How many screws did you have left over at the end?
That reminds me of an old axinom over at the maintanence hangar where I work: "The most importent piece of the aircraft is the one you forgot to put back."
Having said that, I would say that I liked the article a lot - taking stuff apart to see whats inside is just my kind of thing.
Heberling is also working with the 802.15.3a committee attempting to set standards for an ultrawideband physical layer chip that could transmit at data rates of 100 Mbits/second initially but be upgraded to versions at 200 and 400 Mbits/s, albeit at ranges of 10 meters or less.
So... I can have a massive bandwidth without any cabling - as long as I don't move the devices further apart than a cable can reach. Somehow, while fiddling with cables can be a hazzle now and then, I think I'll stick to cables. One reason for this is security - unless this technology relies on LOS (line Of Sight), which would make it even less an atractive replacement for cabling, people would likely be able to pick up the signals from a much further distance than the aforementioned ten meters...
...unless I decide to utilise some of that bandwidth - along with CPU-time - to encrypt my signal... which I wouldn't have that much reason to do with a piece of cabel in the first place.
Still, early days and all that - we'll see just where and how this ends up in a few years time.
Hate to break it to the Mac-crowd... but those of us who has stuck to the open 'standard' that the ordinary* PC is has been able to do this for years. Got several OS's to choose from as well - even if I must say X looks sexier than most.
And another thing; having looked at the article and done the numbers, I can't help to think that the same amount of green would have gotten you a more powerfull PC - even if you choose to support the devil and put Windows on it. Get hold of a linux-distro however, and I feel you could get a more powerful PC cheaper.
*) By ordinary I mean a x86 based machine, with the CPU from Intel, AMD or another vendor who produces chips to the same spesifications. After all, PC means Personal Computer, which can include everything from a overclocked P4, via a Mac and down to, well, my old C64 for example.
..I wonder if I can talk my girl (yes, this near-geek has a girl!) to stand model for one...
Mind you, it appears to have mini-itx board from VIA. If you head over to mini-itx.com, you'll see a lot of weird cases with this board - including a Millenium Falcon, a Commandore SX-64 and it's sibling (twin actually) Comondore 64, a clock and a beer-keg.
Just give it up Eivind.. I wasted an hour a while back trying to explain a 'mericin that Scandinavia is a part of Europe. By the logic he showed, Florida isn't part of North Amrica either... after all, it's a peninsula like the one we live on.
Most people from the US is quite nice and all that.. but they show a disturbing lack of knowledge of the rest of the world.
Under the directive unsolicited e-mails may only be sent to individuals for direct marketing purposes and "with their prior consent" or where there is an existing customer relationship.
As I read this - and INAL - a company you have already bought something from can spam the living daylights out of you if it's "direct marketing" (however they define that). I'll guess I'll keep my spam-trap (email-adress used solely for giving away on the web while regristring, subscribing, shopping and so on) for a while longer. The hazzle of scimming thru it the first few days after making a purcase for the comfirmationorder outweights the hazzle of getting 'legal spam' in my real inbox...
"We" are not the Russians. We don't hold airlocks shut with a c-clamp, for example.
If it is stupid and it works... it ain't stupid. While many people joke about the apperantly lowtech russian spaceprogram, they seem to forget a few things.. like the fact that the russians operate on a shoe-string budget, that they have, for a lot less money, spendt a lot more time in space, that Mir - which a lot of people seem to dis these days - was up there there and operating for more than twice its intended lifespan...
But you're right... "we" (or rather you) are not the russians - but you might learn a few things from them when it comes to operations in space.
...and ironicly enought, you are plain wrong. The US gave good aid in liberating europe from the nazies, that is right. The best aid they offered was the lend-lease act and keeping the japs busy so commonwealth troops could be employed in Europe and N.Africa. US troops also played an important part in speeding up the figthing in Italy and France, probaly reducing the war in western europe with as much as a year.
However, Adolf lost his war in Soviet Russia... and the US wouldn't have gotten involved directly in Europe at all if Nazi germany hadn't declared war on the US just after Pearl Harbor.
