Can we admit the shuttle is a piece of junk yet?
on
Latest Columbia News
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Let's consider some other aircraft:
The SR-71 could do mach3.3 (2200mph), and it's titanium skin temp routinely got up to 1000F, well above the melting point of the shuttles aluminum skin. (melting point aluminum 600F, titanium 3000F).
The exhaust outlet temp of the SR71 engines is around 3400F, so we know there are materials available for aircraft manufacture that can take some pretty high heat even when they are taking a pounding.
The SR71 was designed long before the shuttle and flew routinely up until the 1990s without incident.
How about the MIG-25. It can do Mach 3.3 or so also, and its airframe can withstand 25G! I don't know what the design specs were on the shuttle, but I know it never experienced more than 3 G, and I would guess that 10G would rip it apart.
If I were going to slap a spacecraft together, I'd give it the airframe specs of a MIG-25, make it out of titanium, and instead of tiles just bolt on a piece of disposable titanium covered with teflon for a heat shield. It could probably be used a bunch of times too before it had to have a new coating put on it if the teflon coating were thick enough. Heck, there's so many new frying pan materials out there that would probably do 10 times better than teflon too.
Such a spaceship would have weathered what destroyed the shuttle with little more than a tiny dent.
You mean to tell me that with $500 million per FLIGHT (!) that piece of junk was all they could come up with? It was half disintegrated before it ever left the ground. Tiles so delicate you could not touch them? WTF? That's like some kind of sick joke. It's almost like they're making it up. They designed a winged aircraft that is supposed to use aerobraking for reentry and made it out of aluminum instead of titanium?
Hell, I have a whole set of frying pans that are more advanced.
Lots of folks are getting screwed here people: Astronauts and taxpayers to name a few.
Is there a way to remove the Trash and Home icons from the desktop yet? I've been able to do this in XP and KDE3 since they came out. If I can't have a totally clear desktop, I'll pass on this release.
The greatest question of all time is: "Are we alone?"
That's really the other ultimate goal of space exploration, isn't it? (The first goal is to find us a new place to live after the earth is used up).
But there is such a simple way to answer the question: Take all the cash we are using on rediculous stuff like the ISS and:
BUILD A GIANT TELESCOPE IN SPACE OR ON THE DARK SIDE OF THE MOON.
And I mean BIG.
One so Hugeomegagigantic that it can actually SEE the surface of extra solar earth sized planets in detail to pick out cities, roads, and lights.
And then, if we saw with our own eyes that there was another civilization -- imagine the space program we'd start to have then....and yes I know the dark side of the moon isn't always dark, but we'd want to cut down on earthshine too probably.
I think lots of folks here in the US would mod my comment (which follows shortly) up if they had the points, as I believe it aptly sums up *exactly* the sentiment, as well as the mood, and level of courtesy that should be expressed and shown towards those that would have our dignity stripped from us:
YOU CAN SUCK MY BIG FAT FUCKING HAIRY COCK! FUCK OFF AND DIE ASSHOLE.
It took me a while to figure out from their site (as it is being/.ed), but this OS has *no* GUI whatsoever, and I havn't seen any serious discussion of plans to implement one. While this is an interesting concept, for 99.9% of computer users ReactOS is nothing more than an interesting experiment.
That is extremely unlikely. Multiple redundant warning systems would have set off a warning in the cockpint of there was locking failure of the bay doors. If one did come off, I would speculate it was due to internal pressure from a different source than failure to lock.
Even the simplest private planes with folding landing gear have redundant systems to warn of gear lock failure.
I'm posting here so as to not get lost in the zillions of posts in the disaster thread below. Yes, this is totally off topic and I've never done this before, but I think it's worth a try to see if I can get this message through.
Besides the fact that right now/. is being/.ed, There's another problem that just reared it's head:
There are not sufficient total mod points available to deal with a thread as gigantic as the one about the Space Shuttle disintegrating.
There are lots of comments that need to be modded both up and down, but no more folks with points left to do it.
I'd suggest for the moment that the editors give all mods some points.
And then in the future perhaps the/code could be modified to do same automatically when a thread builds so quickly.
You look in Schrodingers box to check on the cat. Now if you'd entangled the cats. Then let them seperate moving the boxes to hither and yawn, they're still both living and dead. They haven't been made to choose. But once you look in on one of the entangled cats, you can infer the state of the other. So even though it's far away, and doesn't seem like it should have been made to choose, it was.
This is better:
You put two cats in a closed box with a poison cat treat (only 1). Only one of the cats will eat the treat, you don't know which.
Then the cats are seperated into two closed boxes and seperated.
While the boxes are unopened, you don't know the state of either cat.
If you open one box, you then know the state of the other cat.
