Of course, they will try to make the railgun rounds aerodynamically smooth, so did the conventionaly shells
The degree to which they can make a conventional round aerodynamic is no where near as great as with a rail gun round.
Conventional rounds (propelled by explosives) have to be able to take a blast on the rear to get pushed out. That means a big blunt surface in the rear. This is anything but aerodynamic... A rail gun round would not have that restriction, and the trailing portion of the round could be nicely tapered. The trailing portion of a body is much more important to it's drag characteristics than the leading portion, this is because there is very little that can be done to keep the leading edge pressure from being the stagnation pressure for the flow, but the trailing edge pressure can be greatly effected by limiting the separation of the boundary layer.
As an exercise for the reader (you are the one who brought up ME 101:) look up D for a zero lift wing cross section (basically looks like a rain drop) and D for a cylinder.
This means that the crew and the entire ship will never be in contact with the shock cone
I have done a lot of supersonic aero work... You are correct about shock waves, but the crew would come in contact with the shocks if the guns were not pointed 90 deg to the axis of the ship at the time of firing.
Can someone please explain what goes on inside the tiny little minds of insurance people?
The short answer is: Actuarial Science.
They don't sit there and try to reason who would be more likely to get into an accident, they use stats. Many pilots have excelent records and are extrememly skilled, safe drivers. But there are enough other pilots who have great tendancies for risky behavior to drive up the likelyhood of any pilot to get into an accident.
... for the CoE to develop some more capabilities. If you think hydrology and infrastructure are easy, you don't know much about them. The problems also gets exponetially harder when you are expected to be able to work in environments ranging from dessert to jungle.
If the CoE can handle civil, it can learn most IT tasks.
I perhaps overstated the case; I certainly feel that you and I have less blood on our hands, but...
Did you do everything in your power to stop the war? Was there nothing more you could have done?
I know that I might have been able to convince one more person to go to a protest, I could have gone to another protest myself. If all of us had done a more, we could have persuaded enough people that this was a bad idea and an imoral thing in the first place, and then maybe the war wouldn't have happened.
So yes, I do feel that I bear some responsibility for what happened (but not as much as all of the supporters of the war).
That is all true, but the supreme court wouldn't have been able to hand it to bush if it hadn't been so fucking close in the first place, meaning that a large number, even if not a majority, did want bush.
I don't think that another violent american revolution is nessisary if the american people can be convinced of the issues you spoke of. If that was the case the type of politicians we have would change... (and if they can't be convinced, then the revolution would fail).
That would be true if America was a democracy, which it isn't. America is a representational republic specifically designed to remove decision-making power from the masses.
Decision making is buffered from the masses, but the masses are still ultimatly responsible for the decisions, anything else is dictatorship.
If you think the people are not ultimatly responsible for the governments actions, ask yourself if we would be fighting in Iraq if Gore had won the election.
September 11 didn't, however, have military value. It was just intended to kill random people, and make people sad. If, however, there had been a war on, it probably could have been considered a valid attack against economic infrastructure.
They were striking the decision making body of the United States (the people, as in "We The People..."). To demostrate that we are vulnirable to their attacks, and to state that the policies of our governement (elected by We The People) were unacceptable to them. Also to Bin-Laden and company, the war had already been on for about 10 years.
They understand what most americans rambling on and on about attacks against the "innocent" don't. In all contries with a representative democracy (By The People..) the populus is no more "innocent" than the government, or the military, as the governement and the military are just extensions of the peoples will and power. The only people who are truely "innocent" in the USA are those who are too young to vote. If you are of voting age and an american, all of the blood spilt at the hands of our government and military is on your hands.
I think what he was talking about was American soldiers using confiscated AK47s in Iraq.
As the insurgency grew, more armor/artilery/other non-infantry units were being used for infantry type duties. I believe the 4 man crew of a M1A1 tank gets 2 M-14s (shorter version of the 16) and 4 pistols. Americans were picking up AK47s because they were the only automatic rifles they could get their hands on in short order. Many american soldiers also like the AK47 more than their M16s because it has more "stopping power" at close range (particularly when the enemy does not have body armor). And when you are fighting street corner, to street corner, you don't need the increased accuracy of the M-16, you need to make sure who you shoot goes down, and stays down.
