Why anyone would ever bother with a CRT again is beyond me, it's just insanity. For a slight increase in price you have a massive boost in clarity, stunning resolutions, and brilliant bright displays. Lower energy use, less desk space and less room heating in the middle of summer than a CRT.
Stunning resolutions? The most I see with 19" LCDs (uber expensive) most of the time is 1280x1024. My 19" CRT can push 2048x1536. And I bought it a year ago for $200. Most commercial LCDs have piss poor resoluion compared to CRTs, not to mention the whole problem with only looking good under their native resolution. Also, CRTs have better clarity and most definitely better color than CRTs. And the contrast is loads better than LCDs, which top out at about 500:1. Also, CRTs are generally brighter and easier to look at, as they are emissive displays, rather than backlit like LCDs.
I'm holding off until we have good, cheap OLEDs before I get rid of my blessed Sylvania.
just the other day i wanted to upgrade my 450mhz celeron system.
after searching and contacting vendors, i finally found a slot-1, 800mhz coppermine(100 fsb).
i charged the shipping and handling (about $200).
Yeah, you don't see the slot-1 processors much at all anymore. Hell, I can't even find them on Pricewatch. But you still got ripped off. You could have gotten an Athlon 2500/el cheapo ECS mobo combo for only $145, including shipping, off of pricewatch.
That would have kicked the ass of your 800 celeron and would definitely kick the ass of a Walmart PC. By the way, be glad you didn't get the Walmart PC. Yes, they are 1 ghz. But the fact that it has a tiny amount of ram, horrible onboard video, plain bad chipsets, etc, means that the Walmart PC will likely be as slow or slower than your 450 celeron.
My brother's girlfriend bought a 1.6 ghz eMachines for $1200 (!) last Christmas. The thing might have a fast enough processor, but it is completely incapable of running Windows XP that was bundled with it. By completely incapable, I mean it would take a couple minutes to boot up, and several seconds to open the start menu. Unusable. Contrast this with my old computer, a Compaq 633 celeron that was bought for $600 two years ago that is perfectly capable of running Windows XP. (Although I run Win2k.)
Also, it ignores the other particles emitted from the sun. It's not all just photons.
The article is bogus.
Arg. Too bad I don't have my mod points. I don't see why on Earth that was modded as a troll. Yeah, other particles are emitted from the sun. It's called the solar wind, of course. The massive particles in the solar wind would provide a good proportion of the thrust to a solar sail.
There are some propulsion systems that rely entirely on the solar wind, such as the M2P2, which is an interesting concept, IMO better than a regular solar sail. It is simply a propulsion system that has a.1 Tesla solenoid. The craft would carry 3 kilos of helium, which would be ionized and fed into the magnetic field. This would expand the magnetic field to several miles across, thus acting as a solar wind sail. It could produce a good 1 newton of force.
No. The X prize requires that they reach a specific minimum altitude (Somewhere around 100km IIRC). It says nothing about orbiting the earth.
Yeah. While the xprize contestants are making great strides, the Mach 3-4 that most of these designs are reaching is a far cry from 27,000 km/hr that you need to put a sattelite at a 250 km. LEO orbit.
The sad fact is that orbit is something only governments and large corporations can reach. The physics are just too demanding.
No, it is just a death matter. Delivering a bomb via hypersonic jet is just horrifying. As if ICBM's weren't bad enough... I'd rather have a less effective military and more effective means of getting people to other countries. We'd be a lot less hated if we delivered tourists and businessmen, rather than bombs, to foreign countries.
Actually, if such a plane is actually developed, (I'm doubtful, scramjet bombers of one sort or another have been in the works since Reagan) it would be pretty beneficial.
If you're worried about killing people, don't. It doesn't matter. We can kill as many people as we damn well please anyway. This precision weapon would just give us another option to destroy a target. In addition, if we had a large number of these bombers, it would possibly allow us to reduce the presence of our air force in some areas, thereby stirring up less anti-American sentiment with our presence.
