Well I think you chose a pretty shitty example. I would say that qualitatively there is a very big difference between covering a mile in 8 minutes vrs 4 minutes and answering X number of questions right in 8 minutes vrs 4 minutes.
In the example of running it is the feat of covering the distance inside a set amount of time that is the desired result. On a test it is more about correct answers than time to completion. The secondary issue of how quickly the student answered correctly is not at stake. For example in taking the SAT there is no 'bonus' for finishing before time is up on a section. Not saying that the ability to answer in the set amount of time is not a factor. Just pointing out that it is not the end all and be all determiner. Whereas in your athletic example it is in fact the ONLY measure of success.
Now. Should those given extra time have an astrix next to their scores indicating they were administered the test differently ? That is a very difficult proposition. Doing so jepordizes the impartiality of judging the results. But then as you obviously feel the ability to judge them equally has already been tainted due to the test being taken under abnormal circumstances.
Consider this, test results for a so called 'normal' child timed and untimed really do not vary that much. Yes there they do generaly score higher but it is not a very pronounced jump and typically they fall in the same decile. However, in an accurately diagnosed ADD child the difference is often quite dramatic where the timed results are seriously misreprentative of their level of intelligence and the untimed results fall far more in line with what would be expected of them based on their known and displayed intelligence levels. It isn't uncommon to see jumps across multiple deciles in the results ie from say the 40th to the 90th percentile in results. And its not like their typical ranking is in say the 60th decile. IE their untimed results are not out of line with their other standings... in fact it almost always falls right at if not under their typical performance range measured by other means because even with the test being untimed they are still plauged by problems that simply make such testing formats problematic for accurately capturing their cognative abilities. Its like trying to grade Ray Charles's musical ability based soely on his capacity to read printed notes. There is a fundamental disconnect in the testing medium and an ADD students abilities that causes an aberation in the testing results. What makes it such a pain in the ass is that there is often no 'smoking gun' to point to in the student.. such as blindness in my example with Ray Charles. The real kick in the pants is that these children are often some of the smartest in the bunch and the idea that they get something percieved as an advantage is often viewed with derision and scorn. That is till it is seen how far out of whack they often score without being allowed to take it untimed. In fact it is not uncommon for a child to be FORCED to take a test untimed by teachers and or parents because initial timed results are so far out of whack with what they know the child is capable of. They do it not to give the child an advantage but to make sure the test accurately portrays their inteligence. Which again is the primary objective.
If the true measure of an SAT was time based I would agree with you. But if that were the case your scores would be accompanied by a "time to answer" metric in addition to correct/incorrect. For the most part the timming of things like SAT sections and final exams has more to do with practical scheduling of exams than it does any meaningfull addition to demonstration of knowledge. Unlike a race it doesn't matter if it takes you 5 minutes or an hour to derrive a correct answer. The proof as they say is in the pudding. 2+2 = 4 doesn't change based on how long it takes you to arrive at it. Whereas competitively measuring the length time it takes you get from point A - B does. The important thing in a test of knowledge is t
Earth's gravity well is at the edge of bichemical propulsion capacity. The best systems to date still only lift less than 10% payload weight of the launch vehicle.
This fact means that unless rocket technology and materials building became absurdly cheap it will never provide the basis for a massive launch capacity needed for ideas like colonization or even large scale outposts on other planets at anything approaching economicaly viable costs.
True reuseablity is about the only thing that could make this pitiful payload capacity work at all. At least then vehicle construction costs could be amortized over the course of multiple launches which could drop payload costs dramatically. Supplying a fuel station with throw away rocket technology is like suggesting the gas station down the street get replenished by buying a new tanker truck to deliver its fuel every time.
Sure the truck can be made less reliable. But you still have to build a working vehicle each time. This will never work for anything but the most rarefied needs. We need a true shuttle system. One which can sustain multiple missions with a simple re-fuling turn around process. The present 'shuttle' is anything but.
The other option as always is new technology. None have really shown up as far as a primary lift capacity. All new ideas other than perhap NERVA or Orion have all been different versions of the same idea of combining chimical propellants. Short of a new and as yet unknown fuel, chemical propulsion has reached its known limits in rocketry.
If you are talking VB6 then run far run fast in terms of a large scale application. But then... what is large scale here ? Not that VB6 isn't perfectly capable in some areas. But it is fading fast and you could run into serious deployment issues in the near future with Vista looming and VB6 at EOL from M$.
VB.net is ok. By that I mean it will do anything the other languages will in the.NET architecture but it does not always do so as easily or as elegantly. Additionally the lack of a more structured syntax (lack of semi colon's etc) gets really fricken annoying if you ever switch back and forth much.
My personal experience with it has been that for more in depth options you tend to continuously dip into the common library interface accessible to all the.NET languages and it makes for very jarring transitions at times with huge swaths of 'black box' code that is sometimes hard to expose when trouble shooting. Basically this is how they 'welded on' all the real functionality of a 'real' programming language. Thus VB.net is pretty much on par with anything. But getting serious with it is not its design goal. It is optomised for the RAD concept more than any of the other languages.
For varied reasons I got sucked into a VB.net project. At the onset we were told it was our only option and thus we reluctantly picked it up as we went along only to discover later we could have chosen any of the MSIL languages. If I had a do over I would have gone with C# (if I had to be stuck in.NET at all that is.) My biggest objection has less to do with the languages/environment themselves than it does with M$ licensing/support and portability. Though mono is progressing pretty nicely.
Thats the funny thing. Most people I know don't get those features. I know all about the nickle and dime routine on the extras. I actually have an unlimted data plan on a phone that can make some use of it (Cingular 8125).
But for a lot of these folks they might certainly miss the chance these people will TRY the extras. But often they never do. They just have a Voice plan, don't know what SMS or MMS is. Bluetooth sounds like a strange disease (and when they see the ear growths in infected users their suspicions are born out). So they buy a neat looking phone because it doesn't look like a 5 year old reject candy bar and complain about the features they never use that clog up the menu's and make it difficult for them to understand.
I blame the people as much as the cell phone providers really. If they didn't buy the feature phones they would probably stop making them. Though largely I imagine its just a generational gap. My gen was Gen X. Current Gen are the Thumb People. They love the Features on the new phones.
I actually looked at those for a while. Mostly for the quad band than anything else(Travel to Europe now and then). Got a Nokia 6820 for the realistic IM capability instead (was still tri band and could be used over seas). Wish I had gotten the 8910. Keyboard was useable on the 6820 (easiest contact entry ever) but the firmware was so dog slow and the screen so small it was not really useable. Fine as a phone though. I think Nokia is really the exception when it comes to the UI problem. Normally the phone features are easy while the features get buried.
I am not really one who is after the simple stylish phone. Have a cingular 8125 that I love. But until the smart phones hit their current level of capacity I looked pretty much in vain. On the otherhand if you could say get a 50 dollar Razr form that just did phone calls I'd be tempted to have a second less bulky phone... like to put in the car. Or for a second handset around the house etc...
I dunno. Purely anecdotal but most folks I know that get fancy feature filled phones don't care for the features, generally they just curse them. Ask them why they got the phone and they say "cause it looked neat", "It was the smallest one" or some such other. Mostly I think the phone companies just don't want to make these plain jane models look attractive. Cause if they did many more people would opt for them. At least more of the people I know would. Sheeple are strange like that. Will pay more for something they know they won't like just cause it's "Shiny".
But due to that you also do not often get the best form factos. How much slimmer could a razr be if it only tried to be a phone ? Or perhaps the case could be made more sturdy since there would be less attempt to cram things in and thus more space for structural re-enforcement.
The Nokia 1100 is a great functional phone don't get me wrong. But its a bit lacking in the style department. I am the last one to champion style over function. But that does not mean you cannot add some style once you have functionality. iPod is of course the quintesential example at the moment. It does one thing very very well with a great deal of style. Yet I am not aware of a single example of a stylish 'Just a Phone' Cell phone.