The freedom of Europe was payed for with the life of allied soldiers; soviets, british, canadians, frence, norwegians, poles, US-ians*, dutch, maltese, kiwis, australians and so on.
*) Why is that people from the USA insist on calling themself 'americans'? There is a lot more to the americas than just the US.
Maybe I should have worded myself clearer... but while both Gemeni and Apollo carried jetisonable servicemodules (in fact, even the spam-in-a-can approach of Mercury had a jetisonable module; the retropack), they also carried a lot of stuff down with them on reentry that wasn't really needed for reentry and which 'ought' to have been in a jetisonable livingmodule to save weight. The genius of the soyuz was that the re-entry module was nothing but a reentry module. While looking at percentages can be interesting*, it is also the matter of what you do with the weight you're carrying. To qoute the Encyclopedia
Astronautica: The Apollo capsule designed by NASA had a mass of 5,000 kg and provided the crew with six cubic meters of living space. A service module, providing propulsion, electricity, radio, and other equipment would add at least 1,800 kg to this mass for the circumlunar mission. The Soyuz spacecraft for the same mission provided the same crew with 9 cubic meters of living space, an airlock, and the service module for the mass of the Apollo capsule alone!
It is interesting to note that the General
Electric Apollo Proposal was very simular to the Soyuz - so simular that some speculate if the Soviets simply copied it. Parts of the ideas of a modular aproach was also reflected in the suggestion of a lunar
Gemeni, where the modularity was built into the servicemodule. The most extreme suggestion, as far as weightsaving goes, in that programe was the use of a 3,284 kg bare-bones, open cockpit lunar module...
You are right that the vehicles are optimised for different missionprofiles - but as the Soyuz and the Apollo both were designed to land a man on the moon and bring him back, they are comparable designs - and while the modular design of the Soyuz allowed it to be adapted for use as a efficent low orbit ferry, the Apollo was quickly phased out. But you ought to remember that what ultimatly determines wether a design is 'successful' or not is wether it remains in use or not. The WV Beetle wasn't a great car, but it remained in production for half a century... so it was most definetly successful. The same can be said about the Soyus.
And I never said we didn't need the Shuttle - all I said was that it really is less suited than a simple capsule to be used as a 'commuter transport' to and from a spacestation.
*) Your percentages for re-entry are off btw. Either you ought to take out the mass of the LEM for Apollo, leaving a massfraction of just over 19%, or you must add the weight of the sovet LK to the calculations of the Soyus.
The Russian soyuz spacecraft has been the longest-lived, most adaptable, and most successful manned spacecraft design. In production for forty years, more than 230 have been built and flown on a wide range of missions.
The fundamental concept of the design can easily be summarised as obtaining minimum overall vehicle mass for the mission. This is accomplished by minimising the mass of the re-entry vehicle. This was achived by putting all the systems not needed for re-entry outside the re-entry vehicle in a jetisonable 'livingsection'*, and by having a re-entry vehicle with the highest possible volumetric efficency**.
Compare this to the US capsules of the sixties (in which almost everything that went up came down, and the volumetric efficency was poor) and todays twenty year old shuttle system. Basicly, by finding a good design, keeping things simple and not fixing that which isn't broken, the soviets and later the russians has keept what is basicly the same design flying for the better part of half a century. And in a way, it's a design more optimised to building large spacestations than the shuttle are - just leave your livingmodule on the station as you detach your capsule, and you have just increased the size of the station. The only thing the shuttle has going for it when it comes to stationbuilding is the canadarm (isn't there one mounted at the ISS already?) and the fact that the shuttle could, theoreticly, bring modules down for repair.
Oh well, anotehr victory for KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid. While the shuttle has it's uses, for most everyday stuff in space a simple capsule is safer, simpler and possible cheaper.
*) As a rule of thumb, every gram saved this way saves two grams in overall spacecraft mass, as you don't have to support it with parachutes, protected by heatshields and braked on landing.
**) In theory this is a sphere, as the earlier vostok, but as the Soyuz was originaly planned to be used on lunar missions it was required to bank a little, generate lift and 'fly' a bit to reduce the G-loads on the crew - just like the Apollo was. The optimum shape was found to be the classic headlightshape the soyuz have had for it's entire life.