Also, if such a plane is developed, I'd be hopeful that it could eventually be used in combination with a rocket engine for cheap spaceflight. (I doubt scramjets would ever be used for commercial air travel. The heat resistant materials used for the skin and other factors would make it cost prohibitive.)
I have to say I think the idea of intercontinental ballistic missiles loaded with a conventional warhead makes more sense. You could put a couple of those anywhere in the world with only 30 minutes notice.
Wouldn't be practical.
ICBMs aren't accurate enough for precision conventional strikes. They are only accurate to within a few hundred meters.
Due to disarmarment, we don't have enough ICBMs to use in that fasion. We certainly wouldn't be building more of them for conventional use, as they cost millions of dollars each.
ICBM's are much more accurate than that. Bombers can't drop weapons within inches. If the bomb had it's own guidance, it might get to withing a few feet, but that's the bomb doing it, not the bomber. You can put guided bombs on ICBM's too.
ICBMs are only accurate to within several hundred meters. Not good enough for precise hits with conventional weapons, as opposed to nuclear. And you cannot put guided bombs on an ICBM. An ICBM has preset ballistic guidance only. Once it hits burnout in space, the warhead seperates and travels at near orbital speeds (over Mach 20) and flies through space several thousand miles to its target. You can't put fins to guide an ICBM warhead like you can a bomb dropped from a plane.
There were broken windows on buildings spread over several square miles. I can just imagine what these hypersonic monsters could do...
These don't reach hypersonic speeds until they get to extremely high altitudes around 100,000 feet. Under that, and the skin of the plane would get a bit too hot. You don't have to worry about sonic boom. BTW, I didn't realize that had Concordes on other routes than the regular transatlantic ones back then. That's pretty good.
I don't mean to be mean, but this is the stupidest thing I've read in a long time. We have a stockpile of over 10,000 ICBMs. they only reason reusability comes in to play is if we plan on running out. The same can be said for fuel efficiency.
The only problem I could see with this is that ICBMs wouldn't be as accurate as a guided bomb from a hypersonic bomber. Our best ICBMs today only have accuracy of several hundred meters. (Damn good considering they travel unpowered thousands of miles through space.) Anyway, that isn't quite good enough accuracy for the precision strikes we do today. Although it would work out fine for strikes that demand less precision.
Maybe you weren't aware of this, I'm not sure, but unlike the moon, this planet rotates, so what comes after night? *wait for it* DAY! WEEEE!
Actually the moon, like all bodies, rotates just like Mercury. Like the Moon, Mercury's rotation is in sync with the Sun so the same side is always lit. You have one side that is always blazingly hot, one side that is freezing, freezing cold.
What is the current status, and how has signed it...the Lunar Treaty gives The Moon similar status to Antartica, saying that The Moon is a common property of all people of the Earth, and any country that makes use of it's resources must share them equally with the people of the Earth. Did China sign, or are they following the US lead and ignoring treaties?
China won't be violating any treaty at all, actually. Just because the moon is common property (like Antarctica), doesn't mean you can't explore and/or set up bases (like Antarctica). Of course, you can't use the Moon militarily, but I doubt they would do that. As for using He3, I can't see China developing controlled fusion anytime in the first half of this century. This is purely for national pride, and to a lesser extent, science. Just like when we sent people to luna.
Any country can invade another up until the World Powers care about it. Unfortunately for the citizens of Tibet, they do not have any oil and are in a country inaccessible to most US military hardware (too far from the coast for carrierborne fighters, too mountainous for tanks and armored vehicles), etc.
That happened way back in the forties. And besides, Tibet is much better off with China than they ever were by themselves. Tibet was formerly a dirt, dirt poor, feudal nation run by often corrupt and brutal nobles and clerics. Of course, they went through a tough period from 1949 all the way to through the seventies with Mao. However, now Tibet is experiencing double digit growth and is doing quite well economically.
(FYI, first poster is in quotes, Guppy06 is in italics)
"who knows if the next one is China?"