There was a story about this on NPR(?) a month or so ago.
Don't get me wrong, the M-16 is a great gun, but it is not superior to the AK47 in all ways (nor is the AK47 superior to the M-16 in all ways). Get the right tool for the job.
They just know when and how to use it, meaning that they don't use it often.
Have you forgotten that Canadians died helping us (USA) in Afganistan (you know, our war that was actually necissary)?
Also I can say, as an america amatuer pilot, who has recent experience working in the aerospace/defence industry (I did F22 engine development), who has great pride in the abilities of our air force, that Canadian pilots are probably the best trained, most skilled bunch of aviators on the planet.
jpaerospace has a feasable looking plan for cheap access to orbit. They are using airships to do most of the work. They claim their timeline is ~7 years for getting one of their ships in orbit.
That's why they use judges and lawyers and lawsuits to push their agenda.
2nd amendment would be long gone too.
Judges and lawsuits are not used exclusively by liberals. The simple fact is that when we have so many laws, they are going to contradict each other on many occasions. We need judges to decide those situations; lawsuits are the means for these resolutions.
We acknowledge that the state shall not establish religion (as stated by the constitution), a law requiring the daily recitation of "under god" might be just that which is banned, so there is a lawsuit. Our constitution also requires equal treatment under the law. Many believe that allowing marriage of breeders but not allowing it for gays is not equal, particularly with all of the financial implications of marriage. Personally I think that we need to get government out of marriage all together, but if we can't do that, opening up to gays is the only constitutionally legal action we can take, regardless of the opinion of the majority.
I happen to agree with you about the abortion thing, but that is not because I against a woman's right to choose, it is because I am for the right of the fetus to choose.
I can't remember who said this, but I am going to paraphrase it: The most important reason for the bill of rights is to prevent a tyranny of the majority. You better believe that (tyranny) is what we would have if we had strict majority rule, it would be a disaster for freedom.
Finally if the people are so overwhelmingly against something, the forefathers insightfully included a technique for the revision of our constitution.
I have been a sun/linux user for a long time, but had only admined windows for years, I recently took the plunge and installed Mandrake, I just used it out of the box for a long time...
Saturday, I decided to set up samba so I could get my mp3s onto my windows laptop (has to be windows, it is a machine from the office).
I had very little trouble setting up samba, but I had a hell of a time figureing out that shorewall was keeping me from using it...
I don't know any PhDs, let alone proffesors, who specialize in the pro's and con's of individual applications. Most of them are far more focused on the science behind all of this stuff. They tend to leave the details of implimentation to the folks in industry...
Require all goods (perhaps with a certain cash flow minimum, to ignore small fish) sold in the US to be produced in conditions that comply with our labor laws, or else be placed under a tariff. This would prevent the exploitation of sweat shop labor, while still allowing the market to determine who should be producing the good.
An international border should not be an excuse for corporations to exploit workers.
ex. If you own a clothing factory overseas where employees are payed 50% of US minimum wage (adjusted to local cost of living near the factory), and forced to work 16 hour days, you would then pay a 200% tariff to sell that good in the united states. If you owned a different factory, and paid the employees well (again, relative to local cost of living) and did not over work them, you should be allowed unhindered sales of the goods produced there in this country. Also, enviromental effects should be considered as well (polute more than you would be allowed to here->tariff).
My proposed solution would greatly reduce the exploitation of workers world wide, and also bring jobs back to this country.
But as an engineer, I can't imagine that they would impliment this. It makes a very large assumption about the way the user will set up their system. It requires that it be standing upright, or else the cooling drops in effectivness, big time.
I think the first reply to your post was correct, it is ambiguous.
Read it properly next time and apply some common sense... Oh wait, this is Slashdot..