This does not solve the chicken or the egg problem as I have always understood it. The question is where did the first Egg come from if there existed no egg laying creatures before it. Yet where did an egg laying creature come from if there were as yet no eggs?
The true boundary issue here is not the oh so close to chicken to chicken, it is the between a Species that produces off spring via Eggs and a species that does not.
The true (at least as I see it) spirit of the question is still quite valid.
Less I am mistaken that would just make it a copyright violation. Plagiarism I belive is strictly claiming the work as your own. So citing is not plagirism as you do atribute the work to its rightfull creator. If you overstep fair use in your citation then you venture into copyright territory.
Eh actually I think we agree quite a bit. Only thing I really disagreed in with in what you just said was that I was risk adverse and your suggestion that I preffer it this way. I most ceratainly do not preffer it this way... as for risk adverse, If not wanting to get scraped out of some cell phone chatting soccer moms suv radiator is being risk adverse then I am guilty as charged.
All I was pointing out was the current reality where I live (and it is similar in many areas of the US) is not the same as where you do... which you point out as well. This is not something I chose. It is something which I have little power to change. I go against the current where it is reasonable to do so and am considered quite an odd duck around here cause I *gasp* will actually walk somewhere. Hell I walked a 1/3rd of the AT one summer and people around here don't think its neat... they think its a sign of severe mental illness.
Perhaps the biking experience here is just something you have to experience for yourself to understand. But to give you some idea that I am not somone scared of a little road rash it might help to know that I have lived in places where bikes shared the road with cars and I had no problem being out in traffic then (steamboat springs colorado). My Brother lives there and visits here (huntsville alabama... middle america incorporated) and he will also not ride in traffic here (or atlanta where we grew up) because for the most part it requires a death wish to do so. Biking is his main form of transportation. Hell even walking in places like this is a real life game of Frogger.
Simply put Biking in US urban sprawl is often darwin award worthy. Please come try it some time.
I would love to change this. I am the loose screw around here. But I am one very lonesome voice in a society that will drive to the end of their driveway to get the fricken mail. Methinks it will take an awful lot of time before any change is noticed. Perhaps my grand children will reap the benefits. As is my generation is going to tell horror stories of driving two blocks to get the milk without air conditioning.
Unlimited Broadband laptop plans that are limited and not allowed to be used for broadband content. Come on... Verizon's plan is like selling somone a gun and then saying they can't use bullets with it and they are only allowed to point it at other folks and yell 'bang'.
An Unlimited data plan should by definition mean 24/7/365 access at the obtainable data rates of the technology. If that is not what they can offer then they should not be allowed to call the plans 'Unlimited'.
Would they be allowed to sell 'unlimited' voice plans so long as you didn't talk over 500 minutes in a billing period ? Why are they allowed to sell 'unlimited' data plans when if you access over X amount of data they charge you for it ? If X amount represents the threshold then what does it matter what it consists of ? IE ones and zero's are ones and zeros. If I have unlimited access (or even limited to X amount) then what does it matter what they consist of? Its time truth in advertising had some traction for reigning in some of these absurd plans.
Ahh well cell phone companies had best squeeze every nickle out of these archaic pricing schemes that they can. Because once wi-max reaches critical mass for coverage then wireless communications prices are going to be in one hell of a race to the bottom. At least if the teired crap doesn't get through.
You know its strikes me that the promise of broadband is finally becoming legit. Streaming music, micro video and legitimate tv and movie downloads are all starting to hit. VOIP is getting more popular by the day. Not to mention there are devices which are begining to allow people access this content wherever they are rather than in designated, defined areas like tv rooms or computer desks. Now its Coffee shops and in the park... anywhere you have a good signal (cell or wi-fi) you now have the possibility of combining Phone, internet, TV and computing all in one where ever you are. And you know who is sitting on the single largest reserve of bandwidth capacity ? Yep everyones favorit do no evil search giant. Jeeebus... you know I have been thinking there stock had to come back to reality pretty soon. But if they manage to ride the surge for demand in broadband then frankly we may not have seen anything yet as far as generation of wealth by google.... and if they hold to do no evil they may even manage to do it without milking the public for all it is worth along the way.
Or perhaps you could have read more carefully what I initialy stated. Yes your right that these issues can be overcome to a great extent. But the fact remains that currently those changes are not in place. And they require far more than just an individuals desire. Sure it all starts with one person... but it would take a massive change in current culture for it to become anywhere near as plausible as you seem to make it out to be.
I do think you dismiss the impacts of weather a bit to blithely. So you can deal with -20c great. You going to honestly say a majority of people will EVER consent to that so long as a car or similar is a valid alternative? Major infrastucture projects shielding the worst of the weather are currently pipe dreams. When they happen great but I am not holding my breath. Yes you can bike with suits. But it requires suitable facilities at work and the time to use them. All which begin to add up against the bike. Bikes sometimes can make for a faster commute but more often than not they lead to longer times. Toss in longer to recover (showering/changes of clothing etc...) and you have a possibility to suck away a great deal of your day just getting places. This is not a very appealing aspect here. And getting such facilities at work are far from 'easy to resolve'. And all that is before you even consider the days when anything short of a fully sheltered option like a tunnle system is going to work for a bike... conditions under which you hardly think twice with a car.
Yes car/bike intermingling accidents are the major cause of biking fatalities. That is the whole point. IF everyone rode bikes that wouldn't happen. And if wishes were wings bull frogs wouldn't bump there ass when they jumped. For me to decide I am going to bike means that I am going to go forth as an extreme minority and place myself in mortal danger every single day. No thankyou. My biking adventures will stay on rockin single tracks.
Can biking become a more practical option for people ? Certainly. Is it now in many areas of the US ? Not really. Do I wish that were not the case ? You betcha. And I am willing to do quite a bit to try and change that... but risking my own life and limb plays no part in it. Its dangerous enough just driving a car.
Bikes are practical within a certain scope. But between lack of facilities to shower/change at work, suburban commute distances, and Inclement weather it has severe limitations. Hell inclement weather can take out whole seaons in some areas (harsh winters). And lack of driver awareness can make it a daily life endangerment. Sure these things can be overcome. But until they are then biking remains in many areas (particularly here in the US) very unpractical. You would have to be suicidal to bike my commute to work as the most direct route invovles several miles on a 6 lane road (not highway) and several major intersections populated by cell phone talking IDJOTS who can barely tell they are trying to merge into a hummer much less a schwinn. And there is no alternative route that is any better. They all have to deal with the overpass somewhere not to mention most of them add several miles to the ride.
Reagarding your numbers. Kind of curious what kind of car that was. Considering you are talking liters and klicks I gather European. 5.25 gallons a week for commuting is a good bit better than the average here. And 42+ miles a day isn't very uncommon for my colleagues. I know several that have that to cover one way. In fact the biggest problem with most Electric vehicle ideas here is that they would have extremely small margians on the daily range for many people's commutes. I have one of the shortest commutes of anyone I work with at about a 20 mile round trip.
However, had never really looked into the numbers for coal to provide Kw-hr and resulting carbon emissions. I suppose in that sense such an array could manage to replace a higher percentage than I thought of a single car... just not the same as saying it would be sufficient to power a car. now if they would just get the cost per watt for panels down....
Would be curious to see their thinking. 1.5 kw peak is all of 2 hp. Peak time per day is generous at 6 hours which is 9 kw-hr per day. Barring something like 10 such arrays per vehicle in use I do not see how that could be expected to reduce carbon emissions equivalent to what cars produce.
An average car engine puts out 100hp easy. While you don't use that full power often you do use on average around 20hp to sustain highway speeds and a good bit of it during acceleration. Even at idle you have an engine producing better than 5hp that is doing nothing but sitting there. Granted electrics solve some of those problems but unless you want to drive something on the order of a solar racer you are still going to drive something requiring a bit more juice than a 1.5 peak array is going to provide you.