Perhaps, but I wouldn't bet on it happening this particular century. They're still trying to figure out how to marry Western technology to Middle Kingdom culture. So long as they rely on Western-esque technology, they'll always be at a disadvantage compared to Western cultures. They're going to have to develop their own native technology again, something uniquely Chinese (or at least east Asian
I really don't see how they are trying to marry Western tech to Middle Kingdom culture. China is a very technologically advanced nation. They've had nuclear bombs since the 60's, they've got ICBMs, orbital rockets, etc. They seem to be adopting and improving on Western tech just fine.
"Yet i don't think china could gasp the key to victory here by having space mission that denotes quite a bit of nothing in military terms"
If you can put something in orbit and safely de-orbit it, you can build an ICBM.
I'm pretty sure their manned space program doesn't have much military significance. It's a national pride thing. China has had ICBMs since the very early 80's and they've been commercially launching satellites with their Long March rockets for several years.
"forget the whole lot on spy satellite, they are of no significant use on a direct confrontation of two nuclear-powered countries"
*cough**sputter* What?!?!! And just how the heck are you supposed to know what to target with your nuclear weapons? Guess? Close your eyes and point at a map? Send Gary Powers over there with a U-2?
Actually a China has already got spy sattelites anyway, so this isn't really an issue. But ICBMs would typically just be targetted towards cities and major military installations where they know the location of anyway.
I don't see why everyone thinks we will have a war with China. It's pretty ridiculous. We are on very excellent terms right now, and our economies are too interdependant on each other to go to war. Taiwan isn't something we'd risk a nuclear war over. It is not that important to the US. Sure, our government has said that we'd defend Taiwan against and invasion, but that's just a bluff. In the event that China did invade Taiwan and the U.S. did threaten war, China would probably back down. They aren't braindead. The Chinese wouldn't risk a losing nuclear war with the U.S. Nuclear war is a bad thing that nobody wants. Notice that despite all of their problems and differences, the Cold War never went nuclear.
China are not a capitalist nation, so the poor literacy should not be affected by their respective financial classes. This means that they are not split into those who can afford good education, and those that get little, which would suggest its just a very poor schooling sysem.
Actually, not quite. China is basically a captitalist, free market system for the most part. There are wide gaps in wealth and such. The urban areas in China, for example, are much better off than the backward rural areas, which have been left behind for the most part as China has become wealthy and industrialized. The schooling in the rural areas is poor, as well.
You have to take a step back and realize just how far we have come in the past hundred and some odd years: steam powered engines to the integrated circuit to the internet to space tourism.
What I'm just as amazed at is how little we've come in the last 40 years.
Early 1800's - Widspread use of steam powered locomotives. Early 1900's - First airplanes and widespread use of the automobile. 1930's - Widespread air travel. Extremely advanced, maneuverable propellor driven fighters and bombers. 1940's - Jet aircraft introduced. The V2, first ballistic missile, is created. 1950's - Commercial jet travel introduced. Supersonic fighters introduced. ICBMs are introduced and the Sputnik is launched. The X-15 is first used. 1960's - First manned spaceflight. Manned flight to the moon. Interplanetary probes are first launched. The SR-71, which still holds the speed record for an airbreathing craft, is developed.
1970's-1990's - Here is where transportation advancement largely drops off. We've gotten more efficient jets. Rocket technology hasn't gotten any better. Cars have gotten more efficient. Other than some efficiency tweaks, we haven't advanced much at all in transportation since the exceedingly rapid advancements of the mid 20th century.
How would you propose we study the effects of long-term zero/micro gravity on humans? Where would you suggest we explore? Other planets? Like Mars? I think we should. We should be on the Moon, we should be on Mars, and beyond... (And before we do that, we have to know how to combat the effects of the trip... Thus the station...)
Already been done. Astronauts have already spent periods greater than a year in space aboard the Mir. We know how space effects the human body. Already been studied. For the amount of money we have spent on the shuttle flights (500 million bucks a flight) and the ISS in the past 10 years, we could have had a mission to Mars or sent numerous probes to the outer solar system and Kuiper belt.