Most information in this post is taken from the linked websites, even if I've barely scraped the surface. I stronlge recomend following the links to learn more of this four decades old design.
Yes, I know there is a difference between the US schools and the norwegian ones. Yes, I also know that going to shcool now and fiften years ago when I was young and irresponsible are two quite different things.
It don't change the fact that the un-official 'computer-group' I and a lot of the other geeks started was 'taken over' by the school halfway thru the first semester and all but added to the timetable for those interested. So from meeting at peoples homes, we got access to the schools computers in the evnings.. after a while one of the more computer litterate teachers joined us to talk about the things we wondered about.. and towards the end of the term we even talked the schools administration to let us use the schools telephonelines and call up various bulletinboards.
So just get together with your fellow geeks and interested non-geeks and have a good time. If the administration are smart, they'll back you up once they see that the 'club' works.
Just for the thrill, I ran one of my own websites* thru the system, and this is what I got: The Site: won-tolla.future.easyspace.com
is categorized by N2H2 as:
Web Page Hosting/Free Pages
The site you submitted resides on a Web page hosting server that provides Web page hosting for their users such as homepages that share a common domain. These sites include those provided by ISPs, University/education servers, free Web page hosts, etc. Although many of these Web page providers post rules and regulations for content, they do not always adequately monitor this content. Users often abuse Web page services by posting offensive content under multiple pseudonyms. Now, this site contains stuff that can be labeled, among other things, pornographic. It also contains a lot of other stuff, but thats beside my point right now.
My point is; they seem to rate domains on what you're most likely to find there - not the induvidual sites.
*)The same that is showing up there, just under my nick.
True as far as the controls go, but as almost all updates on an airframe centers around the avionics you'll have the same problem as in an newer craft - unless you prefer flying with airlines that don't upgrade their machines off course;
As for the lightning; most of that pulse travels along the skin of the aircraft, and as someone else pointed out, the same skin might function as a waveguide, amplefieing the signal of your mobile phone to a level where it might interfere with part of the onboard avionics, which might cause a malfuntion.
Likely? No, but likely enought not to risk it. the buzzword when it comes to flight is safety.
If a generic monitor manu. can shield a monitor, the companies making the airplane nav systems, etc can shield their shit too.
Speaking as someone who maintain military aircraft for a living; the keyword is weight. A good definition of an airplane designer is someone who can design an item that weights one kilogram, when any idiot can make one that weights two. Mil-spec avionics and instruments are shielded off course, but they are frequently quite a bit heavier than cilivian grade equipment I've worked with (the RNoAF operates a few biz-jets as VIP-transports). And off course, the few sources of interference inside a fighter is known and can be shilded themself.
Add weight to an airplane and you trade off performance. The heavier an aircraft is, the slower and shorter ranged it'll be - if all other parameters like thrust, lift and drag are kept the same.
Also bear in mind that most of the airframes that is operated today is older than the 'cell-phone revolution'. They, and their internal systems, were designed and built in a day and age where you didn't have to worry that your SelfLoadingCargo carried microwave-transmitters. In a modern airframe the designers can take this into account from scratch and possible design things so that signal-cables etc run inside the longerons (for instance), using the aircrafts own structural parts for shilding. In an old airframe, the only shielding possible are addon, which increases the wight, which leads to the trouble mentioned above.
So yes, the companies that make the airframe and the system can "shield their shit", but it will cost. Both money- and performancewice in an old airframe, and moneywise in a new airframe. And face it - that cost will be added to the airfare, and as it is the consumers who pay that...
Bad as spam is, it is no where as bad as a contagious disease. Espesially not as bad as a deadly, contagnious disease. It's electronic junkmail, no more, no less.
..but this sort of action is a hurting inocent third part (ie; the other, legitimate users of mailservers in question).
It would be like stopping to deliver snailmail from another city / nation, just because someone living there sends junkmail to your city / nation. Is this something we want?
"The company feels it operates ethically and has not done anything wrong," Nasca said.
If you're getting anrgy phonecalls from the people who are giving you money (more or less by voluntarely), you're probaly doing something wrong and / or unethically. Wether you give a damn is another matter entirely... many a sucxessfull business (spammers etc) depends on pissing people off.