Moving a ton or more of mass at 40-65mph is a very energy intensive task. Electrics have not been overly successfull at reducing the amount of weight needed in a safe car because of the current limitations of battery technology. Hybrids in fact are HEAVIER than their non hybrid kin.
Feel free to proove me wrong and point me to these people in the know claiming a 1.5 peak array will be enough to replace carbon emissions from cars. I happen to have devoted a fair amount of time to this issue myself though I claim no special status. I am fairly certain of myself when I say the idea that a single such array would counteract a single car is perposterous. a 1.5 peak with 6 hours of peak time would only drive the average vehicle down the highway for less than 30 minutes.... and thats only if they had an electric drive. I might be enough to reduce by a significant fraction... half at best. But not all.
While I think you are right... there is a question of whether or not we should tap into Oil Shales. That does not solve the problem or releasing stored carbon into the atmosphere. Incidently for folks who are not aware of the oil shales its worth the time to google about it. The largest known deposits dwarf the middle east and they are in the Rockies so Canada and the US are sitting on it. Production becomes profitable around $40 a barrel if memeory serves so they are in the middle of some serious ramping up of production. Gas prices will get worse... but we are already well beyond the worst sustainable price with known alternatives. We probably will never see sub dollar a gallon but we should be able to get back under 2 and stay there for a while. There is a similar technology with coal but the sustaining price is a good bit higher... not sure if we have hit that point or not.
Your idea about plugins being charged from home solar arrays is nice but rather unrealistic. Solar panels have a hard enough time just powering a house much less a car. To give you an idea think of it this way. The average home consumes somewhere around 15 kw-hr a day. That is 50hp for 30 minutes.... just enough that it might cover the average commute from a midsized sedan but not much else... and you would still need power for the house. Size of the array is cumbersome in both cases... about 5000 sq ft for an array that can deliver 15 kw-hr in a day at current tech. Bump up panel efficiency, lower cost per watt, make more power stingy electric cars, and you might be able to do it. But for now its a pipe dream.
I have hopes for bio-diesel and ethanol. Though the source for ethanol has to come from a higher yield source than corn. There have been some studies into switchgrass and perhaps a genetically engineered bug/algea or something with massive yields that could make it more than sustainable but could in fact drive energy prices into the floor without overly impacting our usage of farm land. My reservation about bio fuel is the mixing of our food supply and energy supply in land useage. That is something that will make us even more dependent on current climate norms. A bad year with crops could mean soaring fuel AND food costs. Combined with the super scare stories regarding the rapid loss of genetic deversity in crops and its not a pleasant thought.
Hydrogen has a bigger problem than storing it... in fact I think worrying about storage now is akin to putting the cart before the horse and counting chickens before they hatch all combined. We have to find a way to generate the stuff that makes it feasible as a means of energy storage first. Right now the only real possible answer is nuclear power where hydrogen is used as a power storage method. Solar might help but I doubt it is ever going to be a solid primary power source... unless perhaps the conversion efficiencies get on up around theoretical max.
Are the offereing broadband DATA or not ? The thing that is most unbeliveable about all this ? If they can provide 7mbs broadband service at a flat fee then they can provide phone plans for less than they charge now. IE they are offering that service ON TOP of the phone plan.
Phone companies, even cell phone companies, are rapidly moving into RIAA territory for trying to protect a business model that is rapidly becoming out moded. They do not have a right to make money selling limited minutes of voice communication or 10 cents a msg txting. Ah well sooner or later the market will iron this absurdity out. But in the long run they would be better off if they would just price their data plan accordingly and go ahead and do what Landlines did a long time ago and provide all you can eat voice. Could you imagine if T-mobile simply charged say 50 a month for access to its network for all you could eat call or data purposes and that was it? How many folks would that pull in ?
If they have no problem with you streaming video at high rates (presumeably you can use you 7mbs for something) then they should have no problem with voice. And IM service is a basic necessity. I mean hell... they going to ban e-mail ? Or access to web mail next ? I forsee web chat clients proliferating for a while again in the future. I mean sheesh... next thing you know they will say you can't use your data connection period because it allows circumvention of making calls or txts via their service.
Once again.... this is like the toll booth in the prarie in Blazing saddles... UTTER MADNESS.
Still not true. Unless you sell to an individual who is interested in paying retail you will never make your money back on a diamond purchase (or most any jewlrey purchase actually). You can't generaly purchase wholesale. And stores will only give you a fraction of wholesale if they will buy from you at all. You are normally relegated to pawn shops and such and there you get pennies on the supposed 'value'. Actually I rather think you get something approaching the true value. But thats just me.
Look no matter if you get ripped off or not you still pay retail at a jewlrey store. The store will NEVER buy the ring back at the price you paid for it. They MIGHT buy the diamond back at something approaching the wholesale value... MIGHT. That is just similar economics to a car dealership.
Diamonds are not rare. And the marketing around them is phenomenal. De Beers ranks as the deffinition of successfull advertising. They sought and succesfully implemented a social value regarding diamonds which has been maintained for more than a century. Mostly because guys don't have the balls to buck the 'traddition' of a diamond ring and women like having guys blow absurd amounts of money on them. Its not the rock they crave... its what it represents as an effort by a guy to win their affections or to proove their devotion. And perhaps to some degree showing his financial viability... though these days that is much less important than in the past. Which is good since most guys go into debt for a rock these days.
One of the reaons insurance fraud is so rife with Jewlrey is that is often the only time you will ever see the so called 'value' of the gem returned to you in the form of cold hard cash. Not that there are not exceptions. Truly unique pieces of art or extrodinary gems can be auctioned off for substantial amounts. But that just amounts to finding an individual to deal with who will buy on the supposed value... not as a means to make money (like a store).
Something pornographic ? Have you seen this thing ? Its more like national geographic boobies than playboy.
Once again I scratch my head at this notion that human nudity is somehow harmfull. That seeing what we hide underneath our clothing can somehow damage our phsyche. Depictions of sex fall under the same category if you ask me and this thing doesn't even go there. Its a character without clothes being depicted as anantomically correct. What in the seven hells is wrong with that? Rating this mod as mature due to this depiction is about like labeling a science text book as mature because it depicts sexual organs. This is silly. Its also sexist as there is no hue and cry over the fact the male character is depicted anatomically correct when bare chested. So what the hell is the big deal ?
Yes but the problem is that base level top loaders that work as well as any of the higher end units can be had for under $250... hell less than 200 on sale or used. Not like its a high tech thing. 1/2 horse motor, metal tub that agitates back and forth, and spins around at the end.
The diference in energy cost with a 2-300 price differential (worse at most retail locations) makes it about a wash (ooooo, bad pun) in the long run. True the more expensive more efficient machine MIGHT last long enough to make it worth it in savings. Then again it might crap out early on you. In the end the idea that it will last longer than 10 years and actually save you any significant money in the long run is an iffy bet at best for most appliances.
So yeah Americans take the bird in the bush. You telling me that if you faced the same decision you would go for paying double money now to maybe save 12 dollars a year which won't be 'savings' until you have had the appliance for 10 years ?
Give them the choice to buy the more efficient appliance even up and they will go for it unless it just dosn't work as well. Hell just make it so the payback due to efficiency is withen a couple years and most people will still buy it. But when the payback term is out there at the expected lifetime of the appliance nobody is going for that kind of deal. Cause it isn't a deal. It isn't even savings. Its just choosing when you will spend the money.
Very good points. The Russian Mig and Sukoi designs are very very capable fighters. In fact one on one they may well be the best figters in the world. Heck with the 37. The Mig-29 and Su-27 were both capable of the full range of acrobatics you describ in the 37 they just did not have the directional thrust ability or tri-plane config.