For years, we have been sending people up to a weightless vacuum a scant 200 miles off of the surface. It's just a vacuum, nothing more interesting. We need to explore further out than 200 miles.
Re:Where is my last generation Broadband?
on
150 Mbit/s DSL.
·
· Score: 1
It must be annoying to write "USB2 has an advertised speed of 480000000000 mbps"
WOW!! That's really fast. I knew USB2 was fast. But 480 billion megabits per second, or 480 petabits. That could transmit the entire kazaa network in less than a second!!
Anyway, you must have misunderstood me somehow. It's almost always given in bits per second (768 kilobit dsl, 56 kilobit modem) but of course you have prefixes.
Re:Where is my last generation Broadband?
on
150 Mbit/s DSL.
·
· Score: 1
190k/sec = 190 kilobytes per second 384kb/s = 384 kilobytes per second 1500kbps = 1500 kilo*bits* per second.
Actually, it's all kilobits. With bytes, the "B" is capitalized, as in "kBps" instead of "kbps." Internet connection speed is always given in bits per second.
Does anyone have the numbers at hand to see if this makes a "beanstalk" feasible?
Yeah, with some refinement, of course. Give carbon nanotube research another 10 or 20 years and a ribbon-style space elevator would be possible. Take a look here. High Lift Systems, a research company under a large grant from NASA. They are proposing a very thin ribbon of carbon nanotube composite going about 50,000 miles out, or twice GEO orbit, that would be able to carry medium sized payloads. Cost would be around 10 billion dollars.
Being a typical/. geek, most of my dates I meet online. When browsing through personals, it's not the content that I'm initially looking for, it's coherent writing and proper spelling, punctuation, and grammar. If they can't manage that, I just don't bother.
Yeah, I meet all of my dates online, too. Now I just need to find one whose name doesn't end in ".jpg"
Refraction of light only occurs when it passes from one material to another and the index of refraction of the two materials is different. So, the atmosphere of venus would not distort anything.
Venus has layers of atmosphere with different compositions. Also, you are incorrect anyway. It does not have to be two different materials. Haven't you ever seen a mirage? That's refraction of light caused by different densities of air.
Who listens to AM radio anymore? Why not open that up to the public
Uh, AM radio, as the previous poster said, occupies a completely inconsequential amount of bandwidth. Only about 1 mhz of bandwith, from about 500 khz to 1600 khz. All of AM radio uses only about 1/6 of the bandwidth of one of our 60 6mhz wide tv channels.
Also, lots of people listen to AM. Sure it's lo-fi, but it's great for talk and news. Where I live (WA), our main AM news/talk station is the second most listened to station in our area. Also, AM radio has the ability to transmit for thousands of miles with a 50,000 watt transmitter. FM can't do this. If you live on the West coast from Mexico to Alaska, you can recieve stations such as KGO 810 out of San Francisco.
Plenty of people listen to AM. I'm betting you are fairly young, so probably you and most people you know only listen to FM music stations.
It seems that this is a clear cut case of libel for Mr. Max. I mean he basically states it in the first part of his writing that he's trying to bring her down because HE doesn't like the hypocrisy of HER site. Of course he does nothing to point out his own hypocrisy.
Uh, his hypocrisy? Hypocrisy means espousing beliefs that you do not personally hold. If I am against gambling yet I go down to the indian casino every Friday, I'm a hypocrite. Tucker Max is not a hypocrite. He is a professional debaucher. He makes no claim that he is not debauched. On his website, Tucker
However, take a look at the woman's flash ridden hellhole of a site. The whole damn thing is full of pretty colors and poorly drawn cartoons about how you must remain abstinent and "virtuous." She is a hypocrite. She is not virtuous, and seems to be a ditz.
A friend of mine bet me that I wouldn't put up a web page where girls could fill out an application to go on a date with me. She seriously underestimated my complete lack of either shame or conscience.
Wow, this guy really needs to get a life - this reads like a Dear Penthouse letter or something. For a lawyer, he has no tact....
Tucker Max is legendary for this sort of thing. He's very debauched and has even spawned a few urban legends. Take a look at his website. The main page is a date application form. He is also involved in other ventures such as the Tard Blog.