Missing the point? On the contrary, let me quote a single sentence from my original post; So I sure hope someone out there figures out a way to both filter and interprent the information they may gather with this - otherwise it is useless.. Raw data on it's own is nothing but raw data - and pretty much useless.
As far as manufacturing intelligence goes... thats a dangerous business. Take, as you do, the situation with Iraq and WMD. Yes, we know that they have had them in the past. Yes, we know that they have the brainpower to make them. No, unlike what some of the hawks in the Pentagon says, that don't prove that they have them now (or rather had them - you think they wouldn't have used them against the invading forces if they had them?). If you "connect the dots", you run the risk of connecting dots that have nothing to do with eachother, and as I pointed out in my original post, the intelligencecomunity of today are to busy collecting information and not busy enought analysing and interprenting it - which means that the chance of mis-interprenting it is huge, simply due to the lack of experience.
Oh, btw; if the FBI turned up on my door I would first laught at them, then call the police, the media and the 'wegian secret services. Same with the CIA... they have no legal business trying to harass a norwegian officer.
Other unanswered questions involve how companies will filter the data generated by large networks of sensors...
Leaving aside the other interesting bits of the article ("Videocams 1 sq.mm large? I'll crush them under my sandaled feet!"), this unanswered question is actually very, very important. For far too long both military* and non-military intelligence has focused far to much on gathering information and far to little on actually going thru it and learning from it. During WWII and the early part of the cold war each and every bit of gathered intelligence was a treasure, troughtly analysed and carfully matched with what other bits of intelligence that was gathered before, letting the analysers build up a pretty complete picture (so good in fact, that towards the end of that war the allies often knew better than the germans where the german troops were). But as we got better at collecting information, through ELINT, satelites and such, we 'drowned' in the sheer amount of information... succumbing to the idea that seeing something was as good as knowing what we saw (hint; it isn't). So I sure hope someone out there figures out a way to both filter and interprent the information they may gather with this - otherwise it is useless.
*) Come to think of it, the idea to 'sow' enemy territory with a sensornetwork like this before and during an attack might be quite usefull - if they don't figure out a way to jam it off course.
...beats a pound of medication (or something like that - I'm not to good at english proverbs).
Don't run attachments from mails if you don't trust the sender. Do get a firewall that lets you block both ways (ZoneAlarm
from ZoneLabs is my free favorite).The result? You won't get caught by this trojan, and if you should break the first rule of thumb, the second won't turn your PC into a spam-factory.
It is offencive to 'slag off' anybody my cowardly friend, no matter their race or religion.
As for the rest of your gab, thats just to far from reality to even bother commenting on.
...he is taking our interest in a nicer way than most other sites we stresstested:
Hello, my friends from SlashDot! I never expected this kind of recognition. I highly recommend that you also check out the more updated First Impresssions article that I wrote for CamcorderInfo.com! (They have a MUCH fatter pipe than I do, I'm sitting on a measely 256K DSL line!)
Still, as I struggle with getting good enought content to justefy my SOny TRV18E, I don't think I'll shell out for this babe yet.
No, thats not what I was trying to say at all Coward. Like lindsayt so clearly said, a design which allows for a catastrophic failure is flawed, and a design which fails 25% don't have a 75% safetymargin - it has failed, period.
The troubles with the O-rings were well know. On several previous missions the inner O-ring had been burned, and on at least one occation the outer O-ring had started to melt as well. While the cold and water made the problem more acute as it altered the elastisity of the material, but the design would have failed sooner or later anyway. And for that matter, the use of solid rocket boosters are not good design in the first place. Cheap, yes, but unable to throttle, unable to shut down.
There are better, if more expencive and fiddly, ways to seal a joint than a T-seal. You could for instance take an inverted T-seal. If that seal fails, the sealingstrip stays where it is, blocking to a certain degree the ingress of hot air.
And no, the Colombia and Challenger accidents wern't that different. In both causes seven astronauts lost their lifes, and in both causes it looks like the reason for this can be traced to a faulty design.