Re:I still have to remove the desktop icons
on
KDE 3.1 Released
·
· Score: 1
Does that remove only the Trash and Home icons, or does it remove the ability to have any icons at all on the desktop? The checkbox as you described it seems unclear. I just want to be able to easily remove Home and Trash.
I still have to remove the desktop icons
on
KDE 3.1 Released
·
· Score: 1
Does anyone know if there's a nice checkbox anywhere to get rid of the desktop icons yet? In KDE3.0 I still have to go through the BS of renaming "home" to ".home" and then changing the path to the trash to somwhere else to get ride of those two rediculous icons on the desktop that I never use.
(It's also a PITA to do this in XP -- the recycle bin can only be removed from the desktop with TweakUI)
Having no home and trash desktop icons makes working on the desktop so much more pleasant because when I grab a whole scoop of stuff with a wide swath of my mouse, I know that I'm only grabbing file that I'm currently working on.
The inability to remove desktop icons *at all* from Gnome2 is the reason I still can't even stand to try it out.
Sorry that was a typo. I meant to type Strad, as in Stradivarius, and not strat as in stratocaster. I dare say that if I were to play a violin made by Stradivarius I would sound very different.
I've been a musician all my life and I'll tell you right now what seperates the really good players from everyone else is PRACTICE, not gadgets.
I think probably the marketing division staged a successful coup over at Gibson.
The gadget freaks are gonna love this though, so I can't blame Gibson for trying a new way to bring in some cash.
Someone posting something about the "purists... blah blah blah blah"
Excuse me? Purists my *ss.
There's a real reason that the best guitarists lust and drool over 90 year old technology: It is because it is impossible for solid state electronics, no matter how tweaked, sampled and modified, to duplicate the odd harmonics the come by nature out of the plasma in a hot vacuum tube.
Musicians care about *sound* and nothing else. If the best sound came out of a old transistor radio running FreeBSD modified with DDR ram and put in a hollowed out cardboard box, they would use that.
I'm a violinist. Once upon a time I thought that all the hoopla surrounding Strat instruments was just complete BS and that with the right combo of tech, lutherian technique and materials, that the sound could be reproduced. And then I heard one in person.
Perhaps another problem is that lots of *engineers* work for the instrument manufacturers, and they stare at an oscilloscope hooked up to a tube and think "it can't be so hard to reproduce that" as well as "I need to do something new around here to keep my job!"
Now I have heard some solid state amps that sound pretty good. But they still don't come close to tubes, even after all these years (40+?) of trying.
And if you personally cannot hear the difference, might I suggest you work on training your ear a bit better? The difference is glaring to folks with well trained musical ears.
I don't agree or disagree with you, but say some free open source linux product being worked on by volunteers allowed the same sort of problem to happen. Who would you suggest should then be liable?
Isn't this kind of like blaming firearm manufacturers for a murder when some dirtbag kills someone?
What about auto manufacturers that build cars that can be stolen? Should they be liable when someone steals the car when it could have been protected by requiring the owner of the vehical to punch in a 47 digit code to operate it?
I must say I agree with the above post. I came to the same conclusion several months ago. Fortunately, everything I could probably ever want to do with digital media can be done with today's modern (and unrestricted)hardware. What that in mind, and casting a worried eye towards the future, I recently built myself a very fast rock solid AthlonXP system (for practically nothing, as hardware is so cheap these days) and stuck it in a closet. Maybe it'll come in handy on some rainy day.
What kind of 30 mile range phone does his Dad have
on
1KM 802.11b @ 2MB
·
· Score: 2
From the article:
Another modification I want to try is putting an Omni-directional antenna on the AP side. I'm combing newsgroups and websites for designs and ideas as time allows. My Dad has a nifty Senao wireless phone with a 60km range, and I'm trying to convince him to lend me his station antenna:)
Does anhone have any clue what kind of wireless phone does what kind of tricks to get 30+ mile range?
Actually, I *do* know how far away the stars really are. But we CAN make such a telescope, it is just a matter of being willing to do it, to the exclusion of other things. Things like the ISS, or nuclear weapons. If we didn't need nukes and stealth tech, we'd have funds available for a megascope in short order.
I suppose one of the major problems we'll need to overcome before we'll ever be able to reach the stars is whether we, as a human race, will ever be able to advance far enough culturally that we don't have to protect ourselves from each other.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's consider some other aircraft:
The SR-71 could do mach3.3 (2200mph), and it's titanium skin temp routinely got up to 1000F, well above the melting point of the shuttles aluminum skin. (melting point aluminum 600F, titanium 3000F).
The exhaust outlet temp of the SR71 engines is around 3400F, so we know there are materials available for aircraft manufacture that can take some pretty high heat even when they are taking a pounding.