Slashdot Mirror
Why anyone would ever bother with a CRT again is beyond me, it's just insanity. For a slight increase in price you have a massive boost in clarity, stunning resolutions, and brilliant bright displays. Lower energy use, less desk space and less room heating in the middle of summer than a CRT.
Stunning resolutions? The most I see with 19" LCDs (uber expensive) most of the time is 1280x1024. My 19" CRT can push 2048x1536. And I bought it a year ago for $200. Most commercial LCDs have piss poor resoluion compared to CRTs, not to mention the whole problem with only looking good under their native resolution. Also, CRTs have better clarity and most definitely better color than CRTs. And the contrast is loads better than LCDs, which top out at about 500:1. Also, CRTs are generally brighter and easier to look at, as they are emissive displays, rather than backlit like LCDs.
I'm holding off until we have good, cheap OLEDs before I get rid of my blessed Sylvania.
just the other day i wanted to upgrade my 450mhz celeron system.
after searching and contacting vendors, i finally found a slot-1, 800mhz coppermine(100 fsb).
i charged the shipping and handling (about $200).
Yeah, you don't see the slot-1 processors much at all anymore. Hell, I can't even find them on Pricewatch. But you still got ripped off. You could have gotten an Athlon 2500/el cheapo ECS mobo combo for only $145, including shipping, off of pricewatch.
That would have kicked the ass of your 800 celeron and would definitely kick the ass of a Walmart PC. By the way, be glad you didn't get the Walmart PC. Yes, they are 1 ghz. But the fact that it has a tiny amount of ram, horrible onboard video, plain bad chipsets, etc, means that the Walmart PC will likely be as slow or slower than your 450 celeron.
My brother's girlfriend bought a 1.6 ghz eMachines for $1200 (!) last Christmas. The thing might have a fast enough processor, but it is completely incapable of running Windows XP that was bundled with it. By completely incapable, I mean it would take a couple minutes to boot up, and several seconds to open the start menu. Unusable. Contrast this with my old computer, a Compaq 633 celeron that was bought for $600 two years ago that is perfectly capable of running Windows XP. (Although I run Win2k.)
Also, it ignores the other particles emitted from the sun. It's not all just photons.
.1 Tesla solenoid. The craft would carry 3 kilos of helium, which would be ionized and fed into the magnetic field. This would expand the magnetic field to several miles across, thus acting as a solar wind sail. It could produce a good 1 newton of force.
The article is bogus.
Arg. Too bad I don't have my mod points. I don't see why on Earth that was modded as a troll. Yeah, other particles are emitted from the sun. It's called the solar wind, of course. The massive particles in the solar wind would provide a good proportion of the thrust to a solar sail.
There are some propulsion systems that rely entirely on the solar wind, such as the M2P2, which is an interesting concept, IMO better than a regular solar sail. It is simply a propulsion system that has a
No. The X prize requires that they reach a specific minimum altitude (Somewhere around 100km IIRC). It says nothing about orbiting the earth.
Yeah. While the xprize contestants are making great strides, the Mach 3-4 that most of these designs are reaching is a far cry from 27,000 km/hr that you need to put a sattelite at a 250 km. LEO orbit.
The sad fact is that orbit is something only governments and large corporations can reach. The physics are just too demanding.
No, it is just a death matter. Delivering a bomb via hypersonic jet is just horrifying. As if ICBM's weren't bad enough... I'd rather have a less effective military and more effective means of getting people to other countries. We'd be a lot less hated if we delivered tourists and businessmen, rather than bombs, to foreign countries.
Actually, if such a plane is actually developed, (I'm doubtful, scramjet bombers of one sort or another have been in the works since Reagan) it would be pretty beneficial.
If you're worried about killing people, don't. It doesn't matter. We can kill as many people as we damn well please anyway. This precision weapon would just give us another option to destroy a target. In addition, if we had a large number of these bombers, it would possibly allow us to reduce the presence of our air force in some areas, thereby stirring up less anti-American sentiment with our presence.
