Actually, this is a debatable point because the shuttle is much, much bigger and we already know that control surfaces are only barely working at that height. I would speculate that they would have been killed by debris during the breakup.
I had thought about hypersonic survival since Challenger. There are essentially two problems, velocity and altitude. The emergency egress system is only designed to work if the shuttle gets subsonic, has a clean orientation in relation to the ground and isn't too high. This is great if there is trouble with the landing gear but otherwise not much use.
This is why the idea of a crew compartment that can separate interests me. It doesn't have to be able to land intact, just to protect the crew from high altitude and hypersonic flight and with paracchutes or whatever to slow itself down. The crew compartment is relatively strong as it is a pressure vessel, and it was the last structural assembly to fail in both disasters (it is even arguable that the Challenger crew lived until the module impacted the ocean).
When they looked at fitting personal ejection systems to the shuttle, for various reasons they could only do this for some of the crew. I believe that Enterprise was equipped with seats (they used Enterprise for the glide tests), but she only flew with a minimum crew.
The issue about heating comes from the reentry profile. If you get rid of the wings then a ballistic profile is possible. If you treat the crew compartment part of the shuttle as a unit, it may have been possible to separate it, leaving the wings and cargo compartment behind. The front has its own RCS so it could even be possible to reorientate. Parachutes could be used to further slow the module down and to stabalize it (spins would tend to render the crew unconscious), then the planned emergency egress could take place.
Again the problem would be the orbit. I doubt that Soyuz has much spare fuel for such a radical change in Orbit. You would also have to fly the Soyuz which means only two seats would have been available. The supply ships, 'Progress' are designed to be run fully automatically, but they don't take people and I don't believe they can reenter.
I understand that some supersonic military aircraft had crew ejection modules. The module would separate from the rest of the plane and would be slowed by a parachute. After the module slowed and dropped to a reasonable altitude the ejector seats would be fired. I don't know where it was deployed, but can remember reading a very superficial account of it many years ago.
In an engineering environment, you actively seek dissenting opinions. You may discount them but you must always consider them. If engineers are unhappy about safety related items, it is usually a good idea to listen, even if after consideration, you ignore them. If you are a management type (as Linda Ham was), then you cannot choose to ignore engineers, you can only get a better option from other engineers.
There were two options had the problem been identified early enough. The first was to rest, use minimal supplies and rush through the preparation of Atlantis on the ground. Transits could have been made using a tether. No direct connection would be needed. The second option was to improvise a patch. The first option was probably a goer, especially if NASA staff were aware of a marooned mission. The second option was a possibility, and certainly offerred a greater chance of survivability than no action at all.
Essentially this is a myth circulated by some NASA management apologists.
Theodin was played by a British actor, Bernard Hill. He seemed to play essentially a Lear at the beginning then build on to that. Like many British actors, Hill has done a lot of stage work. It shows, he is good at it (you see the same with Sir Ian McKellan).
I really don't understand the nominations. Master and Commander was 'ok' but it hardly showed cinematic brilliance. As for Lost in Translation, well it was a "cute" film, but that was all. I agree with you about Depp, that was an excellent performance and one that made the film.
Personally I thought that Sean Astin, Sir Ian McKellen, Bernard Hill and Andy Serkis all did excellent jobs. One problem is that a studio can only put one person from a film forward in each category for consideration.
Serkis got to really act in this one (so no arguments about it being only CGI). I guess McKellen wouldn't be bothered about more awards, and that Sean Astin and Andy Serkis are too early in their careers. Bernard Hill (Theoden) would have been a good nominee, he essentially played a Lear, but did so extremely well, however he is British and that is always a small minus.
Others have recognised the cast and recognised them as an esemble, which is probably the best. I don't think the time that any of the cast spent on the LOTR would be wasted career-wise.
Was a comment that was made by one British commentator which promptly got him into serious trouble.
The thing is, he was right (probably without knowing it). They gave us the concept of zero in about 950 (I think). I would guess that it probably came also from Baghdad, along with all the other stuff.
The story of the sack of Baghdad must be more complicated. As a rule, if you agreed to their notional rule (the Kahn was usually a long way away) and raised and paid taxes, cities were generally left alone.
No, Linux costs more. Most Linux releases come on 3 or 4 CDs whereas XP comes on one. The price is about $2/CD so Linux costs more (unless they use Knoppix).