Heat pipes are passive. How does that jive with this:
Mac OS X dynamically adjusts the flow of the fluid...
To control the flow of the fluid you would need a pump. You could put a valve in it, but that makes no sence, because a heat pipe adjusts it's own flow, passively, based on the heat load.
I don't disagree that a heat pipe would rock for this, but it is not what is in the Mac.
The schematic clearly shows a closed circuit of pump driven fluid flowing past the CPUs getting heated and then flowing into a heat exchanger (takes the place of a holding tank, and is actually superior too one) with a fan blowing on it. This is exactly like a smaller version of the cooling system in a car. There is no phase change.
A heat pipe is completly different, it is a phase change driven system, and does not involve pumping, or traditional heat exchangers.
I know you were joking, but obsesion of all kinds (athletic and otherwise) ARE nerdy. Spend more time with runners and cyclists and you will find that many of them are very nerdy, and the fact that they are in good shape doesn't detract from that in the slightest.
I am not talking about someone who runs a couple of miles a couple of times a week, I am talking about marathoners, and cyclists who go for 100+ mile rides. We study our equipment, our techniques and our nutrition, all to improve performance.
If you are the kind of person who runs 20 or more miles every Saturday, let me assure you, you are not normal.
In practice we will hopefully evolve to where the calculator does pretty formatting of the formula (a la Mathematica), presents it to you to verify that it is correct, then calculate.
I had a sharp 9300 in highschool, it did that, it was nice...
Then I switched to an HP48gx and I never looked back...
It doesn't have to be a complete replacement for traditional fuels.
If it reduces consumption at all, that is 100% unadultorated goodness!
If we can replace 5% of our fossil fuel dependance with waste vegatable oil, 5% with solar, 5% with reducing energy consumption, 5% with wind... That is the way to energy independance, not to mention that it is better for the environment...
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, they will try to make the railgun rounds aerodynamically smooth, so did the conventionaly shells
:) look up D for a zero lift wing cross section (basically looks like a rain drop) and D for a cylinder.
The degree to which they can make a conventional round aerodynamic is no where near as great as with a rail gun round.
Conventional rounds (propelled by explosives) have to be able to take a blast on the rear to get pushed out. That means a big blunt surface in the rear. This is anything but aerodynamic... A rail gun round would not have that restriction, and the trailing portion of the round could be nicely tapered. The trailing portion of a body is much more important to it's drag characteristics than the leading portion, this is because there is very little that can be done to keep the leading edge pressure from being the stagnation pressure for the flow, but the trailing edge pressure can be greatly effected by limiting the separation of the boundary layer.
As an exercise for the reader (you are the one who brought up ME 101
This means that the crew and the entire ship will never be in contact with the shock cone
I have done a lot of supersonic aero work... You are correct about shock waves, but the crew would come in contact with the shocks if the guns were not pointed 90 deg to the axis of the ship at the time of firing.
Can someone please explain what goes on inside the tiny little minds of insurance people?
The short answer is: Actuarial Science.
They don't sit there and try to reason who would be more likely to get into an accident, they use stats. Many pilots have excelent records and are extrememly skilled, safe drivers. But there are enough other pilots who have great tendancies for risky behavior to drive up the likelyhood of any pilot to get into an accident.
... for the CoE to develop some more capabilities. If you think hydrology and infrastructure are easy, you don't know much about them. The problems also gets exponetially harder when you are expected to be able to work in environments ranging from dessert to jungle.
If the CoE can handle civil, it can learn most IT tasks.
sorry, my bad, I meant M4... not M14
I perhaps overstated the case; I certainly feel that you and I have less blood on our hands, but...
Did you do everything in your power to stop the war? Was there nothing more you could have done?
I know that I might have been able to convince one more person to go to a protest, I could have gone to another protest myself. If all of us had done a more, we could have persuaded enough people that this was a bad idea and an imoral thing in the first place, and then maybe the war wouldn't have happened.
So yes, I do feel that I bear some responsibility for what happened (but not as much as all of the supporters of the war).
