Disposable rockets blow up too. In comparison to expendable launch vehicles, the Shuttle has a good safety record. We never lost a Saturn V, but it was only used for 13 launches, as compared to 113 for the Shuttle.
Then why not compare with Soyuz? Or Gemini/Apollo/Soyuz combined? The last fatal Soyuz accident happened in 1971. More than a hundred launches since, no fatalities or injuries. There *were* two accidents in which the escape system saved the crew: Soyuz 18-1 (1975 -- in-flight failure) und Soyuz T-8 (1983 -- rocket exploded on the pad). Both these accidents would have been pretty much "unsurvivable" had they happened with the Shuttle.
The Shuttle is inherently less safe than Soyuz/Apollo designs. You have lots of completely useless structures like wings which only add complexity. You only have a few airports to land on in case of emergency, instead of, say, the whole ocean. There is no escape system like Soyuz's or Apollo's. The crew compartment is not mounted on top of the rocket, but strapped to the side of it, which means that in case of any serious failure of the rocket, you're pretty much doomed, where on Soyuz or Apollo you would have activated the escape system. And remember -- with the capsule mounted on top, foam can fall off the rocket all it wants -- it can't do any harm.
Yeah. Personally, I even felt like cheering up and encouraging the onboard computer in its feeble but patient attempts to realign the shuttle to the right flight path. Odd indeed.
So basically after the shuttle disintegrated they most likely were intact and were able to observe themselves falling to their fate? I, too, find this hardly a "mercifully brief" death.
The cabin immediately lost its pressure, and the astronauts didn't wear pressure suits, so it is believed that they lost consciousness within seconds (and hopefully didn't regain it before the cabin impacted). Still, it's sobering to think that all that prevented them from surviving was a decent parachute...
That's probably the whole point: that the crew compartment could be designed to decelerate to a sane velocity
That is, equip the compartment with its own heatshield. And while you're at it, get rid of all the useless and dangerous surrounding stuff like wings etc. That is, build a conventional capsule like Soyuz or Apollo. Which is what they're planning to do, right?
IMHO the "north pole" of a planet is defined to be the geographic pole of that planet that "points" to the same side of the ecliptic plane as earth's north pole.
...while playing a round of golf. Or hiking in a crater. Or retrieving a poorly aimed frisbee. Pausing, they'll see some badly eroded pile of something shiny, walk over to look at it closer,
Uh, just google on Otto Lilienthal and you will find well documented evidence and pictures of him loggin over 2000 flights in the 1880's
But those weren't powered. Lilienthal was the first to accomplish successful heavier-than-air flights, the Wright brothers were the first to accomplish a successful powered heavier-than-air flight.
in his book Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software, Steven Johnson says that, for some reason, human's internal clock is based on a day 25 hours long.
Strange, considering that days were shorter in the past, not longer...
The German sentence structure is subject-object-predicate, not subject-predicate-object as in English. E.g.
"10000 students came in Berlin for demonstrations together" instead of "10000 students came together in Berlin for demonstrations".
Further "refinements" will be added right after the object being "refined", so the predicate ends up after all those (potentially nested) additions/annotations.
For example:
10000 studenten kamen in Berlin, wo SparmaBnahmen die Bildungsausgaben der Stadt, die 3 Universitaten, 5 groBe Opern und uber 50 Museen hat, zu reduzieren drohen, zu Demonstrationen zusammen.
which (more or less) word-by-word-translates to:
10000 students came in Berlin, where ecomomy measures the economy spendings of the city, which 3 universities, 5 large and more than 50 museums has, to reduce threaten, for demonstrations together.
Of course, nobody in his right mind, not even Oberfinanzdirektoren or politicians, would actually construct such sentences, but it would be legal.
And yet the XML behind WVG is published so that anyone[...]
Just like people bitched they wouldn't let the XML structure of Office out, and yet they have also published it.
Nobody knows under what conditions WVG will finally be made public. And if Microsoft has no ulterior motives, then why don't they just use SVG?
As for "WorprocessingML", Microsoft stays in control of the "standard" by explicitly forbidding derivations. Not my definition of an open specification. And -- the mapping function from a WorprocessingML document to a set of finished, rendered pages ("rendering algorithm") is undocumented (and all symptoms indicate that it must be chaotic as hell), so one might still have to stick to Word for displaying and printing the documents.