But when you start talking one on one there are many capable fighters in the world and I would argue the US designs hold no particular advantage and in fact with all designs except the F-16 probably hold a general disadvantage. The Euro Fighter and Rafale are both highly capable designs and the top level Mig and Su designs are as well. Proper training is the key then. Stick comparable trained fighters in those planes and they will have an odds on chance of winning a one on one engagement with anything. The next key then becomes the overall air power system. And that is where US dominance lays. The US supremacy is almost entirely wrapped up in our air control system as a whole. Nobody else does cordinated air power as well as we do. AWACS is the heart of it and why BVR today is not what BVR was in Vietnam. Pilot training comes next and last comes the technology.
The F-22 and JSF designs are not particularly impressive performers in terms of one on one dogfighting, they are adequate and thrust vectoring does a great deal to overcome their bulk that has arisen from internal warloads and stealth aerodynamic dictates. JSF in dogfight trim might be able to out turn an F-16 but only with directional thrust. Retrofit a similar capacity to the F-16 (which has been done and would be much cheaper) and its much more manouverable than the final JSF design. The advantage of the new US designs relies entirely on the stealth aspect. IE highly visible but un-reachable active search radar in AWACS vectors the US planes around in such a way that they can deal with threats before they know they are there.... not just BVR. Actual chase into ideal 6 o clock firing position to visually id an enemey before they even know they are there and then have control of any resulting engagement before it even begins for the other pilot.
If someone neutralizes stealth then the US designs are in a heap of shit in a matchup against a comperable air power. But then.... who is comperable any more? About the only time any single nation could claim higher capable numbers any more would be when just facing our naval assets. If we have access to forward deployment of air force assets then we are kind of head and shoulders above anyone other than a full NATO turnout or China. Russia fields only a shadow of its former strength.
AWACS, super cruising, AMRAAM, decent air combat manouevering capacity and highly trained pilots is a pretty devestating combination if all the pieces of that puzzle are there. The weakness of the US system lies in the fact we probably could not currently sustain a major air war level of munitions expenditure for very long and if someone could force us off our game plan... IE contest control of the skies (AWACS deployment) then we would be hurting in an old school scrap for control of the sky. The current thought is that with the next gen design if we got reduced to that then stealth would proove an advantage in dogfighting.
In other words, the US designs are all about winning the fight before you even get in knife range and even when they reach that stage they are far from uncapable. That is just not their top design priority. If they are right about that advantage then the designs are everything they have said they are. But to date there has not been a real test of it. Knocking down the excuse of an Air Force that Iraq had in Gulf War I dosn't really count and thats about as close as we have come to a modern air combat war (and that was before any of the designs were in production). Yes they had numbers, but they had shit for training and almost zero air born radar capacity. We knocked down their command and control system in the first wave and at that point the Iraq air f
I am kind of at a loss for how someone would use a phone like a handset AND a PDA at the same time anyway... IE most pen PDA's are not easy to oeprate one handed and most cells are hard as hell to shoulder hold to your ear to free your hands... hence the popularity of hands free options. If you don't like blue tooth headsets you can still go with the traditional wired options ont he smartphones/pocket PC phones.
For something that is much more PDA than phone take a look at the PPC-6700 or Cingular 8125. Also known as the HTC-Wizard. I jus tgot an 8125 (have a personal review at my blog, link in my post header) and the things are sweet. Additionally Acer is releasing some kind of flip bluetooth headset with their new core duo laptops (8204 model) that might solve your headset problems (if you can get it seperate of the laptop...or just look for something similar). IE its a VERY slim (makes a razor look fat, fits in a PCMCIA slot) flip phone form factor that makes an audio gateway connection via blue tooth. So if you could find a holster solution for both or one for each that would work that might solve your problem.
Me personally.. I go with the blue tooth headset and I wear it when I am on the go. And yeah its kinda silly when you have it on but don't use the phone much (that is me too... 12 months of cingular 450 anytime and I have almost 4000 rollover min now). But its handy for the car and for talking to someone while using the PDA to take notes (hell even record the conversation). And if you forget it you can use the phone... just sucks if you want to type on it as well... not to mention getting all that skin grease on the screen (qvga 240X320). But there is the speakerphone option.
They also both come in camera less versions if so desired.
I am not a big fan of the all in one units. But these new phone pocket PC's with the slide apart form factor (reveals a qwerty keyboard just as big as the screen) have the horse power of good PDA's, A useable keyboard, standard mini USB connection and charging, Wi-Fi, Blue Tooth and before long 3g connections to go along with phone calling ability. They are pretty damn handy and Good at both jobs.
The biggest crap factor is mini SD only so far for expansion cards. Full SD and or Compact Flash is where they need to get... and bigger or at least higher capacity batteries. At least these are easy to replace so if need be you can have two or three to swap out on the go. 3-4 hours full up usage is what I am getting out of my 8125.
Yeah I did know about the current itteration of the J-2 being used, just wondering what the original poster was after as they didn't really specify and I like reminding folks just what we gave up on with the F-1. Also thought the concept of saying we were 'going back' to it was kinda silly. As you pointed out it is an engine that has been in constant development for the last 30 years or so.
Have wondered about the 68's myself. Was thinking that was a Kerosene LOX engine but looking at Boeing's page it seems I was remembering wrong. Now I am really wondering why they are not considering that. Two of those would outperform three SSME's... Though they still come out behind weight wise (~28,000lbs for two 68's vrs ~22,000lbs for 3 SSME's). Hell they are talking about changing the deminsions of the ET and SRB's anyway... shouldn't be that big a deal to just do that and refactor for a new engine selection. SSME will never be a good option for a throw away engine.. or even for a re-useable unless the finally get around to redesigning them where launch power is at 100% or less instead of 110%. Course that is useless if you are not returning them. And the new configurations are not looking like they are planning on doing that.
yes but amp hours are useless info without also knowing what voltage the power is delivered at. 1 amp hour of 12 volts is far different from 1 amp hour of 120 volts. Nothing wrong with watt hours. Your electric bill comes in kw-hr's.
In either case 45 watt hours is almost certainly incorrect for this device if it could run a laptop for 8 hours. More likely it can deliver 45 watts continuously for 8 hours which would actually be 360 watt hours. IE 1 watt for 360 hours or 45 watts for 8 hours. Which delivered at 19 volts (a common laptop requirement) that would be ~2.37 amps giving me right at 19 amp hours for a 19volt source.
Considering many laptops can draw 60 watts or more continuously if they are being maxed out (HD, CD/DVD, Graphics Card hammering, and USB headset doing VOIP for team commander) that would give you a more realistic idea of how long this device could power your system for under full load. But 45 watts is probably reasonable for average consumption. So my question becomes what can it deliver on a continuous basis. IE can it pump out 70 or 80 watts for 4.5-5.5 hours of run time ? Or does it face throughput issues ? Does it heat up under those circumstances ?
And of course what are the refuling options. Can I just go down to the hardware store, pick up some methanol and pour it in like I would into a zipo or am I going to have to buy some rediculously priced proprietary refuling canister ? You probably don't want folks pouring methanol into a tank on a plane flight. But make it so I can buy 2 or three canisters that I can refuel at home or in safer areas and a system for safely swapping them out under any circumstances.
8 hours of run time is nice. But if its harder to replinish than it is to find a wall outlet this thing will have very limited use.
Curious about the surge capacity as many laptops can suck down more than
What do you mean 'upgraded' apollo engines? Do you realize that one Saturn F-1 engine produces more thrust than all 3 SSME's on a Shuttle Launch ? 1... and the first stage had 5 of the damn things. 1.5 million pounds of thrust each compared to Shuttles ~1.2 for the combined thrust from 3 SSME's.
Slashdot Mirror
Well I think you chose a pretty shitty example. I would say that qualitatively there is a very big difference between covering a mile in 8 minutes vrs 4 minutes and answering X number of questions right in 8 minutes vrs 4 minutes.
