True, true - but we were talking about methods of takeoff and landing, neither of which require much energy really. Obviously landing can be done using the craft's potential energy, and I'm just saying that there are similar ways to take off.
As for why would you - rockets are much more efficient starting from a higher altitude, an engine failure right off the pad kills everyone (altitude launch opens more abort options), and a rocket uses a lot of energy fighting gravity and the atmosphere in the first part of launch (well, about 5-10% of the total I think). Of course, all that said, most launches use rockets from the very start - except for a very few that use aircraft.
That is indeed the big question - although I would point out that losing hydraulics during a horizontal landing is similarly catastrophic. Whatever you use for landing better be perfect, AND have backups! Once you admit that, backup engines may be easier (as in lighter, given what you need to take anyway) than backup hydraulics - though the hydraulics problem is a solved one, I grant you.
As an easy to understand example, how much energy is expended by your desk "levitating" your computer? Replacing the desk with a balloon does not change anything.
As you say, it does take energy to set up something like this, but no energy to maintain it.
No, really, energy is not required to levitate (take off, if you will) - energy is required to change velocity, not position. When you tie a balloon to something, the balloon does not supply any energy to the thing being lifted, it only supplies a force. Energy is force times velocity times time (or force times distance, which is less intuitive) - so if the velocity is zero, energy is zero.
Of course, we normally use big honking rockets to take off, and expend an obscene amount of energy to do it - but that is because increasing the complexity of a rocket and adding some other atmospheric manuevering option is a bad trade off compared with burning a few more tons of fuel...
Well, first of all, helicopters can do a vertical landing without power (though that is not what is being looked at here). Take off can take no energy at all (using a balloon, for instance), it only requires a force, not energy.
That said, the real problem with your post is that most of the energy is used up accellerating to >7 km/s. When landing, all of that energy goes into the atmosphere, so vertical/horizontal landing really doesn't change the energy requirements really. Detailed analysis is inconclusive as to which one is better - wings for horizontal landing tend to weigh the same as rocket fuel for vertical landing - and there are many other variables that could go either way, ie: reentry sheilding of wings is hard, but better reentry wings may not need as much shielding, etc.
Speaking of all this, when was the last time ANY meaningfully large database was accurate? They all contain inconsistancies - no, not bad records, just bad data. I think we spend entirely too much time making databases etc. 99.9999999% reliable when humans are only 99% (if that), so the database as a system cannot exceed 99% anyway.
Instead of spending that $10M for that last 9, spend $50K on a customer service rep with the power to overide the system!
We had a fun game where I played an anti-thief. He was a clepto who kept picking locks to sneak inside and hide stuff inside chests, etc. He didn't know where he got all the stuff he was hiding - all his stealing was completely subconcious.
Ah, good times!
Re:Fun Santa phrases...
on
Hacking Santa
·
· Score: 1
Add to this that Jesus was actually born in late spring/early summer!
American private sector businesses can't stand that answer though
So maybe that answer is wrong? Maybe the answer is less features, not more time? To make the big bucks, learn how to do what management needs, not what they say - and yes, that does mean ignoring some of what they say (or at least explaining why doing X achieves the same thing). Very often being late to market is worse than not getting there at all (because at least then you didn't waste your development/marketing money).
You'd be amazed at how important market timing is - and learning how to "argue" for the right points in the right way makes you so valuable they will do anything to keep you. Arguing in the wrong way makes you look lazy - whether you are lazy or not!
How about this approach, wich would not crowd out the small, real inovators: Instead of paying the money up front for a rejected patent, have a $50K fee for any rejected patent. That way the small company just goes out of business (but without protection they would have anyway), while the big business is forced to pay, because going out of business would give up too much.
No, it can be part of a coherent business model as well. For example, Sears needs an ecommerce site - so they need a stable, secure web server. The market does not really fill their needs - so they need to make a custom web server. They can either spend $X M dollars and build it themselves, or they can spend $X/Y dollars and start from an open source product. The key is that the shared development work on the web server is worth more than the stategic advantage of having a completely custom web server.
Two other points - 1) you must be very careful about what is a strategic advantage and what isn't, and 2) the people that know the difference typically do not know why open source is an advantage.
If it is luck, why are there basically no out-of-work millionaires (outside of sports) - even though you have heard of many people that lost it all. In fact, most commonly you hear about the people that worked up to millions, lost it all, and then worked up to millions again.
It isn't luck - that's what people say who do not have the dedication or risk accepting attitude. You can always use whatever luck you have - there is always some option.
That said, there is a lot of luck involved - but it determines the level of success, not who is successful.
At the same time, the guys that bullied us at school went off to study law and economy.
In your scenario, the dorks win in the end. I can't confirm this from my own experience.
The fact is, the bullies that go to school and study law and economics rule over the other bullies and "dorks" with CS degrees - but the "dorks" with economic degrees rule them all.
I speak from personal experience - you want to rule? Be a top-notch tech guy that knows business intimately!
I think you actually agreed with him, if you look at it from a manager's perspective - because the manager knows that his livelihood will not be effected by your project, they place politics over product. It is still a lack of motivation, but in management, not engineers.