Pick something else to bitch about. If you are not using Windows (Longhorn specifically) it really has NO impact on you.
Do you always try to change the topic when you're running out of arguments?
Now, if Micro$oft were attempting to redo their entire interface in SVG, you'd hear raves about it with a few cautious twitters that they might be subtlely embracing (gack) and extending (ughn) again, and our backsides might be in danger.
That would be wonderful in an ideal world, but SVG has MANY limitations that Longhorn WILL support. From animations and effects that SVG cannot handle.
They could easily have extended SVG in a backwards-compatible, standards-compliant way (using additional XML elements declared in separate namespaces, for example). The didn't. Instead, they chose to represent even those features that are supported by SVG as well in a slightly different, incompatible way (altered attribute/element names, etc.)
Good theory, expect Microsoft was one of the original developers involved in the creation of SVG.
What is that supposed to prove? This has been a key part of Microsoft's tactics all the time -- basically it is the "embrace" part of "embrace and extend". Cf. HTML, Java, OpenGL, you-name-it.
Won't work. The orbit inclinations don't match (28.8 degrees (Hubble) vs. 51.9 degrees (ISS)). You would need a delta-v of several kilometers per second.
A telescope on the lunar south pole can only observe half the sky, while a telescope on the lunar equator can observe all the sky (during one month). So why is the south pole supposed to be an ideal place for telescopes?
You just have to ensure externally that stdin fulfils specific constraints (EOF or '\0' among the next N characters, for some known N). This may well be possible, for example if you've redirected stdin to a trusted file with known contents, or your program is at the receiving end of an internal pipe in a larger system of trusted interoperating programs you've all written yourself, so you know exactly how stdin looks.
You can see where they're headed with this - a "shell" which can do anything that can be done in a.NET program. The Un*x equivalent would be a C interpreter as a shell, but without the C low-level orientation. This shell is essentially a.NET interpreter
If look have a look at
this , you'll see that this is specifically *not* a generic.NET interpreter. You can't just script any arbitrary.NET classes/objects. Instead, you have to write special classes ("cmdlets") which you may then use in your scripts. One reason for this design seems to be that these commands can support special typed streams called "pipelines", so you can combine several commands using the "|" operator on the command line in a *x shell-like manner.
That was not because of the software, but because of dragging performance. The symbolics hardware development basically couldn't keep up with the rest of the world, and pretty soon ordinary (relatively cheap) Unix boxes with general-purpose hardware could execute even Lisp code faster than Symbolics' special-purpose Lisp hardware. Not to speak of (more widespread) C/Fortran/etc. code, of course.
Yet from a purely software-technical PoV, the Symbolics Lisp OS was decades ahead of its time in many respects.
Slashdot Mirror
Then why not compare with Soyuz? Or Gemini/Apollo/Soyuz combined? The last fatal Soyuz accident happened in 1971. More than a hundred launches since, no fatalities or injuries. There *were* two accidents in which the escape system saved the crew: Soyuz 18-1 (1975 -- in-flight failure) und Soyuz T-8 (1983 -- rocket exploded on the pad). Both these accidents would have been pretty much "unsurvivable" had they happened with the Shuttle.
The Shuttle is inherently less safe than Soyuz/Apollo designs. You have lots of completely useless structures like wings which only add complexity. You only have a few airports to land on in case of emergency, instead of, say, the whole ocean. There is no escape system like Soyuz's or Apollo's. The crew compartment is not mounted on top of the rocket, but strapped to the side of it, which means that in case of any serious failure of the rocket, you're pretty much doomed, where on Soyuz or Apollo you would have activated the escape system. And remember -- with the capsule mounted on top, foam can fall off the rocket all it wants -- it can't do any harm.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/kerwin.h tml
Yeah. Personally, I even felt like cheering up and encouraging the onboard computer in its feeble but patient attempts to realign the shuttle to the right flight path. Odd indeed.
The cabin immediately lost its pressure, and the astronauts didn't wear pressure suits, so it is believed that they lost consciousness within seconds (and hopefully didn't regain it before the cabin impacted). Still, it's sobering to think that all that prevented them from surviving was a decent parachute...
That is, equip the compartment with its own heatshield. And while you're at it, get rid of all the useless and dangerous surrounding stuff like wings etc. That is, build a conventional capsule like Soyuz or Apollo. Which is what they're planning to do, right?
