Kaftans were a common item of apparel for Central European Jews in those times, and served as an ethnic stereotype. "Kaftan-Jew" would be a pejorative comparable to, say, "towelhead" for an Arab.
That reminds me of the Duke of Wellington's opposition to the construction of railroads..."It would only encourage the lower classes to move about unnecessarily."
Second, nobody's been investing in airport infrastructure.
That should be firstly. For all the administration's talk of opening up new airways, we do not have an air shortage. We have a concrete shortage. More routes for the enroute phase of flight just give you a shorter trip from one traffic jam to the next traffic jam, and it's going to stay that way until we get more runways open.
A really interesting engineering statistics exercise is to estimate the probability that a given glass of water does NOT contain any H2O molecules that were pissed by Julius Caesar...
Did TFA just royally f**k up its math or something?
No, their math is just peachy.
A figure like 650 GeV is the energy of ONE cosmic ray. Think of a graph of the number of rays arriving per second versus the energy of the individual rays. You're getting this many 400 GeV rays per second, this many 500 GeV rays, and so on.
What TFA says is that LOTS of 650 GeV rays were arriving from the newly observed source, and hardly any 800 GeV rays except for the background rate that you get from everywhere in the sky.
You're still stuck in the top row of pictures. Those show the X-26A which is nothing but a stock Schweizer 2-32 sailplane bought by the Navy for a test pilot training program. The one picture in the second row is the X-26B, which is an X-26A modified with a 100-hp aircraft engine, making it fairly quiet because (a) glider designs produce relatively little aerodynamic noise and (b) its high lift/drag ratio allows it to run at a very low power setting. The two pictures in the third row show the Q-Star, which is a further refinement using a very quiet Wankel engine.
What Clone54321 said. For example, if your original orbit was circular, the object's new orbit will be slightly eccentric. The point of departure will be its apogee, and its perigee will occur on the other side of the earth. It WILL come back to that point one orbit later, assuming no perturbation by drag.
The number of stray objects in orbit large enough to see on radar now stands at around thirteen thousand. OK, now it's thirteen thousand and one. And this one is in a low orbit, which means it won't be up long.
If you're in orbit and you push an object away, you and the object are now in two orbits that intersect at the point of departure. In principle, both of you will pass through the same point the next time round, but not necessarily at the same time.
For example, if you push the object backward along the flight path, it will now have a slightly lower velocity which will take it to a lower altitude on the other side of the earth, and then back up to your altitude. But that orbit will have a shorter period, so by the time you get back to the start point, the object will have been and gone.
Also, at the altitudes where the Shuttle flies, you're not truly out of the atmosphere...you're still hitting gas molecules from time to time, and every impact takes a tiny bit of energy out of your orbit, which ever-so-slowly brings it downward; that's why low-orbiting satellites don't stay up terribly long. When you eject an object backwards and lower its orbit, it will dip a little deeper into the atmosphere and incur a tiny bit more drag than you do -- which will prevent it ever getting back up to your height again. When a newly-launched satellite deploys its various antennas and stuff, it often has to eject various covers that protected them during launch, and it ejects them back along the flight path for precisely that reason.
Slashdot Mirror
When I was photographed for a military ID card in 1962 I was told to relax every facial muscle, no expression whatever.
rj
Kaftans were a common item of apparel for Central European Jews in those times, and served as an ethnic stereotype. "Kaftan-Jew" would be a pejorative comparable to, say, "towelhead" for an Arab.
rj
Worse yet, in the Jones picture: melting Commies instead of melting Nazis. Millions for SFX, but no money for screenwriting, so they do a remake. Feh.
rj
No. They understand that their market does not understand science fiction.
rj
...the humanity.
rj
That reminds me of the Duke of Wellington's opposition to the construction of railroads..."It would only encourage the lower classes to move about unnecessarily."
rj
That should be firstly. For all the administration's talk of opening up new airways, we do not have an air shortage. We have a concrete shortage. More routes for the enroute phase of flight just give you a shorter trip from one traffic jam to the next traffic jam, and it's going to stay that way until we get more runways open.
rj
Somebody's light.
[Back]
[Ignore and Stiff Waiter]
[Cancel]
rj
Like, say, Tomahawk missiles?
rj
A really interesting engineering statistics exercise is to estimate the probability that a given glass of water does NOT contain any H2O molecules that were pissed by Julius Caesar...
rj
And, ummm, who doesn't? Most of us just have a bigger recycling plant than they do.
rj
OK, so if you ever go to the slammer, don't worry about getting shanked. After all, little improvised weapons are easy to find and confiscate...
rj
Sure, but Nibbler doesn't care about the math.
rj
No, their math is just peachy.
A figure like 650 GeV is the energy of ONE cosmic ray. Think of a graph of the number of rays arriving per second versus the energy of the individual rays. You're getting this many 400 GeV rays per second, this many 500 GeV rays, and so on.
What TFA says is that LOTS of 650 GeV rays were arriving from the newly observed source, and hardly any 800 GeV rays except for the background rate that you get from everywhere in the sky.
rj
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1060000/images/_1061446_yangtze150.jpg
However, whatever was keeping him out of the public eye was temporary, because he showed up later and lived another decade.
rj
Maybe they'd only just gotten Photoshop from The Pirate Bay and hadn't figured it out yet.
rj
You're still stuck in the top row of pictures. Those show the X-26A which is nothing but a stock Schweizer 2-32 sailplane bought by the Navy for a test pilot training program. The one picture in the second row is the X-26B, which is an X-26A modified with a 100-hp aircraft engine, making it fairly quiet because (a) glider designs produce relatively little aerodynamic noise and (b) its high lift/drag ratio allows it to run at a very low power setting. The two pictures in the third row show the Q-Star, which is a further refinement using a very quiet Wankel engine.
rj
Look past the first row of pictures, that show the sailplane it was derived from.
rj
The noise an airplane makes at its home base doesn't count. The noise it makes over an enemy position in the night does.
rj
It did with this airplane: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/x-26-pics.htm
Not exactly a fighter or bomber, but it has interesting applications for reconnaissance.
rj
rj
What Clone54321 said. For example, if your original orbit was circular, the object's new orbit will be slightly eccentric. The point of departure will be its apogee, and its perigee will occur on the other side of the earth. It WILL come back to that point one orbit later, assuming no perturbation by drag.
rj
The number of stray objects in orbit large enough to see on radar now stands at around thirteen thousand. OK, now it's thirteen thousand and one. And this one is in a low orbit, which means it won't be up long.
rj
For example, if you push the object backward along the flight path, it will now have a slightly lower velocity which will take it to a lower altitude on the other side of the earth, and then back up to your altitude. But that orbit will have a shorter period, so by the time you get back to the start point, the object will have been and gone.
Also, at the altitudes where the Shuttle flies, you're not truly out of the atmosphere...you're still hitting gas molecules from time to time, and every impact takes a tiny bit of energy out of your orbit, which ever-so-slowly brings it downward; that's why low-orbiting satellites don't stay up terribly long. When you eject an object backwards and lower its orbit, it will dip a little deeper into the atmosphere and incur a tiny bit more drag than you do -- which will prevent it ever getting back up to your height again. When a newly-launched satellite deploys its various antennas and stuff, it often has to eject various covers that protected them during launch, and it ejects them back along the flight path for precisely that reason.
rj
29.5 to 39.4 stories.
rj