That is all true, but the supreme court wouldn't have been able to hand it to bush if it hadn't been so fucking close in the first place, meaning that a large number, even if not a majority, did want bush.
I don't think that another violent american revolution is nessisary if the american people can be convinced of the issues you spoke of. If that was the case the type of politicians we have would change... (and if they can't be convinced, then the revolution would fail).
That would be true if America was a democracy, which it isn't. America is a representational republic specifically designed to remove decision-making power from the masses.
Decision making is buffered from the masses, but the masses are still ultimatly responsible for the decisions, anything else is dictatorship.
If you think the people are not ultimatly responsible for the governments actions, ask yourself if we would be fighting in Iraq if Gore had won the election.
September 11 didn't, however, have military value. It was just intended to kill random people, and make people sad. If, however, there had been a war on, it probably could have been considered a valid attack against economic infrastructure.
They were striking the decision making body of the United States (the people, as in "We The People..."). To demostrate that we are vulnirable to their attacks, and to state that the policies of our governement (elected by We The People) were unacceptable to them. Also to Bin-Laden and company, the war had already been on for about 10 years.
They understand what most americans rambling on and on about attacks against the "innocent" don't. In all contries with a representative democracy (By The People..) the populus is no more "innocent" than the government, or the military, as the governement and the military are just extensions of the peoples will and power. The only people who are truely "innocent" in the USA are those who are too young to vote. If you are of voting age and an american, all of the blood spilt at the hands of our government and military is on your hands.
The blood is on my hands too.
I think what he was talking about was American soldiers using confiscated AK47s in Iraq.
As the insurgency grew, more armor/artilery/other non-infantry units were being used for infantry type duties. I believe the 4 man crew of a M1A1 tank gets 2 M-14s (shorter version of the 16) and 4 pistols. Americans were picking up AK47s because they were the only automatic rifles they could get their hands on in short order. Many american soldiers also like the AK47 more than their M16s because it has more "stopping power" at close range (particularly when the enemy does not have body armor). And when you are fighting street corner, to street corner, you don't need the increased accuracy of the M-16, you need to make sure who you shoot goes down, and stays down.
There was a story about this on NPR(?) a month or so ago.
Don't get me wrong, the M-16 is a great gun, but it is not superior to the AK47 in all ways (nor is the AK47 superior to the M-16 in all ways). Get the right tool for the job.
They just know when and how to use it, meaning that they don't use it often.
Have you forgotten that Canadians died helping us (USA) in Afganistan (you know, our war that was actually necissary)?
Also I can say, as an america amatuer pilot, who has recent experience working in the aerospace/defence industry (I did F22 engine development), who has great pride in the abilities of our air force, that Canadian pilots are probably the best trained, most skilled bunch of aviators on the planet.
jpaerospace has a feasable looking plan for cheap access to orbit. They are using airships to do most of the work. They claim their timeline is ~7 years for getting one of their ships in orbit.
That's why they use judges and lawyers and lawsuits to push their agenda.
2nd amendment would be long gone too.
Judges and lawsuits are not used exclusively by liberals. The simple fact is that when we have so many laws, they are going to contradict each other on many occasions. We need judges to decide those situations; lawsuits are the means for these resolutions.
We acknowledge that the state shall not establish religion (as stated by the constitution), a law requiring the daily recitation of "under god" might be just that which is banned, so there is a lawsuit.
Our constitution also requires equal treatment under the law. Many believe that allowing marriage of breeders but not allowing it for gays is not equal, particularly with all of the financial implications of marriage. Personally I think that we need to get government out of marriage all together, but if we can't do that, opening up to gays is the only constitutionally legal action we can take, regardless of the opinion of the majority.
I happen to agree with you about the abortion thing, but that is not because I against a woman's right to choose, it is because I am for the right of the fetus to choose.
I can't remember who said this, but I am going to paraphrase it:
The most important reason for the bill of rights is to prevent a tyranny of the majority.
You better believe that (tyranny) is what we would have if we had strict majority rule, it would be a disaster for freedom.
