-posting are so much more vehement
It may even be a rather long and wordy conversation, as long as it can fit in ones' head. In these situations, I actually find it quite tedious to scroll through a bunch of stuff I've already read (even worse, a bunch of stuff that I've written) just to get to the salient part of the matter.
Yes; in those cases you don't quote anything, except maybe a single reference giving the subject/date/time of the message you're responding to. After all, presumably you have all that text already.
I used to be religious about preserving email exactly as sent, but now as I'm working for myself I often edit down the incoming mail (Eudora lets you do that) to strip off disclaimers, HTML, redundant quoted stuff I already have, before filing it.
My former boss used to reply at the top of a complete quoted message, which he would NEVER directly reference. Sometimes when I came into a conversation late that he'd been having with a like-minded friend, I'd find a tail of 20 kb of massively indented and almost illegible text, including dozens of copies of his address block sig. Often the anwer to questions he asked was hidden in this mass. And often interesting information he probably didn't want to share with me was there too (such as comments about my work performance and how much he wanted to get rid of me).
Re:steve jobs and other red herrings
on
Despairing of Pixar
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Neither Steve Jobs nor Pixar are even mentioned in the article linked. Why on earth is Pixar in the headline?
It is a well known fact that if you keep crumpling up a piece of paper over and over, it gets so soft you can use it as asswipe. Let someone try to get the information off that!
Flip burgers in the US for a few months and you can spend a year in India in the lap of luxury. It's one of the cheapest places on the planet. And thus unless you have unique skills, you will earn peanuts there, unless you can figure a way to scam/exploit other foreigners.
Though Cliff added his comment Here's a question I always wish I could ask managers, whenever the topic of 'outsourcing' comes up: if dealing with programmers overseas, nowhere in the submission was it stated or implied that the outsourcing would be done overseas. Outsourcing can be done locally, and still is. In the security field, there's Bruce Schneier's Counterpane, for instance.
Though it is possible the job in question went to Hyderabad, there's no need to see a Hindu behind every lost job.
If all that Mac does is run Illustrator all day, then no, you're not going to need a lot of support calls on it unless something fails.
But we can be pretty sure that they are browsing the web, sending email, and using word processors. These same activities on Windows expose you to viruses, trojans, etc.
And you're more likely to have problems runing DTP all day than with simple office apps, malware aside. (Problems importing files, colour space, printing, scratch space, fonts, fonts and fonts.)
the three "books" (each one is actually two books) were written and released at different times.
No, it was written as a single work, between 1936 to1949. The publisher, George Allen & Unwin, decided to break it up into three volumes, published about 6 months apart. The last volume was delayed because Tolkien was obsessing about details in the appendices.
Publication dates:
Fellowship of the Ring (29 Jul 1954)
The Two Towers (11 Nov 1954)
Return of the King (20 Oct 1955)
Rather than give you the useless yet uplifting RTFA (which does not give a clue what AMS is) I believe This might help
Amazingly, the explanatory page is a Powerpoint file. Viewing that one finds that the application is built around an Oracle database. It generates Word documents and stores them. So the logic is probably not a skein of VBA. If there was demand, it shouldn't be hard to convert it to run with OO on Linux.
No, of course it isn't. It's much better to wait until the enemy attacks you first and causes massive casualties to both civilians and military
That's all true; but has nothing to do with Iraq. Saddam only wanted to kill Kurds, dissidents, and maybe some neighbours like Iran and Kuwait. Despite all Bush's propaganda, Saddam didn't support terrorists like bin Laden except in a token way, because he knew, as a basically secular leader, he was a prime target of religious fundamentalists, who want to rule the Middle East and who attack the US not as a prelude for invasion but to make them back off from meddling in their part of the world. There's a good case that bin Laden's strategy was to push the US into a massive retaliation against the Muslim world, which would destroy the credibility of moderates and US allies, allowing his cronies to take power. And similarly, that Cheney et al have wanted a big military presence in the ME, to keep pressure on the Saudis. But basing more troops in Saudi Arabia would make the royals (more) unpopular, so having them nearby in a client state is even better.
As much as I would like to see O/S everywhere in the world, I think that what Iraq needs before anything else at the moment is a stable government.
I'm sure that anyone who went to school with Dick Cheney's cousin's dentist is lobbying to get a piece of the Iraq reconstruction pie. And part of that will be spent on software -- and without effort by the OS community, it'll all go to MS. Will giving more money to Redmond help Iraq get stable government? Or would, in the most rosy view, having a local independent software industry help more?