Slashdot Mirror
How many screws did you have left over at the end?
That reminds me of an old axinom over at the maintanence hangar where I work: "The most importent piece of the aircraft is the one you forgot to put back."
Having said that, I would say that I liked the article a lot - taking stuff apart to see whats inside is just my kind of thing.
Heberling is also working with the 802.15.3a committee attempting to set standards for an ultrawideband physical layer chip that could transmit at data rates of 100 Mbits/second initially but be upgraded to versions at 200 and 400 Mbits/s, albeit at ranges of 10 meters or less.
So... I can have a massive bandwidth without any cabling - as long as I don't move the devices further apart than a cable can reach. Somehow, while fiddling with cables can be a hazzle now and then, I think I'll stick to cables. One reason for this is security - unless this technology relies on LOS (line Of Sight), which would make it even less an atractive replacement for cabling, people would likely be able to pick up the signals from a much further distance than the aforementioned ten meters...
...unless I decide to utilise some of that bandwidth - along with CPU-time - to encrypt my signal... which I wouldn't have that much reason to do with a piece of cabel in the first place.
Still, early days and all that - we'll see just where and how this ends up in a few years time.
Hate to break it to the Mac-crowd... but those of us who has stuck to the open 'standard' that the ordinary* PC is has been able to do this for years. Got several OS's to choose from as well - even if I must say X looks sexier than most.
And another thing; having looked at the article and done the numbers, I can't help to think that the same amount of green would have gotten you a more powerfull PC - even if you choose to support the devil and put Windows on it. Get hold of a linux-distro however, and I feel you could get a more powerful PC cheaper.
*) By ordinary I mean a x86 based machine, with the CPU from Intel, AMD or another vendor who produces chips to the same spesifications. After all, PC means Personal Computer, which can include everything from a overclocked P4, via a Mac and down to, well, my old C64 for example.
..I wonder if I can talk my girl (yes, this near-geek has a girl!) to stand model for one...
Mind you, it appears to have mini-itx board from VIA. If you head over to mini-itx.com, you'll see a lot of weird cases with this board - including a Millenium Falcon, a Commandore SX-64 and it's sibling (twin actually) Comondore 64, a clock and a beer-keg.
Just give it up Eivind.. I wasted an hour a while back trying to explain a 'mericin that Scandinavia is a part of Europe. By the logic he showed, Florida isn't part of North Amrica either... after all, it's a peninsula like the one we live on.
Most people from the US is quite nice and all that.. but they show a disturbing lack of knowledge of the rest of the world.
Under the directive unsolicited e-mails may only be sent to individuals for direct marketing purposes and "with their prior consent" or where there is an existing customer relationship.
As I read this - and INAL - a company you have already bought something from can spam the living daylights out of you if it's "direct marketing" (however they define that). I'll guess I'll keep my spam-trap (email-adress used solely for giving away on the web while regristring, subscribing, shopping and so on) for a while longer. The hazzle of scimming thru it the first few days after making a purcase for the comfirmationorder outweights the hazzle of getting 'legal spam' in my real inbox...
"We" are not the Russians. We don't hold airlocks shut with a c-clamp, for example.
If it is stupid and it works... it ain't stupid. While many people joke about the apperantly lowtech russian spaceprogram, they seem to forget a few things.. like the fact that the russians operate on a shoe-string budget, that they have, for a lot less money, spendt a lot more time in space, that Mir - which a lot of people seem to dis these days - was up there there and operating for more than twice its intended lifespan...
But you're right... "we" (or rather you) are not the russians - but you might learn a few things from them when it comes to operations in space.
...and ironicly enought, you are plain wrong. The US gave good aid in liberating europe from the nazies, that is right. The best aid they offered was the lend-lease act and keeping the japs busy so commonwealth troops could be employed in Europe and N.Africa. US troops also played an important part in speeding up the figthing in Italy and France, probaly reducing the war in western europe with as much as a year.
However, Adolf lost his war in Soviet Russia... and the US wouldn't have gotten involved directly in Europe at all if Nazi germany hadn't declared war on the US just after Pearl Harbor.