Also, if such a plane is developed, I'd be hopeful that it could eventually be used in combination with a rocket engine for cheap spaceflight. (I doubt scramjets would ever be used for commercial air travel. The heat resistant materials used for the skin and other factors would make it cost prohibitive.)
Wouldn't be practical.
ICBMs aren't accurate enough for precision conventional strikes. They are only accurate to within a few hundred meters.
Due to disarmarment, we don't have enough ICBMs to use in that fasion. We certainly wouldn't be building more of them for conventional use, as they cost millions of dollars each.
ICBM launch would alarm many countries.
ICBM's are much more accurate than that. Bombers can't drop weapons within inches. If the bomb had it's own guidance, it might get to withing a few feet, but that's the bomb doing it, not the bomber. You can put guided bombs on ICBM's too.
ICBMs are only accurate to within several hundred meters. Not good enough for precise hits with conventional weapons, as opposed to nuclear. And you cannot put guided bombs on an ICBM. An ICBM has preset ballistic guidance only. Once it hits burnout in space, the warhead seperates and travels at near orbital speeds (over Mach 20) and flies through space several thousand miles to its target. You can't put fins to guide an ICBM warhead like you can a bomb dropped from a plane.
And what the hell is an ICMB?
There were broken windows on buildings spread over several square miles. I can just imagine what these hypersonic monsters could do...
These don't reach hypersonic speeds until they get to extremely high altitudes around 100,000 feet. Under that, and the skin of the plane would get a bit too hot. You don't have to worry about sonic boom. BTW, I didn't realize that had Concordes on other routes than the regular transatlantic ones back then. That's pretty good.
I don't mean to be mean, but this is the stupidest thing I've read in a long time. We have a stockpile of over 10,000 ICBMs. they only reason reusability comes in to play is if we plan on running out. The same can be said for fuel efficiency.
The only problem I could see with this is that ICBMs wouldn't be as accurate as a guided bomb from a hypersonic bomber. Our best ICBMs today only have accuracy of several hundred meters. (Damn good considering they travel unpowered thousands of miles through space.) Anyway, that isn't quite good enough accuracy for the precision strikes we do today. Although it would work out fine for strikes that demand less precision.
Maybe you weren't aware of this, I'm not sure, but unlike the moon, this planet rotates, so what comes after night? *wait for it* DAY! WEEEE!
Actually the moon, like all bodies, rotates just like Mercury. Like the Moon, Mercury's rotation is in sync with the Sun so the same side is always lit. You have one side that is always blazingly hot, one side that is freezing, freezing cold.
What is the current status, and how has signed it...the Lunar Treaty gives The Moon similar status to Antartica, saying that The Moon is a common property of all people of the Earth, and any country that makes use of it's resources must share them equally with the people of the Earth. Did China sign, or are they following the US lead and ignoring treaties?
China won't be violating any treaty at all, actually. Just because the moon is common property (like Antarctica), doesn't mean you can't explore and/or set up bases (like Antarctica). Of course, you can't use the Moon militarily, but I doubt they would do that. As for using He3, I can't see China developing controlled fusion anytime in the first half of this century. This is purely for national pride, and to a lesser extent, science. Just like when we sent people to luna.
Any country can invade another up until the World Powers care about it. Unfortunately for the citizens of Tibet, they do not have any oil and are in a country inaccessible to most US military hardware (too far from the coast for carrierborne fighters, too mountainous for tanks and armored vehicles), etc.
That happened way back in the forties. And besides, Tibet is much better off with China than they ever were by themselves. Tibet was formerly a dirt, dirt poor, feudal nation run by often corrupt and brutal nobles and clerics. Of course, they went through a tough period from 1949 all the way to through the seventies with Mao. However, now Tibet is experiencing double digit growth and is doing quite well economically.
(FYI, first poster is in quotes, Guppy06 is in italics)
"who knows if the next one is China?"