If you have practical suggestions for making/. work better then write and submit an article about how you would go about doing that. I'm sure we'd all love to hear your suggestions.
1) Spellcheck articles
2) Check for dupes.
Since both of these would be trivial to implement, and both have been suggested thousands of times, I conclude that actually suggestions are not welcome.
Why on earth do you consider "the opinion of Bill Sherwood" to be canonical?
This is np;t the forst time I've heard of Pearse. And otherwise I can only say, RTFA. It's not just one person's word. There are scans of documents, plans of the engine, and links to books about it. Just because you've never heard of him doesn't mean it's a hoax.
There's somethng about people that put "Period." after their opinions that just begs a refutation... and though you have tried to contrive a definition of "flight" to keep the trophy with the US; from the FA at least four flights made before the Wright Bros:
Man's First Powered Flight
Richard Pearse, Waitohi, New Zealand, March 31, 1902
March 31, 1902 - First powered flight. Estimated distance around 350 yards. Similar to the first Wright Brothers flight, ie, in a straight line, and barely controlled.
March ? 1903 - After spending a year working on the engine, and tending to his farm, Pearce made another flight, this time with a distance of only about 150 yards.
May 2, 1903 - Distance unknown, but as usual the aircraft ended up stuck in a gorse hedge 15' off the ground!
May 11, 1903 - This, my opinion, [ie. the opinion of Bill Sherwood] was man's first real flight. Pearse took off along the side of the Opihi River, turned left to fly over the 30' tall river bank, then turned right to fly parallel to the middle of the river. After flying nearly 1,000 yards, his engine began to overheat and lost power, thus forcing a landing way down the dry-ish riverbed. One of the locals, Arthur Tozer, was crossing the river at the time and was rather surprised to have Pearse fly right over his head!
Slashdot Mirror
Also Bacardi rum has a 151. There seems to be a fair number of "overproof" spirits in that range.
No. The "best evidence" is evidence relating to the subject, not how I react to your personal slights. Please feel free to have the last word, I won't respond to you further.
Hmm... I was mislead by the "Molotov -> Russian -> vodka inference. I see that the usual recipe is "usually gasoline (petrol) or alcohol and a rag stuffed in the mouth of the bottle....Sometimes, if available, self-inflammatory materials (such as white phosphorus), could also be used to guarantee the bottle's explosion as it hits the target surface. Tar is often added to the composition in order to make the burning fluid stick to the target. Sometimes acid is added to the mix to increase the damaging potential."
And checking up on vodka reveals that it goes up to about 50% alcohol; being distilled to about 95% and then diluted before bottling. But lacking personal experience, is there any normal drink that would be suitable as an explosive?
Many years ago when going to Tasmania on a camping trip I had an aluminium fuel bottle in my luggage full of alcohol. No way was I going to declare it and lose it, considering that it was much safer than a glasss bottle of spirits that was perfectly acceptable. Of course now I'd empty it out in fear of being imprisoned or worse.
If actually did want to educate people, you wouldn't gratuitously insult them. Even if you happen to be correct, no one listens to a self-righteous asshole.
So you're the kind of troll that likes to jump into a thread and make personal attacks and patronising remarks just to stir things up.
Shuttle peak acceleration during launch...
Fine. My figure for launch g were wrong; the exact number wasn't the point, (though planetary probes aren't launched by shuttles) only that it's the same wherever you're going. My point on your "delta v" argument remains.
There is so much more wrong with your post that I prefer not to comment any further
Because it's not wrong? Feel free to demolish it in detail. I'd especially like to hear about how much nicer for electronics Venus is than Mars.
The acceleration to get into earth orbit is the same wherever you're going, and that's the massive 8 or more g's you see astronauts training for in centrifuges. Then you can boost at low accleration, for as long as your fuel allows, to get the required delta v. Or do a gravitational boost, which creates no acceleration stress, if orbits and time allow. 2) The thermal cycle of daily heating/cooling is less extreme on Venus than on Mars. Yes, you do have pressure to worry about on Venus... but the thermal cycle is what beats the hell out of electrical connections.
The atmosphere of Venus is very high pressure, hot and acidic and most probes survived only minutes on the surface -- certainly the early ones did, and I don't think the later ones did much better. The Mars probes that survived landing lasted as long as their power did, four months for Pathfinder, through the steep diurnal temperature cycles.
Not particularly, I don't recall any earthquakes in Shanghai, typhoons are infrequent (every several years). There was flooding in 1998.