The freedom of Europe was payed for with the life of allied soldiers; soviets, british, canadians, frence, norwegians, poles, US-ians*, dutch, maltese, kiwis, australians and so on.
*) Why is that people from the USA insist on calling themself 'americans'? There is a lot more to the americas than just the US.
Maybe I should have worded myself clearer... but while both Gemeni and Apollo carried jetisonable servicemodules (in fact, even the spam-in-a-can approach of Mercury had a jetisonable module; the retropack), they also carried a lot of stuff down with them on reentry that wasn't really needed for reentry and which 'ought' to have been in a jetisonable livingmodule to save weight. The genius of the soyuz was that the re-entry module was nothing but a reentry module. While looking at percentages can be interesting*, it is also the matter of what you do with the weight you're carrying. To qoute the Encyclopedia Astronautica: The Apollo capsule designed by NASA had a mass of 5,000 kg and provided the crew with six cubic meters of living space. A service module, providing propulsion, electricity, radio, and other equipment would add at least 1,800 kg to this mass for the circumlunar mission. The Soyuz spacecraft for the same mission provided the same crew with 9 cubic meters of living space, an airlock, and the service module for the mass of the Apollo capsule alone!
It is interesting to note that the General Electric Apollo Proposal was very simular to the Soyuz - so simular that some speculate if the Soviets simply copied it. Parts of the ideas of a modular aproach was also reflected in the suggestion of a lunar Gemeni, where the modularity was built into the servicemodule. The most extreme suggestion, as far as weightsaving goes, in that programe was the use of a 3,284 kg bare-bones, open cockpit lunar module...
You are right that the vehicles are optimised for different missionprofiles - but as the Soyuz and the Apollo both were designed to land a man on the moon and bring him back, they are comparable designs - and while the modular design of the Soyuz allowed it to be adapted for use as a efficent low orbit ferry, the Apollo was quickly phased out. But you ought to remember that what ultimatly determines wether a design is 'successful' or not is wether it remains in use or not. The WV Beetle wasn't a great car, but it remained in production for half a century... so it was most definetly successful. The same can be said about the Soyus.
And I never said we didn't need the Shuttle - all I said was that it really is less suited than a simple capsule to be used as a 'commuter transport' to and from a spacestation.
*) Your percentages for re-entry are off btw. Either you ought to take out the mass of the LEM for Apollo, leaving a massfraction of just over 19%, or you must add the weight of the sovet LK to the calculations of the Soyus.
The Russian soyuz spacecraft has been the longest-lived, most adaptable, and most successful manned spacecraft design. In production for forty years, more than 230 have been built and flown on a wide range of missions.
The fundamental concept of the design can easily be summarised as obtaining minimum overall vehicle mass for the mission. This is accomplished by minimising the mass of the re-entry vehicle. This was achived by putting all the systems not needed for re-entry outside the re-entry vehicle in a jetisonable 'livingsection'*, and by having a re-entry vehicle with the highest possible volumetric efficency**.
Compare this to the US capsules of the sixties (in which almost everything that went up came down, and the volumetric efficency was poor) and todays twenty year old shuttle system. Basicly, by finding a good design, keeping things simple and not fixing that which isn't broken, the soviets and later the russians has keept what is basicly the same design flying for the better part of half a century. And in a way, it's a design more optimised to building large spacestations than the shuttle are - just leave your livingmodule on the station as you detach your capsule, and you have just increased the size of the station. The only thing the shuttle has going for it when it comes to stationbuilding is the canadarm (isn't there one mounted at the ISS already?) and the fact that the shuttle could, theoreticly, bring modules down for repair.
Oh well, anotehr victory for KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid. While the shuttle has it's uses, for most everyday stuff in space a simple capsule is safer, simpler and possible cheaper.
*) As a rule of thumb, every gram saved this way saves two grams in overall spacecraft mass, as you don't have to support it with parachutes, protected by heatshields and braked on landing.
**) In theory this is a sphere, as the earlier vostok, but as the Soyuz was originaly planned to be used on lunar missions it was required to bank a little, generate lift and 'fly' a bit to reduce the G-loads on the crew - just like the Apollo was. The optimum shape was found to be the classic headlightshape the soyuz have had for it's entire life.