Perhaps, but I wouldn't bet on it happening this particular century. They're still trying to figure out how to marry Western technology to Middle Kingdom culture. So long as they rely on Western-esque technology, they'll always be at a disadvantage compared to Western cultures. They're going to have to develop their own native technology again, something uniquely Chinese (or at least east Asian
I really don't see how they are trying to marry Western tech to Middle Kingdom culture. China is a very technologically advanced nation. They've had nuclear bombs since the 60's, they've got ICBMs, orbital rockets, etc. They seem to be adopting and improving on Western tech just fine.
"Yet i don't think china could gasp the key to victory here by having space mission that denotes quite a bit of nothing in military terms"
If you can put something in orbit and safely de-orbit it, you can build an ICBM.
I'm pretty sure their manned space program doesn't have much military significance. It's a national pride thing. China has had ICBMs since the very early 80's and they've been commercially launching satellites with their Long March rockets for several years.
"forget the whole lot on spy satellite, they are of no significant use on a direct confrontation of two nuclear-powered countries"
*cough**sputter* What?!?!! And just how the heck are you supposed to know what to target with your nuclear weapons? Guess? Close your eyes and point at a map? Send Gary Powers over there with a U-2?
Actually a China has already got spy sattelites anyway, so this isn't really an issue. But ICBMs would typically just be targetted towards cities and major military installations where they know the location of anyway.
I don't see why everyone thinks we will have a war with China. It's pretty ridiculous. We are on very excellent terms right now, and our economies are too interdependant on each other to go to war. Taiwan isn't something we'd risk a nuclear war over. It is not that important to the US. Sure, our government has said that we'd defend Taiwan against and invasion, but that's just a bluff. In the event that China did invade Taiwan and the U.S. did threaten war, China would probably back down. They aren't braindead. The Chinese wouldn't risk a losing nuclear war with the U.S. Nuclear war is a bad thing that nobody wants. Notice that despite all of their problems and differences, the Cold War never went nuclear.
China are not a capitalist nation, so the poor literacy should not be affected by their respective financial classes. This means that they are not split into those who can afford good education, and those that get little, which would suggest its just a very poor schooling sysem.
Actually, not quite. China is basically a captitalist, free market system for the most part. There are wide gaps in wealth and such. The urban areas in China, for example, are much better off than the backward rural areas, which have been left behind for the most part as China has become wealthy and industrialized. The schooling in the rural areas is poor, as well.
You have to take a step back and realize just how far we have come in the past hundred and some odd years: steam powered engines to the integrated circuit to the internet to space tourism.
What I'm just as amazed at is how little we've come in the last 40 years.
Early 1800's - Widspread use of steam powered locomotives.
Early 1900's - First airplanes and widespread use of the automobile.
1930's - Widespread air travel. Extremely advanced, maneuverable propellor driven fighters and bombers.
1940's - Jet aircraft introduced. The V2, first ballistic missile, is created.
1950's - Commercial jet travel introduced. Supersonic fighters introduced. ICBMs are introduced and the Sputnik is launched. The X-15 is first used.
1960's - First manned spaceflight. Manned flight to the moon. Interplanetary probes are first launched. The SR-71, which still holds the speed record for an airbreathing craft, is developed.
1970's-1990's - Here is where transportation advancement largely drops off. We've gotten more efficient jets. Rocket technology hasn't gotten any better. Cars have gotten more efficient. Other than some efficiency tweaks, we haven't advanced much at all in transportation since the exceedingly rapid advancements of the mid 20th century.
How would you propose we study the effects of long-term zero/micro gravity on humans?
Where would you suggest we explore? Other planets? Like Mars? I think we should. We should be on the Moon, we should be on Mars, and beyond... (And before we do that, we have to know how to combat the effects of the trip... Thus the station...)
Already been done. Astronauts have already spent periods greater than a year in space aboard the Mir. We know how space effects the human body. Already been studied. For the amount of money we have spent on the shuttle flights (500 million bucks a flight) and the ISS in the past 10 years, we could have had a mission to Mars or sent numerous probes to the outer solar system and Kuiper belt.