In the example of running it is the feat of covering the distance inside a set amount of time that is the desired result. On a test it is more about correct answers than time to completion. The secondary issue of how quickly the student answered correctly is not at stake. For example in taking the SAT there is no 'bonus' for finishing before time is up on a section. Not saying that the ability to answer in the set amount of time is not a factor. Just pointing out that it is not the end all and be all determiner. Whereas in your athletic example it is in fact the ONLY measure of success.
Now. Should those given extra time have an astrix next to their scores indicating they were administered the test differently ? That is a very difficult proposition. Doing so jepordizes the impartiality of judging the results. But then as you obviously feel the ability to judge them equally has already been tainted due to the test being taken under abnormal circumstances.
Consider this, test results for a so called 'normal' child timed and untimed really do not vary that much. Yes there they do generaly score higher but it is not a very pronounced jump and typically they fall in the same decile. However, in an accurately diagnosed ADD child the difference is often quite dramatic where the timed results are seriously misreprentative of their level of intelligence and the untimed results fall far more in line with what would be expected of them based on their known and displayed intelligence levels. It isn't uncommon to see jumps across multiple deciles in the results ie from say the 40th to the 90th percentile in results. And its not like their typical ranking is in say the 60th decile. IE their untimed results are not out of line with their other standings... in fact it almost always falls right at if not under their typical performance range measured by other means because even with the test being untimed they are still plauged by problems that simply make such testing formats problematic for accurately capturing their cognative abilities. Its like trying to grade Ray Charles's musical ability based soely on his capacity to read printed notes. There is a fundamental disconnect in the testing medium and an ADD students abilities that causes an aberation in the testing results. What makes it such a pain in the ass is that there is often no 'smoking gun' to point to in the student.. such as blindness in my example with Ray Charles. The real kick in the pants is that these children are often some of the smartest in the bunch and the idea that they get something percieved as an advantage is often viewed with derision and scorn. That is till it is seen how far out of whack they often score without being allowed to take it untimed. In fact it is not uncommon for a child to be FORCED to take a test untimed by teachers and or parents because initial timed results are so far out of whack with what they know the child is capable of. They do it not to give the child an advantage but to make sure the test accurately portrays their inteligence. Which again is the primary objective.
If the true measure of an SAT was time based I would agree with you. But if that were the case your scores would be accompanied by a "time to answer" metric in addition to correct/incorrect. For the most part the timming of things like SAT sections and final exams has more to do with practical scheduling of exams than it does any meaningfull addition to demonstration of knowledge. Unlike a race it doesn't matter if it takes you 5 minutes or an hour to derrive a correct answer. The proof as they say is in the pudding. 2+2 = 4 doesn't change based on how long it takes you to arrive at it. Whereas competitively measuring the length time it takes you get from point A - B does. The important thing in a test of knowledge is t
Earth's gravity well is at the edge of bichemical propulsion capacity. The best systems to date still only lift less than 10% payload weight of the launch vehicle.
This fact means that unless rocket technology and materials building became absurdly cheap it will never provide the basis for a massive launch capacity needed for ideas like colonization or even large scale outposts on other planets at anything approaching economicaly viable costs.
True reuseablity is about the only thing that could make this pitiful payload capacity work at all. At least then vehicle construction costs could be amortized over the course of multiple launches which could drop payload costs dramatically. Supplying a fuel station with throw away rocket technology is like suggesting the gas station down the street get replenished by buying a new tanker truck to deliver its fuel every time.
Sure the truck can be made less reliable. But you still have to build a working vehicle each time. This will never work for anything but the most rarefied needs.
We need a true shuttle system. One which can sustain multiple missions with a simple re-fuling turn around process. The present 'shuttle' is anything but.
The other option as always is new technology. None have really shown up as far as a primary lift capacity. All new ideas other than perhap NERVA or Orion have all been different versions of the same idea of combining chimical propellants. Short of a new and as yet unknown fuel, chemical propulsion has reached its known limits in rocketry.
If you are talking VB6 then run far run fast in terms of a large scale application. But then... what is large scale here ? Not that VB6 isn't perfectly capable in some areas. But it is fading fast and you could run into serious deployment issues in the near future with Vista looming and VB6 at EOL from M$.
.NET architecture but it does not always do so as easily or as elegantly. Additionally the lack of a more structured syntax (lack of semi colon's etc) gets really fricken annoying if you ever switch back and forth much.
.NET languages and it makes for very jarring transitions at times with huge swaths of 'black box' code that is sometimes hard to expose when trouble shooting. Basically this is how they 'welded on' all the real functionality of a 'real' programming language. Thus VB.net is pretty much on par with anything. But getting serious with it is not its design goal. It is optomised for the RAD concept more than any of the other languages.
.NET at all that is.) My biggest objection has less to do with the languages/environment themselves than it does with M$ licensing/support and portability. Though mono is progressing pretty nicely.
VB.net is ok. By that I mean it will do anything the other languages will in the
My personal experience with it has been that for more in depth options you tend to continuously dip into the common library interface accessible to all the
For varied reasons I got sucked into a VB.net project. At the onset we were told it was our only option and thus we reluctantly picked it up as we went along only to discover later we could have chosen any of the MSIL languages. If I had a do over I would have gone with C# (if I had to be stuck in
Thats the funny thing. Most people I know don't get those features. I know all about the nickle and dime routine on the extras. I actually have an unlimted data plan on a phone that can make some use of it (Cingular 8125).
But for a lot of these folks they might certainly miss the chance these people will TRY the extras. But often they never do. They just have a Voice plan, don't know what SMS or MMS is. Bluetooth sounds like a strange disease (and when they see the ear growths in infected users their suspicions are born out). So they buy a neat looking phone because it doesn't look like a 5 year old reject candy bar and complain about the features they never use that clog up the menu's and make it difficult for them to understand.
I blame the people as much as the cell phone providers really. If they didn't buy the feature phones they would probably stop making them. Though largely I imagine its just a generational gap. My gen was Gen X. Current Gen are the Thumb People. They love the Features on the new phones.
I actually looked at those for a while. Mostly for the quad band than anything else(Travel to Europe now and then). Got a Nokia 6820 for the realistic IM capability instead (was still tri band and could be used over seas). Wish I had gotten the 8910. Keyboard was useable on the 6820 (easiest contact entry ever) but the firmware was so dog slow and the screen so small it was not really useable. Fine as a phone though. I think Nokia is really the exception when it comes to the UI problem. Normally the phone features are easy while the features get buried.
I am not really one who is after the simple stylish phone. Have a cingular 8125 that I love. But until the smart phones hit their current level of capacity I looked pretty much in vain. On the otherhand if you could say get a 50 dollar Razr form that just did phone calls I'd be tempted to have a second less bulky phone... like to put in the car. Or for a second handset around the house etc...
I dunno. Purely anecdotal but most folks I know that get fancy feature filled phones don't care for the features, generally they just curse them. Ask them why they got the phone and they say "cause it looked neat", "It was the smallest one" or some such other. Mostly I think the phone companies just don't want to make these plain jane models look attractive. Cause if they did many more people would opt for them. At least more of the people I know would. Sheeple are strange like that. Will pay more for something they know they won't like just cause it's "Shiny".
But due to that you also do not often get the best form factos. How much slimmer could a razr be if it only tried to be a phone ? Or perhaps the case could be made more sturdy since there would be less attempt to cram things in and thus more space for structural re-enforcement.
The Nokia 1100 is a great functional phone don't get me wrong. But its a bit lacking in the style department. I am the last one to champion style over function. But that does not mean you cannot add some style once you have functionality. iPod is of course the quintesential example at the moment. It does one thing very very well with a great deal of style. Yet I am not aware of a single example of a stylish 'Just a Phone' Cell phone.