If that's so, why on earth do you quote the other posts at all? Just post your own reply.
The reaon I get annoyed at top posters is that when I see a page of text under a message, I imagine that it must have been put there for a reason, so I scan through it to find the author's comments. But if there aren't any, by not bothering to think or edit the quoted text, he's wasted my time and an uncounted number of peopl'e bandwidth and storage for text that is completely redundant.
I've just never understood why those who are against top-posting are so much more vehement
Really, I could get MUCH more vehement....
Outlook-quotefix!
Yes; in those cases you don't quote anything, except maybe a single reference giving the subject/date/time of the message you're responding to. After all, presumably you have all that text already.
I used to be religious about preserving email exactly as sent, but now as I'm working for myself I often edit down the incoming mail (Eudora lets you do that) to strip off disclaimers, HTML, redundant quoted stuff I already have, before filing it.
My former boss used to reply at the top of a complete quoted message, which he would NEVER directly reference. Sometimes when I came into a conversation late that he'd been having with a like-minded friend, I'd find a tail of 20 kb of massively indented and almost illegible text, including dozens of copies of his address block sig. Often the anwer to questions he asked was hidden in this mass. And often interesting information he probably didn't want to share with me was there too (such as comments about my work performance and how much he wanted to get rid of me).
Neither Steve Jobs nor Pixar are even mentioned in the article linked. Why on earth is Pixar in the headline?
Assmap
Flip burgers in the US for a few months and you can spend a year in India in the lap of luxury. It's one of the cheapest places on the planet. And thus unless you have unique skills, you will earn peanuts there, unless you can figure a way to scam/exploit other foreigners.
Though it is possible the job in question went to Hyderabad, there's no need to see a Hindu behind every lost job.
But we can be pretty sure that they are browsing the web, sending email, and using word processors. These same activities on Windows expose you to viruses, trojans, etc.
And you're more likely to have problems runing DTP all day than with simple office apps, malware aside. (Problems importing files, colour space, printing, scratch space, fonts, fonts and fonts.)
No, it was written as a single work, between 1936 to1949. The publisher, George Allen & Unwin, decided to break it up into three volumes, published about 6 months apart. The last volume was delayed because Tolkien was obsessing about details in the appendices.
Publication dates:
Amazingly, the explanatory page is a Powerpoint file. Viewing that one finds that the application is built around an Oracle database. It generates Word documents and stores them. So the logic is probably not a skein of VBA. If there was demand, it shouldn't be hard to convert it to run with OO on Linux.
That's all true; but has nothing to do with Iraq. Saddam only wanted to kill Kurds, dissidents, and maybe some neighbours like Iran and Kuwait. Despite all Bush's propaganda, Saddam didn't support terrorists like bin Laden except in a token way, because he knew, as a basically secular leader, he was a prime target of religious fundamentalists, who want to rule the Middle East and who attack the US not as a prelude for invasion but to make them back off from meddling in their part of the world. There's a good case that bin Laden's strategy was to push the US into a massive retaliation against the Muslim world, which would destroy the credibility of moderates and US allies, allowing his cronies to take power. And similarly, that Cheney et al have wanted a big military presence in the ME, to keep pressure on the Saudis. But basing more troops in Saudi Arabia would make the royals (more) unpopular, so having them nearby in a client state is even better.
I'm sure that anyone who went to school with Dick Cheney's cousin's dentist is lobbying to get a piece of the Iraq reconstruction pie. And part of that will be spent on software -- and without effort by the OS community, it'll all go to MS. Will giving more money to Redmond help Iraq get stable government? Or would, in the most rosy view, having a local independent software industry help more?
1) Spellcheck articles
2) Check for dupes.
Since both of these would be trivial to implement, and both have been suggested thousands of times, I conclude that actually suggestions are not welcome.
This is np;t the forst time I've heard of Pearse. And otherwise I can only say, RTFA. It's not just one person's word. There are scans of documents, plans of the engine, and links to books about it. Just because you've never heard of him doesn't mean it's a hoax.
Because the Wright Bros spent a lot of effort to publicise their flights, the kiwi just did it for its own sake in a hobbyist fashion.
There's somethng about people that put "Period." after their opinions that just begs a refutation... and though you have tried to contrive a definition of "flight" to keep the trophy with the US; from the FA at least four flights made before the Wright Bros:
Man's First Powered Flight
Richard Pearse, Waitohi, New Zealand, March 31, 1902