At least in former times there was a lively blackmarket in software in Baghdad.
An algorithm without physical expression is not really different to a mathematical formula. In any case, there is always copyright. Why should software enjoy protection under two different types of intellectual property law?
Patents can be expensive, they are certainly expensive to research. It is relatively easy to ensure something like a new printing press doesn't infringe patents, it is less easy to determine whether a program does.
Also whilst patents remain fairly cheap in the US., they defiitely aren't elsewhere. This effectively acts as a barrier to keep all except the richest (who can afford international patents) out of the market.
As a last point, the patent system fails even for hardware when it gets to interface specs. Look at the RAMBUS disaster. Interfaces should never be patentable after all they represent a way in which one non-infringing invention can interact with another.
I love your idea, but a defensive patent costs too much unless you are someoe with deep pockets like IBM. Forget the attourney fees, an EU patent costs about 10000 Euros to file. Nothing for IBM, but serious problems for everyone else.
If I invent a perpetual-motion machine and patent it, I can sell you a license to use my patent. As long as I'm careful with the wording of my licensing agreement, the fact that it doesn't work and cannot work is immmaterial.
However a piece of software sold as a commercial product is something else, there must be some liability there even if it means insurance. Software that is given should have no liability for the person or organisation giving.
The main task of a company is to create, and maximise shareholder value. If the board does not do this, it can be fired. Therefore it is currently correct practise for companies to attempt to protect their intellectual property and to exploit it with licensing.
One answer is to provide write-offs for donation of IP to the "general good". The problem is then how to value the donation.
You really don't want NTSC composite out. It is a sucky standard anyway designed for ease of decoding by discrete electronics in the fifties. It is one thing when that is the way it came in, but definitely not for DVDs. In anycase, an NTSC decode/recode will not be optimal and most TVs have S-Vodeo or RGB in.
First the manfacturer's mix shouldn't have changed. If they are ISO certified, then they must supply what they promised and nothing else or risk losing their certification. There are plenty of manufacturers who are ISO certified now in China (my wife works for a western certification company and China is their biggest growth area).
Maybe not testong every batch, but they should at least sample from time to time.
Yes, you are riught about the cherry picking. If they want to ensure that nobody parallel imports then they can produce Chinese, Malay or Thai only versions. The "overhead" of producing a movie is another matter. Hollywood is fscked big time over costs, but that is only because the studios end up in bidding wars for the same "stars", be they performing actors or directors. Movies *can* be produced for significantly less.
Here is a joke.
DVD in Germany. Pice 17.95 Euros
DVD player in Germany with same DVD bundled, 49.95 Euros
The price of the DVD is an agreed minimum. If you try to sell for less, the usual channels will blacklist you. However the same store can bundle the DVD with a cheap player for under 50 Euros. Many DVD players are still being sold as mult-region and the onlything worrying private importers is the lack of a German soundtrack, and even that is becomming less of an issue. Small private imports (like individual DVDs) do not usually attract duty.
Many companies in China who deal with the west are aware that there could be apprehension about their product quality so they seek ISO 9000 certification from western agencies.
ISO 9000 is essentially about establishing and following quality procedures. Similar to security, it is perfectly valid when there is none, as long as the fact is documented. The threst that one has when dealing with a certified supplier is that the certificate may be revoked and there are procedures for doing so.
Where was their inward goods QA? If they do not have a program of monitoring based on sampling then they were hardly operating to the usual expected quality standards.
Slashdot Mirror
It is no problem to 'come down', however, I believe that the ISS is at a different orbital inclination. This requires quite some effort to change.
I had thought about hypersonic survival since Challenger. There are essentially two problems, velocity and altitude. The emergency egress system is only designed to work if the shuttle gets subsonic, has a clean orientation in relation to the ground and isn't too high. This is great if there is trouble with the landing gear but otherwise not much use.
This is why the idea of a crew compartment that can separate interests me. It doesn't have to be able to land intact, just to protect the crew from high altitude and hypersonic flight and with paracchutes or whatever to slow itself down. The crew compartment is relatively strong as it is a pressure vessel, and it was the last structural assembly to fail in both disasters (it is even arguable that the Challenger crew lived until the module impacted the ocean).
The issue about heating comes from the reentry profile. If you get rid of the wings then a ballistic profile is possible. If you treat the crew compartment part of the shuttle as a unit, it may have been possible to separate it, leaving the wings and cargo compartment behind. The front has its own RCS so it could even be possible to reorientate. Parachutes could be used to further slow the module down and to stabalize it (spins would tend to render the crew unconscious), then the planned emergency egress could take place.