The answer is... WE PUNT.
This does not solve the chicken or the egg problem as I have always understood it. The question is where did the first Egg come from if there existed no egg laying creatures before it. Yet where did an egg laying creature come from if there were as yet no eggs?
The true boundary issue here is not the oh so close to chicken to chicken, it is the between a Species that produces off spring via Eggs and a species that does not.
The true (at least as I see it) spirit of the question is still quite valid.
Less I am mistaken that would just make it a copyright violation. Plagiarism I belive is strictly claiming the work as your own. So citing is not plagirism as you do atribute the work to its rightfull creator. If you overstep fair use in your citation then you venture into copyright territory.
Why create a seperate agency ? Why should this not simply fall under the EPA ? Isn't this kind of issue what it exists for ?
Eh actually I think we agree quite a bit. Only thing I really disagreed in with in what you just said was that I was risk adverse and your suggestion that I preffer it this way. I most ceratainly do not preffer it this way... as for risk adverse, If not wanting to get scraped out of some cell phone chatting soccer moms suv radiator is being risk adverse then I am guilty as charged.
All I was pointing out was the current reality where I live (and it is similar in many areas of the US) is not the same as where you do... which you point out as well. This is not something I chose. It is something which I have little power to change. I go against the current where it is reasonable to do so and am considered quite an odd duck around here cause I *gasp* will actually walk somewhere. Hell I walked a 1/3rd of the AT one summer and people around here don't think its neat... they think its a sign of severe mental illness.
Perhaps the biking experience here is just something you have to experience for yourself to understand. But to give you some idea that I am not somone scared of a little road rash it might help to know that I have lived in places where bikes shared the road with cars and I had no problem being out in traffic then (steamboat springs colorado). My Brother lives there and visits here (huntsville alabama... middle america incorporated) and he will also not ride in traffic here (or atlanta where we grew up) because for the most part it requires a death wish to do so. Biking is his main form of transportation. Hell even walking in places like this is a real life game of Frogger.
Simply put Biking in US urban sprawl is often darwin award worthy. Please come try it some time.
I would love to change this. I am the loose screw around here. But I am one very lonesome voice in a society that will drive to the end of their driveway to get the fricken mail. Methinks it will take an awful lot of time before any change is noticed. Perhaps my grand children will reap the benefits. As is my generation is going to tell horror stories of driving two blocks to get the milk without air conditioning.
Unlimited Broadband laptop plans that are limited and not allowed to be used for broadband content. Come on... Verizon's plan is like selling somone a gun and then saying they can't use bullets with it and they are only allowed to point it at other folks and yell 'bang'.
An Unlimited data plan should by definition mean 24/7/365 access at the obtainable data rates of the technology. If that is not what they can offer then they should not be allowed to call the plans 'Unlimited'.
Would they be allowed to sell 'unlimited' voice plans so long as you didn't talk over 500 minutes in a billing period ? Why are they allowed to sell 'unlimited' data plans when if you access over X amount of data they charge you for it ? If X amount represents the threshold then what does it matter what it consists of ? IE ones and zero's are ones and zeros. If I have unlimited access (or even limited to X amount) then what does it matter what they consist of? Its time truth in advertising had some traction for reigning in some of these absurd plans.
Ahh well cell phone companies had best squeeze every nickle out of these archaic pricing schemes that they can. Because once wi-max reaches critical mass for coverage then wireless communications prices are going to be in one hell of a race to the bottom. At least if the teired crap doesn't get through.
You know its strikes me that the promise of broadband is finally becoming legit. Streaming music, micro video and legitimate tv and movie downloads are all starting to hit. VOIP is getting more popular by the day. Not to mention there are devices which are begining to allow people access this content wherever they are rather than in designated, defined areas like tv rooms or computer desks. Now its Coffee shops and in the park... anywhere you have a good signal (cell or wi-fi) you now have the possibility of combining Phone, internet, TV and computing all in one where ever you are. And you know who is sitting on the single largest reserve of bandwidth capacity ? Yep everyones favorit do no evil search giant. Jeeebus... you know I have been thinking there stock had to come back to reality pretty soon. But if they manage to ride the surge for demand in broadband then frankly we may not have seen anything yet as far as generation of wealth by google.... and if they hold to do no evil they may even manage to do it without milking the public for all it is worth along the way.
Or perhaps you could have read more carefully what I initialy stated. Yes your right that these issues can be overcome to a great extent. But the fact remains that currently those changes are not in place. And they require far more than just an individuals desire. Sure it all starts with one person... but it would take a massive change in current culture for it to become anywhere near as plausible as you seem to make it out to be.
I do think you dismiss the impacts of weather a bit to blithely. So you can deal with -20c great. You going to honestly say a majority of people will EVER consent to that so long as a car or similar is a valid alternative? Major infrastucture projects shielding the worst of the weather are currently pipe dreams. When they happen great but I am not holding my breath. Yes you can bike with suits. But it requires suitable facilities at work and the time to use them. All which begin to add up against the bike. Bikes sometimes can make for a faster commute but more often than not they lead to longer times. Toss in longer to recover (showering/changes of clothing etc...) and you have a possibility to suck away a great deal of your day just getting places. This is not a very appealing aspect here. And getting such facilities at work are far from 'easy to resolve'. And all that is before you even consider the days when anything short of a fully sheltered option like a tunnle system is going to work for a bike... conditions under which you hardly think twice with a car.
Yes car/bike intermingling accidents are the major cause of biking fatalities. That is the whole point. IF everyone rode bikes that wouldn't happen. And if wishes were wings bull frogs wouldn't bump there ass when they jumped. For me to decide I am going to bike means that I am going to go forth as an extreme minority and place myself in mortal danger every single day. No thankyou. My biking adventures will stay on rockin single tracks.
Can biking become a more practical option for people ? Certainly. Is it now in many areas of the US ? Not really. Do I wish that were not the case ? You betcha. And I am willing to do quite a bit to try and change that... but risking my own life and limb plays no part in it. Its dangerous enough just driving a car.
Bikes are practical within a certain scope. But between lack of facilities to shower/change at work, suburban commute distances, and Inclement weather it has severe limitations. Hell inclement weather can take out whole seaons in some areas (harsh winters). And lack of driver awareness can make it a daily life endangerment. Sure these things can be overcome. But until they are then biking remains in many areas (particularly here in the US) very unpractical. You would have to be suicidal to bike my commute to work as the most direct route invovles several miles on a 6 lane road (not highway) and several major intersections populated by cell phone talking IDJOTS who can barely tell they are trying to merge into a hummer much less a schwinn. And there is no alternative route that is any better. They all have to deal with the overpass somewhere not to mention most of them add several miles to the ride.
Reagarding your numbers. Kind of curious what kind of car that was. Considering you are talking liters and klicks I gather European. 5.25 gallons a week for commuting is a good bit better than the average here. And 42+ miles a day isn't very uncommon for my colleagues. I know several that have that to cover one way. In fact the biggest problem with most Electric vehicle ideas here is that they would have extremely small margians on the daily range for many people's commutes. I have one of the shortest commutes of anyone I work with at about a 20 mile round trip.
However, had never really looked into the numbers for coal to provide Kw-hr and resulting carbon emissions. I suppose in that sense such an array could manage to replace a higher percentage than I thought of a single car... just not the same as saying it would be sufficient to power a car. now if they would just get the cost per watt for panels down....
Would be curious to see their thinking. 1.5 kw peak is all of 2 hp. Peak time per day is generous at 6 hours which is 9 kw-hr per day. Barring something like 10 such arrays per vehicle in use I do not see how that could be expected to reduce carbon emissions equivalent to what cars produce.
