One thing about Nuclear Fission is that they should increase fuel recycling. If we actually used fuel recycling instead of dumping perfectly fine fuel there would not be as much radioactive waste and the uranium we have would last longer.
I know there are issues with proliferation and so on. But for nuclear weapon owning states that is not an issue.
Yes there are many people in the Linux community who do not like Microsoft (in fact there are several people who dislike Microsoft regardless but I digress).
Yes the user submitted a bombastic headline for this story. Heise.de actually used "SPD Munich goes for Linux" which is not quite this bombastic.
However you really should learn to read stories behind headlines. Headlines are usually meant to be bombastic. There is indeed a mention to Linux in the news summary.
Regarding Windows XP vs Linux there are several things which can be said.
For desktop purposes indeed Windows XP is superior for several reasons: common look UI, proper crossapp DND, multimedia support, better hardware management GUI tools, etc.
For server purposes Microsoft OSes lag in several respects: You do not have as many built-in facilities for automation of batches, the fact that UNIX devices are character streams make things like backup trivial, etc.
For something like this desktop win at the German government it is very obvious license costs are important. These are 14,000 machines we are talking. It is a tidy sum. Microsoft may be willing to lower prices *now* but they could well recover their investment later on with upgrade fees after customers are locked in using data with proprietary Microsoft file formats. This way the German government also promotes the local software industry.
But pray tell me how is this story unrelated to Linux? Did you even bother to notice that Linux actually won the contract? Since Linux is OSS this is an OSS related news story.
The problem with spy satellites is predictability.
on
Satellite Imagery
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The satellites often use well defined orbits and hence are easily trackable. This means someone using deception techniques can hide their actions.
They have their uses. But you will always get higher resolution using aircraft (they are closer to the ground). Not to mention aircraft can actually be easily directed to a target.
Sure there is. Just about any HTML viewer can print, and if you choose "print to file" and select a Postscript printer, voilà!, instant PS file.
Then you can easily convert that PS file using ps2pdf.
Re:Mozilla and Phoenix need this
on
Glade 2 Tutorial
·
· Score: 4, Informative
XUL may be slow but it is more portable than GTK+ is. Yes I know there is a GTK+ port for Windows but neither it is fast itself or just having Windows support in addition to X11 support is enough.
If they really wanted to improve crops they would make them require less pesticide and have less requirements.
The EU and the US already produce more food than they need and the EU trashes excess crops every year. We do not need extra production of this lousy food which rips off farmers by forcing them to continuously buy new seeds and pesticide from Monsanto.
This is no advancement for humanity, just more money for the pockets of Monsanto.
Actually, considering the world produces enough food for everyone already (it is just poorly distributed), the right thing to do is for Monsanto to sod off with their Frankenfood which requires heavy use of their own brand very poisonous pestitide RoundUp.
Russia's Energia rocket could launch more than the shuttle and it did not have many small rockets or reliability problems.
However that launch system was originally made for launching their own shuttle, the Buran, which despite being superior to the shuttle in several ways was a money sponge.
IIRC the biggest problem was designing the main rocket engine. Energia+Buran only flew once and Buran landed on automated systems without crew in a perfect flight.
The Russian Proton rocket can lift about the same as the Shuttle and is in current use:
The reason Ariane 5 keeps having reliability problems is that they keep changing the design to add more launch capacity without seemingly testing the new parts properly before launch.
If you add together the failures of all variants of Ariane 4 it had the same number of failures.
The heavy variants of the US Atlas V
and Delta IV are capable of lifting about the same as the space shuttle. Though none of these actually flew yet the main components have been flight tested already.
I agree with you regarding robotic exploration being better for most purposes.
However the ISS should *not* be canned. It works and the infrastructure has already been built. Why not use it instead of wasting the spent money completely?
The European and Japanese are working on making resupply vehicles that should be finished in a couple of years hence the shuttle will not be as required for routine maintenance. In the meatime the Russians have the means to keep it up.
There are many science modules being built right now in Europe and elsewhere for the ISS. Once these are fitted it will be possible to make much better science work.
Regarding heavy lifting of modules than can be achieved by the Atlas V and Delta IV rockets.
The only thing required is a vehicle for human transportation with higher capacity than the venerable Soyuz.
If NASA had not dumped the X-38 they would actually have had such a vehicle real soon now for a much lower cost than the shuttle.
Since they did drop it I think the best choice for them is to make a capsule with capacity for 6 people. It should not cost as much, can use existing rocket infrastructure, is safer, can be developed quicker.
Services around the station could actually help the private efforts. The truth is currently the market for space launches is small and saturated. Unless this changes most of the private efforts will likely never take off.
The government must push for more new uses of space and allow the private sector to bid for launch services. One way of doing this would be to pursue building power satellites. The world needs cheap clean energy and the technology is here *now*. It is just a matter of engineering and money.
Wings have no use in space. You do not have lift since there is no air. Wings are just a juicy target for microasteroids.
Having that waste of weight just so you can land like a plane is stupid since a simple parachute can do the same job. Or parafoil. Or retrorockets. Or airbags. Or folding rotors. The list goes on. Plenty of ways to land besides wings.
Also the shuttle needs to make a glide and land in a way long air strip. Try making an emergency crash landing with it. Kiss your ass goodbye.
You can make a vehicle with a parachute land in the ocean or on land (i.e. basically anywhere).