The SR71 was designed long before the shuttle and flew routinely up until the 1990s without incident.
How about the MIG-25. It can do Mach 3.3 or so also, and its airframe can withstand 25G! I don't know what the design specs were on the shuttle, but I know it never experienced more than 3 G, and I would guess that 10G would rip it apart.
If I were going to slap a spacecraft together, I'd give it the airframe specs of a MIG-25, make it out of titanium, and instead of tiles just bolt on a piece of disposable titanium covered with teflon for a heat shield. It could probably be used a bunch of times too before it had to have a new coating put on it if the teflon coating were thick enough. Heck, there's so many new frying pan materials out there that would probably do 10 times better than teflon too.
Such a spaceship would have weathered what destroyed the shuttle with little more than a tiny dent.
You mean to tell me that with $500 million per FLIGHT (!) that piece of junk was all they could come up with? It was half disintegrated before it ever left the ground. Tiles so delicate you could not touch them? WTF? That's like some kind of sick joke. It's almost like they're making it up. They designed a winged aircraft that is supposed to use aerobraking for reentry and made it out of aluminum instead of titanium?
Hell, I have a whole set of frying pans that are more advanced.
Lots of folks are getting screwed here people: Astronauts and taxpayers to name a few.
Please allow me to express the sentiment of most if not all home network users, as well as that of the companies that make routers for home use:
Thanks a lot Steve you PRICK!
Is there a way to remove the Trash and Home icons from the desktop yet? I've been able to do this in XP and KDE3 since they came out. If I can't have a totally clear desktop, I'll pass on this release.
We could just put thousands upon thousands of smaller ones all synced with fiber optics and lasers all over the back of the moon.
I guess it's time to dredge up my old post
...and yes I know the dark side of the moon isn't always dark, but we'd want to cut down on earthshine too probably.
I'll just reprint it here too:
The greatest question of all time is: "Are we alone?"
That's really the other ultimate goal of space exploration, isn't it? (The first goal is to find us a new place to live after the earth is used up).
But there is such a simple way to answer the question: Take all the cash we are using on rediculous stuff like the ISS and:
BUILD A GIANT TELESCOPE IN SPACE OR ON THE DARK SIDE OF THE MOON.
And I mean BIG.
One so Hugeomegagigantic that it can actually SEE the surface of extra solar earth sized planets in detail to pick out cities, roads, and lights.
And then, if we saw with our own eyes that there was another civilization -- imagine the space program we'd start to have then.
I think lots of folks here in the US would mod my comment (which follows shortly) up if they had the points, as I believe it aptly sums up *exactly* the sentiment, as well as the mood, and level of courtesy that should be expressed and shown towards those that would have our dignity stripped from us:
YOU CAN SUCK MY BIG FAT FUCKING HAIRY COCK! FUCK OFF AND DIE ASSHOLE.
I really don't understand the parent but it's funny as hell anyway. MOD UP!!!
It took me a while to figure out from their site (as it is being /.ed), but this OS has *no* GUI whatsoever, and I havn't seen any serious discussion of plans to implement one. While this is an interesting concept, for 99.9% of computer users ReactOS is nothing more than an interesting experiment.
That is extremely unlikely. Multiple redundant warning systems would have set off a warning in the cockpint of there was locking failure of the bay doors. If one did come off, I would speculate it was due to internal pressure from a different source than failure to lock.
Even the simplest private planes with folding landing gear have redundant systems to warn of gear lock failure.
well in 20 seconds I got modded down as a troll. whatever.
I'm posting here so as to not get lost in the zillions of posts in the disaster thread below. Yes, this is totally off topic and I've never done this before, but I think it's worth a try to see if I can get this message through.
/. is being /.ed, There's another problem that just reared it's head:
/code could be modified to do same automatically when a thread builds so quickly.
Besides the fact that right now
There are not sufficient total mod points available to deal with a thread as gigantic as the one about the Space Shuttle disintegrating.
There are lots of comments that need to be modded both up and down, but no more folks with points left to do it.
I'd suggest for the moment that the editors give all mods some points.
And then in the future perhaps the
You look in Schrodingers box to check on the cat. Now if you'd entangled the cats. Then let them seperate moving the boxes to hither and yawn, they're still both living and dead. They haven't been made to choose. But once you look in on one of the entangled cats, you can infer the state of the other. So even though it's far away, and doesn't seem like it should have been made to choose, it was.
This is better:
You put two cats in a closed box with a poison cat treat (only 1). Only one of the cats will eat the treat, you don't know which.
Then the cats are seperated into two closed boxes and seperated.
While the boxes are unopened, you don't know the state of either cat.