For years, we have been sending people up to a weightless vacuum a scant 200 miles off of the surface. It's just a vacuum, nothing more interesting. We need to explore further out than 200 miles.
It must be annoying to write "USB2 has an advertised speed of 480000000000 mbps"
WOW!! That's really fast. I knew USB2 was fast. But 480 billion megabits per second, or 480 petabits. That could transmit the entire kazaa network in less than a second!!
Anyway, you must have misunderstood me somehow. It's almost always given in bits per second (768 kilobit dsl, 56 kilobit modem) but of course you have prefixes.
190k/sec = 190 kilobytes per second
384kb/s = 384 kilobytes per second
1500kbps = 1500 kilo*bits* per second.
Actually, it's all kilobits. With bytes, the "B" is capitalized, as in "kBps" instead of "kbps." Internet connection speed is always given in bits per second.
Does anyone have the numbers at hand to see if this makes a "beanstalk" feasible?
Yeah, with some refinement, of course. Give carbon nanotube research another 10 or 20 years and a ribbon-style space elevator would be possible. Take a look here. High Lift Systems, a research company under a large grant from NASA. They are proposing a very thin ribbon of carbon nanotube composite going about 50,000 miles out, or twice GEO orbit, that would be able to carry medium sized payloads. Cost would be around 10 billion dollars.
Being a typical /. geek, most of my dates I meet online. When browsing through personals, it's not the content that I'm initially looking for, it's coherent writing and proper spelling, punctuation, and grammar. If they can't manage that, I just don't bother.
Yeah, I meet all of my dates online, too. Now I just need to find one whose name doesn't end in ".jpg"
Refraction of light only occurs when it passes from one material to another and the index of refraction of the two materials is different. So, the atmosphere of venus would not distort anything.
Venus has layers of atmosphere with different compositions. Also, you are incorrect anyway. It does not have to be two different materials. Haven't you ever seen a mirage? That's refraction of light caused by different densities of air.
Who listens to AM radio anymore? Why not open that up to the public
Uh, AM radio, as the previous poster said, occupies a completely inconsequential amount of bandwidth. Only about 1 mhz of bandwith, from about 500 khz to 1600 khz. All of AM radio uses only about 1/6 of the bandwidth of one of our 60 6mhz wide tv channels.
Also, lots of people listen to AM. Sure it's lo-fi, but it's great for talk and news. Where I live (WA), our main AM news/talk station is the second most listened to station in our area. Also, AM radio has the ability to transmit for thousands of miles with a 50,000 watt transmitter. FM can't do this. If you live on the West coast from Mexico to Alaska, you can recieve stations such as KGO 810 out of San Francisco.
Plenty of people listen to AM. I'm betting you are fairly young, so probably you and most people you know only listen to FM music stations.
Also, it has the storage capacity of 50 DVD's.
You meant encyclopedia volumes instead, right>
It seems that this is a clear cut case of libel for Mr. Max. I mean he basically states it in the first part of his writing that he's trying to bring her down because HE doesn't like the hypocrisy of HER site. Of course he does nothing to point out his own hypocrisy.
Uh, his hypocrisy? Hypocrisy means espousing beliefs that you do not personally hold. If I am against gambling yet I go down to the indian casino every Friday, I'm a hypocrite. Tucker Max is not a hypocrite. He is a professional debaucher. He makes no claim that he is not debauched. On his website, Tucker
However, take a look at the woman's flash ridden hellhole of a site. The whole damn thing is full of pretty colors and poorly drawn cartoons about how you must remain abstinent and "virtuous." She is a hypocrite. She is not virtuous, and seems to be a ditz.
From Tuckermax.com:
A friend of mine bet me that I wouldn't put up a web page where girls could fill out an application to go on a date with me. She seriously underestimated my complete lack of either shame or conscience.
Wow, this guy really needs to get a life - this reads like a Dear Penthouse letter or something. For a lawyer, he has no tact....
Tucker Max is legendary for this sort of thing. He's very debauched and has even spawned a few urban legends. Take a look at his website. The main page is a date application form. He is also involved in other ventures such as the Tard Blog.