If it is reusable you want, well, you do not need wings for that either. The space shuttle solid rocket boosters are reusable and do not have wings.
Can the idea of single stage to orbit. That way you need thermal shielding on everything and the engines need to be complex to work on different regimes.
Use liquid fuel in all stages since it is less polluting, higher performing, reusable and allows mission abort.
Slashdot Mirror
I know there are issues with proliferation and so on. But for nuclear weapon owning states that is not an issue.
Yes the user submitted a bombastic headline for this story. Heise.de actually used "SPD Munich goes for Linux" which is not quite this bombastic.
However you really should learn to read stories behind headlines. Headlines are usually meant to be bombastic. There is indeed a mention to Linux in the news summary.
Regarding Windows XP vs Linux there are several things which can be said.
For desktop purposes indeed Windows XP is superior for several reasons: common look UI, proper crossapp DND, multimedia support, better hardware management GUI tools, etc.
For server purposes Microsoft OSes lag in several respects: You do not have as many built-in facilities for automation of batches, the fact that UNIX devices are character streams make things like backup trivial, etc.
For something like this desktop win at the German government it is very obvious license costs are important. These are 14,000 machines we are talking. It is a tidy sum. Microsoft may be willing to lower prices *now* but they could well recover their investment later on with upgrade fees after customers are locked in using data with proprietary Microsoft file formats. This way the German government also promotes the local software industry.
What would *you* do if you were in their place?
But pray tell me how is this story unrelated to Linux? Did you even bother to notice that Linux actually won the contract? Since Linux is OSS this is an OSS related news story.
So there.
Spin it again Sam.
Not commie. Limey.
Here you go.
The Swedish have beaches? Blimey!
The satellites often use well defined orbits and hence are easily trackable. This means someone using deception techniques can hide their actions.
They have their uses. But you will always get higher resolution using aircraft (they are closer to the ground). Not to mention aircraft can actually be easily directed to a target.
Sure there is. Just about any HTML viewer can print, and if you choose "print to file" and select a Postscript printer, voilà!, instant PS file.
Then you can easily convert that PS file using ps2pdf.
XUL may be slow but it is more portable than GTK+ is.
Yes I know there is a GTK+ port for Windows but neither it is fast itself or just having Windows support in addition to X11 support is enough.
Same here!
If they really wanted to improve crops they would make them require less pesticide and have less requirements.
The EU and the US already produce more food than they need and the EU trashes excess crops every year.
We do not need extra production of this lousy food which rips off farmers by forcing them to continuously buy new seeds and pesticide from Monsanto.
This is no advancement for humanity, just more money for the pockets of Monsanto.
Actually, considering the world produces enough food for everyone already (it is just poorly distributed), the right thing to do is for Monsanto to sod off with their Frankenfood which requires heavy use of their own brand very poisonous pestitide RoundUp.
The Russian Proton rocket can lift about the same as the Shuttle and is in current use:
The reason Ariane 5 keeps having reliability problems is that they keep changing the design to add more launch capacity without seemingly testing the new parts properly before launch.
If you add together the failures of all variants of Ariane 4 it had the same number of failures.
The heavy variants of the US Atlas V and Delta IV are capable of lifting about the same as the space shuttle. Though none of these actually flew yet the main components have been flight tested already.
I agree with you regarding robotic exploration being better for most purposes.
However the ISS should *not* be canned. It works and the infrastructure has already been built. Why not use it instead of wasting the spent money completely?
The European and Japanese are working on making resupply vehicles that should be finished in a couple of years hence the shuttle will not be as required for routine maintenance. In the meatime the Russians have the means to keep it up.
There are many science modules being built right now in Europe and elsewhere for the ISS. Once these are fitted it will be possible to make much better science work.
Regarding heavy lifting of modules than can be achieved by the Atlas V and Delta IV rockets.
The only thing required is a vehicle for human transportation with higher capacity than the venerable Soyuz.
If NASA had not dumped the X-38 they would actually have had such a vehicle real soon now for a much lower cost than the shuttle.
Since they did drop it I think the best choice for them is to make a capsule with capacity for 6 people. It should not cost as much, can use existing rocket infrastructure, is safer, can be developed quicker.
Services around the station could actually help the private efforts. The truth is currently the market for space launches is small and saturated. Unless this changes most of the private efforts will likely never take off.
The government must push for more new uses of space and allow the private sector to bid for launch services. One way of doing this would be to pursue building power satellites. The world needs cheap clean energy and the technology is here *now*. It is just a matter of engineering and money.
Wings have no use in space.
You do not have lift since there is no air. Wings are just a juicy target for microasteroids.
Having that waste of weight just so you can land like a plane is stupid since a simple parachute can do the same job. Or parafoil. Or retrorockets. Or airbags. Or folding rotors. The list goes on. Plenty of ways to land besides wings.
Also the shuttle needs to make a glide and land in a way long air strip. Try making an emergency crash landing with it. Kiss your ass goodbye.
You can make a vehicle with a parachute land in the ocean or on land (i.e. basically anywhere).
If it is reusable you want, well, you do not need wings for that either. The space shuttle solid rocket boosters are reusable and do not have wings.
Can the idea of single stage to orbit. That way you need thermal shielding on everything and the engines need to be complex to work on different regimes.
Use liquid fuel in all stages since it is less polluting, higher performing, reusable and allows mission abort.
Truax is right you know?