An average car engine puts out 100hp easy. While you don't use that full power often you do use on average around 20hp to sustain highway speeds and a good bit of it during acceleration. Even at idle you have an engine producing better than 5hp that is doing nothing but sitting there. Granted electrics solve some of those problems but unless you want to drive something on the order of a solar racer you are still going to drive something requiring a bit more juice than a 1.5 peak array is going to provide you.
Moving a ton or more of mass at 40-65mph is a very energy intensive task. Electrics have not been overly successfull at reducing the amount of weight needed in a safe car because of the current limitations of battery technology. Hybrids in fact are HEAVIER than their non hybrid kin.
Feel free to proove me wrong and point me to these people in the know claiming a 1.5 peak array will be enough to replace carbon emissions from cars. I happen to have devoted a fair amount of time to this issue myself though I claim no special status. I am fairly certain of myself when I say the idea that a single such array would counteract a single car is perposterous. a 1.5 peak with 6 hours of peak time would only drive the average vehicle down the highway for less than 30 minutes.... and thats only if they had an electric drive. I might be enough to reduce by a significant fraction... half at best. But not all.
I wish bike commuting was more practical.
While I think you are right... there is a question of whether or not we should tap into Oil Shales. That does not solve the problem or releasing stored carbon into the atmosphere. Incidently for folks who are not aware of the oil shales its worth the time to google about it. The largest known deposits dwarf the middle east and they are in the Rockies so Canada and the US are sitting on it. Production becomes profitable around $40 a barrel if memeory serves so they are in the middle of some serious ramping up of production. Gas prices will get worse... but we are already well beyond the worst sustainable price with known alternatives. We probably will never see sub dollar a gallon but we should be able to get back under 2 and stay there for a while. There is a similar technology with coal but the sustaining price is a good bit higher... not sure if we have hit that point or not.
Your idea about plugins being charged from home solar arrays is nice but rather unrealistic. Solar panels have a hard enough time just powering a house much less a car. To give you an idea think of it this way. The average home consumes somewhere around 15 kw-hr a day. That is 50hp for 30 minutes.... just enough that it might cover the average commute from a midsized sedan but not much else... and you would still need power for the house. Size of the array is cumbersome in both cases... about 5000 sq ft for an array that can deliver 15 kw-hr in a day at current tech. Bump up panel efficiency, lower cost per watt, make more power stingy electric cars, and you might be able to do it. But for now its a pipe dream.
I have hopes for bio-diesel and ethanol. Though the source for ethanol has to come from a higher yield source than corn. There have been some studies into switchgrass and perhaps a genetically engineered bug/algea or something with massive yields that could make it more than sustainable but could in fact drive energy prices into the floor without overly impacting our usage of farm land. My reservation about bio fuel is the mixing of our food supply and energy supply in land useage. That is something that will make us even more dependent on current climate norms. A bad year with crops could mean soaring fuel AND food costs. Combined with the super scare stories regarding the rapid loss of genetic deversity in crops and its not a pleasant thought.
Hydrogen has a bigger problem than storing it... in fact I think worrying about storage now is akin to putting the cart before the horse and counting chickens before they hatch all combined. We have to find a way to generate the stuff that makes it feasible as a means of energy storage first. Right now the only real possible answer is nuclear power where hydrogen is used as a power storage method. Solar might help but I doubt it is ever going to be a solid primary power source... unless perhaps the conversion efficiencies get on up around theoretical max.
Are the offereing broadband DATA or not ? The thing that is most unbeliveable about all this ? If they can provide 7mbs broadband service at a flat fee then they can provide phone plans for less than they charge now. IE they are offering that service ON TOP of the phone plan.
Phone companies, even cell phone companies, are rapidly moving into RIAA territory for trying to protect a business model that is rapidly becoming out moded. They do not have a right to make money selling limited minutes of voice communication or 10 cents a msg txting. Ah well sooner or later the market will iron this absurdity out. But in the long run they would be better off if they would just price their data plan accordingly and go ahead and do what Landlines did a long time ago and provide all you can eat voice. Could you imagine if T-mobile simply charged say 50 a month for access to its network for all you could eat call or data purposes and that was it? How many folks would that pull in ?
If they have no problem with you streaming video at high rates (presumeably you can use you 7mbs for something) then they should have no problem with voice. And IM service is a basic necessity. I mean hell... they going to ban e-mail ? Or access to web mail next ? I forsee web chat clients proliferating for a while again in the future. I mean sheesh... next thing you know they will say you can't use your data connection period because it allows circumvention of making calls or txts via their service.
Once again.... this is like the toll booth in the prarie in Blazing saddles... UTTER MADNESS.
Still not true. Unless you sell to an individual who is interested in paying retail you will never make your money back on a diamond purchase (or most any jewlrey purchase actually). You can't generaly purchase wholesale. And stores will only give you a fraction of wholesale if they will buy from you at all. You are normally relegated to pawn shops and such and there you get pennies on the supposed 'value'. Actually I rather think you get something approaching the true value. But thats just me.
Look no matter if you get ripped off or not you still pay retail at a jewlrey store. The store will NEVER buy the ring back at the price you paid for it. They MIGHT buy the diamond back at something approaching the wholesale value... MIGHT. That is just similar economics to a car dealership.
An Interesting read about it can be found here.
Diamonds are not rare. And the marketing around them is phenomenal. De Beers ranks as the deffinition of successfull advertising. They sought and succesfully implemented a social value regarding diamonds which has been maintained for more than a century. Mostly because guys don't have the balls to buck the 'traddition' of a diamond ring and women like having guys blow absurd amounts of money on them. Its not the rock they crave... its what it represents as an effort by a guy to win their affections or to proove their devotion. And perhaps to some degree showing his financial viability... though these days that is much less important than in the past. Which is good since most guys go into debt for a rock these days.
One of the reaons insurance fraud is so rife with Jewlrey is that is often the only time you will ever see the so called 'value' of the gem returned to you in the form of cold hard cash. Not that there are not exceptions. Truly unique pieces of art or extrodinary gems can be auctioned off for substantial amounts. But that just amounts to finding an individual to deal with who will buy on the supposed value... not as a means to make money (like a store).
Something pornographic ? Have you seen this thing ? Its more like national geographic boobies than playboy.
Once again I scratch my head at this notion that human nudity is somehow harmfull. That seeing what we hide underneath our clothing can somehow damage our phsyche. Depictions of sex fall under the same category if you ask me and this thing doesn't even go there. Its a character without clothes being depicted as anantomically correct. What in the seven hells is wrong with that? Rating this mod as mature due to this depiction is about like labeling a science text book as mature because it depicts sexual organs. This is silly. Its also sexist as there is no hue and cry over the fact the male character is depicted anatomically correct when bare chested. So what the hell is the big deal ?
Yes but the problem is that base level top loaders that work as well as any of the higher end units can be had for under $250... hell less than 200 on sale or used. Not like its a high tech thing. 1/2 horse motor, metal tub that agitates back and forth, and spins around at the end.
The diference in energy cost with a 2-300 price differential (worse at most retail locations) makes it about a wash (ooooo, bad pun) in the long run. True the more expensive more efficient machine MIGHT last long enough to make it worth it in savings. Then again it might crap out early on you. In the end the idea that it will last longer than 10 years and actually save you any significant money in the long run is an iffy bet at best for most appliances.
So yeah Americans take the bird in the bush. You telling me that if you faced the same decision you would go for paying double money now to maybe save 12 dollars a year which won't be 'savings' until you have had the appliance for 10 years ?
Give them the choice to buy the more efficient appliance even up and they will go for it unless it just dosn't work as well. Hell just make it so the payback due to efficiency is withen a couple years and most people will still buy it. But when the payback term is out there at the expected lifetime of the appliance nobody is going for that kind of deal. Cause it isn't a deal. It isn't even savings. Its just choosing when you will spend the money.
Very good points. The Russian Mig and Sukoi designs are very very capable fighters. In fact one on one they may well be the best figters in the world. Heck with the 37. The Mig-29 and Su-27 were both capable of the full range of acrobatics you describ in the 37 they just did not have the directional thrust ability or tri-plane config.