Finally if the people are so overwhelmingly against something, the forefathers insightfully included a technique for the revision of our constitution.
Thanks for the link...
I did want to copy them so they would go with me when I took the laptop. Also wouldn't I have had the same problem with shorewall with that?
I have been a sun/linux user for a long time, but had only admined windows for years, I recently took the plunge and installed Mandrake, I just used it out of the box for a long time...
Saturday, I decided to set up samba so I could get my mp3s onto my windows laptop (has to be windows, it is a machine from the office).
I had very little trouble setting up samba, but I had a hell of a time figureing out that shorewall was keeping me from using it...
I don't know any PhDs, let alone proffesors, who specialize in the pro's and con's of individual applications. Most of them are far more focused on the science behind all of this stuff. They tend to leave the details of implimentation to the folks in industry...
and yes, I do work for a university.
I had this idea a while back.
Require all goods (perhaps with a certain cash flow minimum, to ignore small fish) sold in the US to be produced in conditions that comply with our labor laws, or else be placed under a tariff. This would prevent the exploitation of sweat shop labor, while still allowing the market to determine who should be producing the good.
An international border should not be an excuse for corporations to exploit workers.
ex. If you own a clothing factory overseas where employees are payed 50% of US minimum wage (adjusted to local cost of living near the factory), and forced to work 16 hour days, you would then pay a 200% tariff to sell that good in the united states. If you owned a different factory, and paid the employees well (again, relative to local cost of living) and did not over work them, you should be allowed unhindered sales of the goods produced there in this country. Also, enviromental effects should be considered as well (polute more than you would be allowed to here->tariff).
My proposed solution would greatly reduce the exploitation of workers world wide, and also bring jobs back to this country.
I can see how you could be correct...
But as an engineer, I can't imagine that they would impliment this. It makes a very large assumption about the way the user will set up their system. It requires that it be standing upright, or else the cooling drops in effectivness, big time.
I think the first reply to your post was correct, it is ambiguous.
Read it properly next time and apply some common sense... Oh wait, this is Slashdot..
That was just unnecessary.
Same page I linked in the post above that post, further down the page...
Heat pipes are passive. How does that jive with this:
Mac OS X dynamically adjusts the flow of the fluid...
To control the flow of the fluid you would need a pump. You could put a valve in it, but that makes no sence, because a heat pipe adjusts it's own flow, passively, based on the heat load.
I don't disagree that a heat pipe would rock for this, but it is not what is in the Mac.
Did you look at the page?
The schematic clearly shows a closed circuit of pump driven fluid flowing past the CPUs getting heated and then flowing into a heat exchanger (takes the place of a holding tank, and is actually superior too one) with a fan blowing on it. This is exactly like a smaller version of the cooling system in a car. There is no phase change.
A heat pipe is completly different, it is a phase change driven system, and does not involve pumping, or traditional heat exchangers.
I know you were joking, but obsesion of all kinds (athletic and otherwise) ARE nerdy. Spend more time with runners and cyclists and you will find that many of them are very nerdy, and the fact that they are in good shape doesn't detract from that in the slightest.
I am not talking about someone who runs a couple of miles a couple of times a week, I am talking about marathoners, and cyclists who go for 100+ mile rides. We study our equipment, our techniques and our nutrition, all to improve performance.
If you are the kind of person who runs 20 or more miles every Saturday, let me assure you, you are not normal.
Why would it take a long time if X.org is just a fork from XFree?
In practice we will hopefully evolve to where the
calculator does pretty formatting of the formula
(a la Mathematica), presents it to you to verify
that it is correct, then calculate.
I had a sharp 9300 in highschool, it did that, it was nice...
Then I switched to an HP48gx and I never looked back...
It doesn't have to be a complete replacement for traditional fuels.
If it reduces consumption at all, that is 100% unadultorated goodness!
If we can replace 5% of our fossil fuel dependance with waste vegatable oil, 5% with solar, 5% with reducing energy consumption, 5% with wind... That is the way to energy independance, not to mention that it is better for the environment...