Again the problem would be the orbit. I doubt that Soyuz has much spare fuel for such a radical change in Orbit. You would also have to fly the Soyuz which means only two seats would have been available. The supply ships, 'Progress' are designed to be run fully automatically, but they don't take people and I don't believe they can reenter.
Being buffeted by a hyposonic wind only counts when there is enough air pressure.
I understand that some supersonic military aircraft had crew ejection modules. The module would separate from the rest of the plane and would be slowed by a parachute. After the module slowed and dropped to a reasonable altitude the ejector seats would be fired. I don't know where it was deployed, but can remember reading a very superficial account of it many years ago.
In an engineering environment, you actively seek dissenting opinions. You may discount them but you must always consider them. If engineers are unhappy about safety related items, it is usually a good idea to listen, even if after consideration, you ignore them. If you are a management type (as Linda Ham was), then you cannot choose to ignore engineers, you can only get a better option from other engineers.
Essentially this is a myth circulated by some NASA management apologists.
and as such the EU reverse engineering for interoperability rule doesn't apply unless the Norwegians have in their own laws.
Theodin was played by a British actor, Bernard Hill. He seemed to play essentially a Lear at the beginning then build on to that. Like many British actors, Hill has done a lot of stage work. It shows, he is good at it (you see the same with Sir Ian McKellan).
Personally I thought that Sean Astin, Sir Ian McKellen, Bernard Hill and Andy Serkis all did excellent jobs. One problem is that a studio can only put one person from a film forward in each category for consideration.
Serkis got to really act in this one (so no arguments about it being only CGI). I guess McKellen wouldn't be bothered about more awards, and that Sean Astin and Andy Serkis are too early in their careers. Bernard Hill (Theoden) would have been a good nominee, he essentially played a Lear, but did so extremely well, however he is British and that is always a small minus.
Others have recognised the cast and recognised them as an esemble, which is probably the best. I don't think the time that any of the cast spent on the LOTR would be wasted career-wise.
but they just need time to work on their theories!
The thing is, he was right (probably without knowing it). They gave us the concept of zero in about 950 (I think). I would guess that it probably came also from Baghdad, along with all the other stuff.
The story of the sack of Baghdad must be more complicated. As a rule, if you agreed to their notional rule (the Kahn was usually a long way away) and raised and paid taxes, cities were generally left alone.
At least in former times there was a lively blackmarket in software in Baghdad.
I love your idea, but a defensive patent costs too much unless you are someoe with deep pockets like IBM. Forget the attourney fees, an EU patent costs about 10000 Euros to file. Nothing for IBM, but serious problems for everyone else.
However a piece of software sold as a commercial product is something else, there must be some liability there even if it means insurance. Software that is given should have no liability for the person or organisation giving.
One answer is to provide write-offs for donation of IP to the "general good". The problem is then how to value the donation.
Dows Amazon have that particular link up for the politicians? That would be cynical.
You really don't want NTSC composite out. It is a sucky standard anyway designed for ease of decoding by discrete electronics in the fifties. It is one thing when that is the way it came in, but definitely not for DVDs. In anycase, an NTSC decode/recode will not be optimal and most TVs have S-Vodeo or RGB in.
Maybe not testong every batch, but they should at least sample from time to time.
We currently live in Germany. My wife is Russian. We watch movies in English, German and Russian. We see Region 1,2 and 5.
Here is a joke.
- DVD in Germany. Pice 17.95 Euros
- DVD player in Germany with same DVD bundled, 49.95 Euros
The price of the DVD is an agreed minimum. If you try to sell for less, the usual channels will blacklist you. However the same store can bundle the DVD with a cheap player for under 50 Euros. Many DVD players are still being sold as mult-region and the onlything worrying private importers is the lack of a German soundtrack, and even that is becomming less of an issue. Small private imports (like individual DVDs) do not usually attract duty.ISO 9000 is essentially about establishing and following quality procedures. Similar to security, it is perfectly valid when there is none, as long as the fact is documented. The threst that one has when dealing with a certified supplier is that the certificate may be revoked and there are procedures for doing so.
Where was their inward goods QA? If they do not have a program of monitoring based on sampling then they were hardly operating to the usual expected quality standards.