But when you start talking one on one there are many capable fighters in the world and I would argue the US designs hold no particular advantage and in fact with all designs except the F-16 probably hold a general disadvantage. The Euro Fighter and Rafale are both highly capable designs and the top level Mig and Su designs are as well. Proper training is the key then. Stick comparable trained fighters in those planes and they will have an odds on chance of winning a one on one engagement with anything. The next key then becomes the overall air power system. And that is where US dominance lays. The US supremacy is almost entirely wrapped up in our air control system as a whole. Nobody else does cordinated air power as well as we do. AWACS is the heart of it and why BVR today is not what BVR was in Vietnam. Pilot training comes next and last comes the technology.
The F-22 and JSF designs are not particularly impressive performers in terms of one on one dogfighting, they are adequate and thrust vectoring does a great deal to overcome their bulk that has arisen from internal warloads and stealth aerodynamic dictates. JSF in dogfight trim might be able to out turn an F-16 but only with directional thrust. Retrofit a similar capacity to the F-16 (which has been done and would be much cheaper) and its much more manouverable than the final JSF design. The advantage of the new US designs relies entirely on the stealth aspect. IE highly visible but un-reachable active search radar in AWACS vectors the US planes around in such a way that they can deal with threats before they know they are there.... not just BVR. Actual chase into ideal 6 o clock firing position to visually id an enemey before they even know they are there and then have control of any resulting engagement before it even begins for the other pilot.
If someone neutralizes stealth then the US designs are in a heap of shit in a matchup against a comperable air power. But then.... who is comperable any more? About the only time any single nation could claim higher capable numbers any more would be when just facing our naval assets. If we have access to forward deployment of air force assets then we are kind of head and shoulders above anyone other than a full NATO turnout or China. Russia fields only a shadow of its former strength.
AWACS, super cruising, AMRAAM, decent air combat manouevering capacity and highly trained pilots is a pretty devestating combination if all the pieces of that puzzle are there. The weakness of the US system lies in the fact we probably could not currently sustain a major air war level of munitions expenditure for very long and if someone could force us off our game plan... IE contest control of the skies (AWACS deployment) then we would be hurting in an old school scrap for control of the sky. The current thought is that with the next gen design if we got reduced to that then stealth would proove an advantage in dogfighting.
In other words, the US designs are all about winning the fight before you even get in knife range and even when they reach that stage they are far from uncapable. That is just not their top design priority. If they are right about that advantage then the designs are everything they have said they are. But to date there has not been a real test of it. Knocking down the excuse of an Air Force that Iraq had in Gulf War I dosn't really count and thats about as close as we have come to a modern air combat war (and that was before any of the designs were in production). Yes they had numbers, but they had shit for training and almost zero air born radar capacity. We knocked down their command and control system in the first wave and at that point the Iraq air f
I am kind of at a loss for how someone would use a phone like a handset AND a PDA at the same time anyway... IE most pen PDA's are not easy to oeprate one handed and most cells are hard as hell to shoulder hold to your ear to free your hands... hence the popularity of hands free options. If you don't like blue tooth headsets you can still go with the traditional wired options ont he smartphones/pocket PC phones.
For something that is much more PDA than phone take a look at the PPC-6700 or Cingular 8125. Also known as the HTC-Wizard. I jus tgot an 8125 (have a personal review at my blog, link in my post header) and the things are sweet. Additionally Acer is releasing some kind of flip bluetooth headset with their new core duo laptops (8204 model) that might solve your headset problems (if you can get it seperate of the laptop...or just look for something similar). IE its a VERY slim (makes a razor look fat, fits in a PCMCIA slot) flip phone form factor that makes an audio gateway connection via blue tooth. So if you could find a holster solution for both or one for each that would work that might solve your problem.
Me personally.. I go with the blue tooth headset and I wear it when I am on the go. And yeah its kinda silly when you have it on but don't use the phone much (that is me too... 12 months of cingular 450 anytime and I have almost 4000 rollover min now). But its handy for the car and for talking to someone while using the PDA to take notes (hell even record the conversation). And if you forget it you can use the phone... just sucks if you want to type on it as well... not to mention getting all that skin grease on the screen (qvga 240X320). But there is the speakerphone option.
They also both come in camera less versions if so desired.
I am not a big fan of the all in one units. But these new phone pocket PC's with the slide apart form factor (reveals a qwerty keyboard just as big as the screen) have the horse power of good PDA's, A useable keyboard, standard mini USB connection and charging, Wi-Fi, Blue Tooth and before long 3g connections to go along with phone calling ability. They are pretty damn handy and Good at both jobs.
The biggest crap factor is mini SD only so far for expansion cards. Full SD and or Compact Flash is where they need to get... and bigger or at least higher capacity batteries. At least these are easy to replace so if need be you can have two or three to swap out on the go. 3-4 hours full up usage is what I am getting out of my 8125.
Yeah I did know about the current itteration of the J-2 being used, just wondering what the original poster was after as they didn't really specify and I like reminding folks just what we gave up on with the F-1. Also thought the concept of saying we were 'going back' to it was kinda silly. As you pointed out it is an engine that has been in constant development for the last 30 years or so.
Have wondered about the 68's myself. Was thinking that was a Kerosene LOX engine but looking at Boeing's page it seems I was remembering wrong. Now I am really wondering why they are not considering that. Two of those would outperform three SSME's... Though they still come out behind weight wise (~28,000lbs for two 68's vrs ~22,000lbs for 3 SSME's). Hell they are talking about changing the deminsions of the ET and SRB's anyway... shouldn't be that big a deal to just do that and refactor for a new engine selection. SSME will never be a good option for a throw away engine.. or even for a re-useable unless the finally get around to redesigning them where launch power is at 100% or less instead of 110%. Course that is useless if you are not returning them. And the new configurations are not looking like they are planning on doing that.
yes but amp hours are useless info without also knowing what voltage the power is delivered at. 1 amp hour of 12 volts is far different from 1 amp hour of 120 volts. Nothing wrong with watt hours. Your electric bill comes in kw-hr's.
In either case 45 watt hours is almost certainly incorrect for this device if it could run a laptop for 8 hours. More likely it can deliver 45 watts continuously for 8 hours which would actually be 360 watt hours. IE 1 watt for 360 hours or 45 watts for 8 hours. Which delivered at 19 volts (a common laptop requirement) that would be ~2.37 amps giving me right at 19 amp hours for a 19volt source.
Considering many laptops can draw 60 watts or more continuously if they are being maxed out (HD, CD/DVD, Graphics Card hammering, and USB headset doing VOIP for team commander) that would give you a more realistic idea of how long this device could power your system for under full load. But 45 watts is probably reasonable for average consumption. So my question becomes what can it deliver on a continuous basis. IE can it pump out 70 or 80 watts for 4.5-5.5 hours of run time ? Or does it face throughput issues ? Does it heat up under those circumstances ?
And of course what are the refuling options. Can I just go down to the hardware store, pick up some methanol and pour it in like I would into a zipo or am I going to have to buy some rediculously priced proprietary refuling canister ? You probably don't want folks pouring methanol into a tank on a plane flight. But make it so I can buy 2 or three canisters that I can refuel at home or in safer areas and a system for safely swapping them out under any circumstances.
8 hours of run time is nice. But if its harder to replinish than it is to find a wall outlet this thing will have very limited use.
Curious about the surge capacity as many laptops can suck down more than
What do you mean 'upgraded' apollo engines? Do you realize that one Saturn F-1 engine produces more thrust than all 3 SSME's on a Shuttle Launch ? 1... and the first stage had 5 of the damn things. 1.5 million pounds of thrust each compared to Shuttles ~1.2 for the combined thrust from 3 SSME's.