Most information in this post is taken from the linked websites, even if I've barely scraped the surface. I stronlge recomend following the links to learn more of this four decades old design.
Yes, I know there is a difference between the US schools and the norwegian ones. Yes, I also know that going to shcool now and fiften years ago when I was young and irresponsible are two quite different things.
It don't change the fact that the un-official 'computer-group' I and a lot of the other geeks started was 'taken over' by the school halfway thru the first semester and all but added to the timetable for those interested. So from meeting at peoples homes, we got access to the schools computers in the evnings.. after a while one of the more computer litterate teachers joined us to talk about the things we wondered about.. and towards the end of the term we even talked the schools administration to let us use the schools telephonelines and call up various bulletinboards.
So just get together with your fellow geeks and interested non-geeks and have a good time. If the administration are smart, they'll back you up once they see that the 'club' works.
...or rather, how do they do the rating anyway?
Just for the thrill, I ran one of my own websites* thru the system, and this is what I got:
The Site: won-tolla.future.easyspace.com is categorized by N2H2 as: Web Page Hosting/Free Pages
The site you submitted resides on a Web page hosting server that provides Web page hosting for their users such as homepages that share a common domain. These sites include those provided by ISPs, University/education servers, free Web page hosts, etc. Although many of these Web page providers post rules and regulations for content, they do not always adequately monitor this content. Users often abuse Web page services by posting offensive content under multiple pseudonyms.
Now, this site contains stuff that can be labeled, among other things, pornographic. It also contains a lot of other stuff, but thats beside my point right now.
My point is; they seem to rate domains on what you're most likely to find there - not the induvidual sites.
*)The same that is showing up there, just under my nick.
Actually, I think it's the Temple ov Thee Lemur who has thought up the coolest rights of man so far...
True as far as the controls go, but as almost all updates on an airframe centers around the avionics you'll have the same problem as in an newer craft - unless you prefer flying with airlines that don't upgrade their machines off course ;
As for the lightning; most of that pulse travels along the skin of the aircraft, and as someone else pointed out, the same skin might function as a waveguide, amplefieing the signal of your mobile phone to a level where it might interfere with part of the onboard avionics, which might cause a malfuntion.
Likely? No, but likely enought not to risk it. the buzzword when it comes to flight is safety .
If a generic monitor manu. can shield a monitor, the companies making the airplane nav systems, etc can shield their shit too.
Speaking as someone who maintain military aircraft for a living; the keyword is weight. A good definition of an airplane designer is someone who can design an item that weights one kilogram, when any idiot can make one that weights two. Mil-spec avionics and instruments are shielded off course, but they are frequently quite a bit heavier than cilivian grade equipment I've worked with (the RNoAF operates a few biz-jets as VIP-transports). And off course, the few sources of interference inside a fighter is known and can be shilded themself.
Add weight to an airplane and you trade off performance. The heavier an aircraft is, the slower and shorter ranged it'll be - if all other parameters like thrust, lift and drag are kept the same.
Also bear in mind that most of the airframes that is operated today is older than the 'cell-phone revolution'. They, and their internal systems, were designed and built in a day and age where you didn't have to worry that your SelfLoadingCargo carried microwave-transmitters. In a modern airframe the designers can take this into account from scratch and possible design things so that signal-cables etc run inside the longerons (for instance), using the aircrafts own structural parts for shilding. In an old airframe, the only shielding possible are addon, which increases the wight, which leads to the trouble mentioned above.
So yes, the companies that make the airframe and the system can "shield their shit", but it will cost. Both money- and performancewice in an old airframe, and moneywise in a new airframe. And face it - that cost will be added to the airfare, and as it is the consumers who pay that...
Judging by this page, Jar-Jar wouldn't make it thru Ep1. Hard to be sure thought, as it looks like the site is in the prossess of getting slashdottet.
Bad as spam is, it is no where as bad as a contagious disease. Espesially not as bad as a deadly, contagnious disease. It's electronic junkmail, no more, no less.
..but this sort of action is a hurting inocent third part (ie; the other, legitimate users of mailservers in question).