If you open one box, you then know the state of the other cat.
Does that remove only the Trash and Home icons, or does it remove the ability to have any icons at all on the desktop? The checkbox as you described it seems unclear. I just want to be able to easily remove Home and Trash.
[I] [T]hink [Y]ou [M]ay [H]ave [A] [C]opywright [V]iolation [I]n [T]he [F]irst [L]ine [O]f [T]he [S]tory?
Does anyone know if there's a nice checkbox anywhere to get rid of the desktop icons yet? In KDE3.0 I still have to go through the BS of renaming "home" to ".home" and then changing the path to the trash to somwhere else to get ride of those two rediculous icons on the desktop that I never use.
(It's also a PITA to do this in XP -- the recycle bin can only be removed from the desktop with TweakUI)
Having no home and trash desktop icons makes working on the desktop so much more pleasant because when I grab a whole scoop of stuff with a wide swath of my mouse, I know that I'm only grabbing file that I'm currently working on.
The inability to remove desktop icons *at all* from Gnome2 is the reason I still can't even stand to try it out.
"The best way to get someone to touch something is to put a sign on it that says Don't touch"...
The same goes for food as well. How else would I ever have known how delicious those little packets of slica dessicant are!
Sorry that was a typo. I meant to type Strad, as in Stradivarius, and not strat as in stratocaster. I dare say that if I were to play a violin made by Stradivarius I would sound very different.
oh heck, that's gonna be modded off topic. it was supposed to be in reply to a different post.
This is a solution in search of a problem.
I've been a musician all my life and I'll tell you right now what seperates the really good players from everyone else is PRACTICE, not gadgets.
I think probably the marketing division staged a successful coup over at Gibson.
The gadget freaks are gonna love this though, so I can't blame Gibson for trying a new way to bring in some cash.
Someone posting something about the "purists... blah blah blah blah"
Excuse me? Purists my *ss.
There's a real reason that the best guitarists lust and drool over 90 year old technology: It is because it is impossible for solid state electronics, no matter how tweaked, sampled and modified, to duplicate the odd harmonics the come by nature out of the plasma in a hot vacuum tube.
Musicians care about *sound* and nothing else. If the best sound came out of a old transistor radio running FreeBSD modified with DDR ram and put in a hollowed out cardboard box, they would use that.
I'm a violinist. Once upon a time I thought that all the hoopla surrounding Strat instruments was just complete BS and that with the right combo of tech, lutherian technique and materials, that the sound could be reproduced. And then I heard one in person.
Perhaps another problem is that lots of *engineers* work for the instrument manufacturers, and they stare at an oscilloscope hooked up to a tube and think "it can't be so hard to reproduce that" as well as "I need to do something new around here to keep my job!"
Now I have heard some solid state amps that sound pretty good. But they still don't come close to tubes, even after all these years (40+?) of trying.
And if you personally cannot hear the difference, might I suggest you work on training your ear a bit better? The difference is glaring to folks with well trained musical ears.
I don't agree or disagree with you, but say some free open source linux product being worked on by volunteers allowed the same sort of problem to happen. Who would you suggest should then be liable?
Isn't this kind of like blaming firearm manufacturers for a murder when some dirtbag kills someone?
What about auto manufacturers that build cars that can be stolen? Should they be liable when someone steals the car when it could have been protected by requiring the owner of the vehical to punch in a 47 digit code to operate it?
I must say I agree with the above post. I came to the same conclusion several months ago. Fortunately, everything I could probably ever want to do with digital media can be done with today's modern (and unrestricted)hardware. What that in mind, and casting a worried eye towards the future, I recently built myself a very fast rock solid AthlonXP system (for practically nothing, as hardware is so cheap these days) and stuck it in a closet. Maybe it'll come in handy on some rainy day.
Please someone mod parent up. I'm really curious!
From the article:
:)
Another modification I want to try is putting an Omni-directional antenna on the AP side. I'm combing newsgroups and websites for designs and ideas as time allows. My Dad has a nifty Senao wireless phone with a 60km range, and I'm trying to convince him to lend me his station antenna
Does anhone have any clue what kind of wireless phone does what kind of tricks to get 30+ mile range?
This will not happen in your lifetime. You will not know. Sorry!
I would know if we cared enough to spend the money to really find out.
Actually, I *do* know how far away the stars really are. But we CAN make such a telescope, it is just a matter of being willing to do it, to the exclusion of other things. Things like the ISS, or nuclear weapons. If we didn't need nukes and stealth tech, we'd have funds available for a megascope in short order.
I suppose one of the major problems we'll need to overcome before we'll ever be able to reach the stars is whether we, as a human race, will ever be able to advance far enough culturally that we don't have to protect ourselves from each other.