I hear you - but I do think that startups can really let you shine, where big corps kind of hide any of your accomplishments. Nothing replaces good business sense, though - knowing when to say something and when not to. That's why I like startups (though not VC funded startups), because they force everyone to pay attention to the bottom line and learn the business!
Their checklist really does contain: "Do you have an encrypted database that stores credit card information" or somesuch. The only acceptable response is yes to all questions...
The problem with unions is that they award only mediocrity. Unions require that high achievers get the same pay as low achievers, even though high achievers easily get 10x as much accomplished - especially in engineering. Unions force out good workers (why work harder if the money is the same), and leave only mediocre and poor workers. That leads to the company falling behind the non-union foriegnors, and the failure of the industry. Seriously, unions are bad news!
Most engineers are highly motivated people, and their pay tends to be directly in line with their achievements - even when the achievements are not directly profitable (Hi Linus!). If you are in a job where this is not true, get a new job! Seriously, I would recommend a startup - in startups your pay tends to be directly related to your contribution to the company, because there is less management to blur it. I have worked in Government, Medium Corp, and Startups, and I will never leave startups again!
Unfortunately, this is not true. I have recently had to pass this review for my servers, and what it really amounts to is a checklist of the way they like to set things up. After doing the checklist, you are probably less secure than you were before - because you're setup is different than what they were expecting, so doing what they say makes things worse, not better. For example, they require that you have an encrypted database to store credit card information. Prior to that, we did not store credit card information! But now we need an encrypted database...
The unfortunate fact is that security is done by people, not by a magic checklist. At least they require boundary scans - that ought to at least help the really bad cases, but passing the current security audits does not mean you are secure in any event. Paperwork never means security...
I have to say I disagree. When I look at the data, economic prosperity (for everyone, not just the poor or the rich) happened at times highly coorelated to discoveries in the field of economics - for example, the discovery of money demand laws ended the great depression, etc. Really, I think that as people became more prosperous they tried to enact laws/unions to enforce that prosperity - and again, looking at the data, I believe those attempts were counter productive and probably should be removed as quickly as making the transition painless allows.
Not that there is no way your interpretation is right, but just be aware that many people disagree with you...
Slashdot Mirror
True, true - but we were talking about methods of takeoff and landing, neither of which require much energy really. Obviously landing can be done using the craft's potential energy, and I'm just saying that there are similar ways to take off.
As for why would you - rockets are much more efficient starting from a higher altitude, an engine failure right off the pad kills everyone (altitude launch opens more abort options), and a rocket uses a lot of energy fighting gravity and the atmosphere in the first part of launch (well, about 5-10% of the total I think). Of course, all that said, most launches use rockets from the very start - except for a very few that use aircraft.
That is indeed the big question - although I would point out that losing hydraulics during a horizontal landing is similarly catastrophic. Whatever you use for landing better be perfect, AND have backups! Once you admit that, backup engines may be easier (as in lighter, given what you need to take anyway) than backup hydraulics - though the hydraulics problem is a solved one, I grant you.
As an easy to understand example, how much energy is expended by your desk "levitating" your computer? Replacing the desk with a balloon does not change anything.
As you say, it does take energy to set up something like this, but no energy to maintain it.
Yes - but only the movement transfers energy, not the force applied. (And the energy transfered is VERY small compared to a rocket!)
No, really, energy is not required to levitate (take off, if you will) - energy is required to change velocity, not position. When you tie a balloon to something, the balloon does not supply any energy to the thing being lifted, it only supplies a force. Energy is force times velocity times time (or force times distance, which is less intuitive) - so if the velocity is zero, energy is zero.
Of course, we normally use big honking rockets to take off, and expend an obscene amount of energy to do it - but that is because increasing the complexity of a rocket and adding some other atmospheric manuevering option is a bad trade off compared with burning a few more tons of fuel...
Well, first of all, helicopters can do a vertical landing without power (though that is not what is being looked at here). Take off can take no energy at all (using a balloon, for instance), it only requires a force, not energy.
That said, the real problem with your post is that most of the energy is used up accellerating to >7 km/s. When landing, all of that energy goes into the atmosphere, so vertical/horizontal landing really doesn't change the energy requirements really. Detailed analysis is inconclusive as to which one is better - wings for horizontal landing tend to weigh the same as rocket fuel for vertical landing - and there are many other variables that could go either way, ie: reentry sheilding of wings is hard, but better reentry wings may not need as much shielding, etc.
Speaking of all this, when was the last time ANY meaningfully large database was accurate? They all contain inconsistancies - no, not bad records, just bad data. I think we spend entirely too much time making databases etc. 99.9999999% reliable when humans are only 99% (if that), so the database as a system cannot exceed 99% anyway.
Instead of spending that $10M for that last 9, spend $50K on a customer service rep with the power to overide the system!
Wow, I never knew they made something like that - cool! Very similar, in fact, though of course mine predated Kender by quite a bit...
We had a fun game where I played an anti-thief. He was a clepto who kept picking locks to sneak inside and hide stuff inside chests, etc. He didn't know where he got all the stuff he was hiding - all his stealing was completely subconcious.