It would be like stopping to deliver snailmail from another city / nation, just because someone living there sends junkmail to your city / nation. Is this something we want?
"The company feels it operates ethically and has not done anything wrong," Nasca said.
If you're getting anrgy phonecalls from the people who are giving you money (more or less by voluntarely), you're probaly doing something wrong and / or unethically. Wether you give a damn is another matter entirely... many a sucxessfull business (spammers etc) depends on pissing people off.
Missing the point? On the contrary, let me quote a single sentence from my original post; So I sure hope someone out there figures out a way to both filter and interprent the information they may gather with this - otherwise it is useless.. Raw data on it's own is nothing but raw data - and pretty much useless.
As far as manufacturing intelligence goes... thats a dangerous business. Take, as you do, the situation with Iraq and WMD. Yes, we know that they have had them in the past. Yes, we know that they have the brainpower to make them. No, unlike what some of the hawks in the Pentagon says, that don't prove that they have them now (or rather had them - you think they wouldn't have used them against the invading forces if they had them?). If you "connect the dots", you run the risk of connecting dots that have nothing to do with eachother, and as I pointed out in my original post, the intelligencecomunity of today are to busy collecting information and not busy enought analysing and interprenting it - which means that the chance of mis-interprenting it is huge, simply due to the lack of experience.
Oh, btw; if the FBI turned up on my door I would first laught at them, then call the police, the media and the 'wegian secret services. Same with the CIA... they have no legal business trying to harass a norwegian officer.
Other unanswered questions involve how companies will filter the data generated by large networks of sensors...
Leaving aside the other interesting bits of the article ("Videocams 1 sq.mm large? I'll crush them under my sandaled feet!"), this unanswered question is actually very, very important. For far too long both military* and non-military intelligence has focused far to much on gathering information and far to little on actually going thru it and learning from it. During WWII and the early part of the cold war each and every bit of gathered intelligence was a treasure, troughtly analysed and carfully matched with what other bits of intelligence that was gathered before, letting the analysers build up a pretty complete picture (so good in fact, that towards the end of that war the allies often knew better than the germans where the german troops were). But as we got better at collecting information, through ELINT, satelites and such, we 'drowned' in the sheer amount of information... succumbing to the idea that seeing something was as good as knowing what we saw (hint; it isn't). So I sure hope someone out there figures out a way to both filter and interprent the information they may gather with this - otherwise it is useless.
*) Come to think of it, the idea to 'sow' enemy territory with a sensornetwork like this before and during an attack might be quite usefull - if they don't figure out a way to jam it off course.
...beats a pound of medication (or something like that - I'm not to good at english proverbs).
Don't run attachments from mails if you don't trust the sender. Do get a firewall that lets you block both ways (ZoneAlarm from ZoneLabs is my free favorite).The result? You won't get caught by this trojan, and if you should break the first rule of thumb, the second won't turn your PC into a spam-factory.
It is offencive to 'slag off' anybody my cowardly friend, no matter their race or religion.
As for the rest of your gab, thats just to far from reality to even bother commenting on.
...he is taking our interest in a nicer way than most other sites we stresstested:
Still, as I struggle with getting good enought content to justefy my SOny TRV18E, I don't think I'll shell out for this babe yet.
No, thats not what I was trying to say at all Coward. Like lindsayt so clearly said, a design which allows for a catastrophic failure is flawed, and a design which fails 25% don't have a 75% safetymargin - it has failed, period.
The troubles with the O-rings were well know. On several previous missions the inner O-ring had been burned, and on at least one occation the outer O-ring had started to melt as well. While the cold and water made the problem more acute as it altered the elastisity of the material, but the design would have failed sooner or later anyway. And for that matter, the use of solid rocket boosters are not good design in the first place. Cheap, yes, but unable to throttle, unable to shut down.
There are better, if more expencive and fiddly, ways to seal a joint than a T-seal. You could for instance take an inverted T-seal. If that seal fails, the sealingstrip stays where it is, blocking to a certain degree the ingress of hot air.
And no, the Colombia and Challenger accidents wern't that different. In both causes seven astronauts lost their lifes, and in both causes it looks like the reason for this can be traced to a faulty design.