By filing for this patent, Microsoft tries to deny others the right to store text documents in single XML files, which is not OK at all.
That doesn't work too well for Uranus though...
Deploy antenna? [Yes] [No] [Cancel]
AthonXP 1700+/512MB, Linux 2.4.21, nvidia driver v1.0.4363
But those weren't powered. Lilienthal was the first to accomplish successful heavier-than-air flights, the Wright brothers were the first to accomplish a successful powered heavier-than-air flight.
Strange, considering that days were shorter in the past, not longer...
You (assuming you're American) are the ones who are still producing new trailers of "Baywatch". Go search for it on imdb.com ... truly embarrassing :o)
The only person who believes that is Hasselhoff himself. And you, apparently :-)
"10000 students came in Berlin for demonstrations together" instead of "10000 students came together in Berlin for demonstrations".
Further "refinements" will be added right after the object being "refined", so the predicate ends up after all those (potentially nested) additions/annotations.
For example:
10000 studenten kamen in Berlin, wo SparmaBnahmen die Bildungsausgaben der Stadt, die 3 Universitaten, 5 groBe Opern und uber 50 Museen hat, zu reduzieren drohen, zu Demonstrationen zusammen.
which (more or less) word-by-word-translates to:
10000 students came in Berlin, where ecomomy measures the economy spendings of the city, which 3 universities, 5 large and more than 50 museums has, to reduce threaten, for demonstrations together.
Of course, nobody in his right mind, not even Oberfinanzdirektoren or politicians, would actually construct such sentences, but it would be legal.
Looks more like a FIFO, not like a stack...
Babelfish fucked this up. The original reads "QM", which stands for "quantum mechanics", not "square meter".
Nobody knows under what conditions WVG will finally be made public. And if Microsoft has no ulterior motives, then why don't they just use SVG?
As for "WorprocessingML", Microsoft stays in control of the "standard" by explicitly forbidding derivations. Not my definition of an open specification. And -- the mapping function from a WorprocessingML document to a set of finished, rendered pages ("rendering algorithm") is undocumented (and all symptoms indicate that it must be chaotic as hell), so one might still have to stick to Word for displaying and printing the documents.
Pick something else to bitch about. If you are not using Windows (Longhorn specifically) it really has NO impact on you.
Do you always try to change the topic when you're running out of arguments?
That would be wonderful in an ideal world, but SVG has MANY limitations that Longhorn WILL support. From animations and effects that SVG cannot handle.
They could easily have extended SVG in a backwards-compatible, standards-compliant way (using additional XML elements declared in separate namespaces, for example). The didn't. Instead, they chose to represent even those features that are supported by SVG as well in a slightly different, incompatible way (altered attribute/element names, etc.)
What is that supposed to prove? This has been a key part of Microsoft's tactics all the time -- basically it is the "embrace" part of "embrace and extend". Cf. HTML, Java, OpenGL, you-name-it.
Yes, at a relative speed of a few km/s. That's the point :-)
Won't work. The orbit inclinations don't match (28.8 degrees (Hubble) vs. 51.9 degrees (ISS)). You would need a delta-v of several kilometers per second.
A telescope on the lunar south pole can only observe half the sky, while a telescope on the lunar equator can observe all the sky (during one month). So why is the south pole supposed to be an ideal place for telescopes?
You just have to ensure externally that stdin fulfils specific constraints (EOF or '\0' among the next N characters, for some known N). This may well be possible, for example if you've redirected stdin to a trusted file with known contents, or your program is at the receiving end of an internal pipe in a larger system of trusted interoperating programs you've all written yourself, so you know exactly how stdin looks.
If look have a look at this , you'll see that this is specifically *not* a generic .NET interpreter. You can't just script any arbitrary .NET classes/objects. Instead, you have to write special classes ("cmdlets") which you may then use in your scripts. One reason for this design seems to be that these commands can support special typed streams called "pipelines", so you can combine several commands using the "|" operator on the command line in a *x shell-like manner.
That was not because of the software, but because of dragging performance. The symbolics hardware development basically couldn't keep up with the rest of the world, and pretty soon ordinary (relatively cheap) Unix boxes with general-purpose hardware could execute even Lisp code faster than Symbolics' special-purpose Lisp hardware. Not to speak of (more widespread) C/Fortran/etc. code, of course.
Yet from a purely software-technical PoV, the Symbolics Lisp OS was decades ahead of its time in many respects.