Ah, good times!
Add to this that Jesus was actually born in late spring/early summer!
American private sector businesses can't stand that answer though
So maybe that answer is wrong? Maybe the answer is less features, not more time? To make the big bucks, learn how to do what management needs, not what they say - and yes, that does mean ignoring some of what they say (or at least explaining why doing X achieves the same thing). Very often being late to market is worse than not getting there at all (because at least then you didn't waste your development/marketing money).
You'd be amazed at how important market timing is - and learning how to "argue" for the right points in the right way makes you so valuable they will do anything to keep you. Arguing in the wrong way makes you look lazy - whether you are lazy or not!
How about this approach, wich would not crowd out the small, real inovators: Instead of paying the money up front for a rejected patent, have a $50K fee for any rejected patent. That way the small company just goes out of business (but without protection they would have anyway), while the big business is forced to pay, because going out of business would give up too much.
Good luck getting that one passed!
No, it can be part of a coherent business model as well. For example, Sears needs an ecommerce site - so they need a stable, secure web server. The market does not really fill their needs - so they need to make a custom web server. They can either spend $X M dollars and build it themselves, or they can spend $X/Y dollars and start from an open source product. The key is that the shared development work on the web server is worth more than the stategic advantage of having a completely custom web server.
Two other points - 1) you must be very careful about what is a strategic advantage and what isn't, and 2) the people that know the difference typically do not know why open source is an advantage.
In addition, the mere act of shooting for the moon will teach you things that will at least double your future earnings...
If it is luck, why are there basically no out-of-work millionaires (outside of sports) - even though you have heard of many people that lost it all. In fact, most commonly you hear about the people that worked up to millions, lost it all, and then worked up to millions again.
It isn't luck - that's what people say who do not have the dedication or risk accepting attitude. You can always use whatever luck you have - there is always some option.
That said, there is a lot of luck involved - but it determines the level of success, not who is successful.
Oh come on! You know very well that nothing be really be capitalized until after its IPO.
I'm sorry, you are wrong and I am right...
I have to reply to this, I just have to, sorry!
At the same time, the guys that bullied us at school went off to study law and economy.
In your scenario, the dorks win in the end. I can't confirm this from my own experience.
The fact is, the bullies that go to school and study law and economics rule over the other bullies and "dorks" with CS degrees - but the "dorks" with economic degrees rule them all.
I speak from personal experience - you want to rule? Be a top-notch tech guy that knows business intimately!
If WordPerfect is so flawed, why does MS Office use the same interface?
Why does Excel look the same as Lotus 1-2-3?
Because it is very hard to convince people to use a different interface, better or not. You do much better by only changing the back end.
I think you actually agreed with him, if you look at it from a manager's perspective - because the manager knows that his livelihood will not be effected by your project, they place politics over product. It is still a lack of motivation, but in management, not engineers.
I totally agree with you, by the way!
I hear you - but I do think that startups can really let you shine, where big corps kind of hide any of your accomplishments. Nothing replaces good business sense, though - knowing when to say something and when not to. That's why I like startups (though not VC funded startups), because they force everyone to pay attention to the bottom line and learn the business!
Their checklist really does contain: "Do you have an encrypted database that stores credit card information" or somesuch. The only acceptable response is yes to all questions...
The problem with unions is that they award only mediocrity. Unions require that high achievers get the same pay as low achievers, even though high achievers easily get 10x as much accomplished - especially in engineering. Unions force out good workers (why work harder if the money is the same), and leave only mediocre and poor workers. That leads to the company falling behind the non-union foriegnors, and the failure of the industry. Seriously, unions are bad news!
Most engineers are highly motivated people, and their pay tends to be directly in line with their achievements - even when the achievements are not directly profitable (Hi Linus!). If you are in a job where this is not true, get a new job! Seriously, I would recommend a startup - in startups your pay tends to be directly related to your contribution to the company, because there is less management to blur it. I have worked in Government, Medium Corp, and Startups, and I will never leave startups again!
Unfortunately, this is not true. I have recently had to pass this review for my servers, and what it really amounts to is a checklist of the way they like to set things up. After doing the checklist, you are probably less secure than you were before - because you're setup is different than what they were expecting, so doing what they say makes things worse, not better. For example, they require that you have an encrypted database to store credit card information. Prior to that, we did not store credit card information! But now we need an encrypted database...
The unfortunate fact is that security is done by people, not by a magic checklist. At least they require boundary scans - that ought to at least help the really bad cases, but passing the current security audits does not mean you are secure in any event. Paperwork never means security...
I have to say I disagree. When I look at the data, economic prosperity (for everyone, not just the poor or the rich) happened at times highly coorelated to discoveries in the field of economics - for example, the discovery of money demand laws ended the great depression, etc. Really, I think that as people became more prosperous they tried to enact laws/unions to enforce that prosperity - and again, looking at the data, I believe those attempts were counter productive and probably should be removed as quickly as making the transition painless allows.
Not that there is no way your interpretation is right, but just be aware that many people disagree with you...