I disagree with that. It means that patent troll companies which cannot manufacture a product and just carpet bomb with patents can have a business model.
Apple paid squat. Xerox invested in Apple. So if anything Xerox gave Apple money rather than the other way around. Later Xerox managed to sell that stock for more than they purchased it for. But Apple never paid a dime for their tech.
It also means that as a home user you can develop for one of these server architectures on your own workstation and expect it to run pretty much the same way on the server. Seems nice to me.
Dude, sometimes the hardest you work for the lowest pay, the more they push you down. If you lowball your prices all the time then clients will start to think you suck at your work and be even more derisive.
Actually people usually use metric tons to describe the weight of satellites or the payload of a launcher. So the way it should be done is say it was a 6.12t satellite.
...it was physically impossible for the top tenth (or however much it was) of each WTC to pulverise COMPLETELY the lower, much larger (and much thicker steel beams) part... How did the core columns manage to collapse all the way down? Detached core columns at the point of initiation of collapse would - by definition- have taken the path of least resistance - i.e. vertical core columns would have slid sideways and NOT HIT other vertical core columns below. After a short period of time the collapse should have been arrested, and over.
Here, have a link to a paper: "The first part of this paper presents an experimental investigation on explosive spalling of six full-scale normal strength reinforced concrete slabssubjected to conventional fire curve ISO834 and severe hydrocarbon fire curve, performed at the Fire Research Centre, University of Ulster, UK focusing on concrete thermal behaviour and the explosive spalling phenomenon. Each slab was loaded with 65% of its BS8110 design load and was heated from the bottom side only. Temperatures profile was recorded at three depths within the slabs and the moisture content was also measured before and after the tests."
i.e. at high temperatures high-strength concrete comes apart. If the temperature is high enough it will lose all cohesion.
The airplanes were fully fueled. The fuel basically ignited on crash and flooded the top floors and then dripped down over the elevator shafts and stairs. The temperature was high enough that the concrete lost cohesion and you basically ended up with what looked like a controlled implosion. OBL was a civil engineer. He certainly had the know how to analyze the problem and know this would happen in the first place.
Or, Gods forbid, one of the missiles goes astray and ends up in China or Russia? I think they might well take exception to such a thing, and 'Whoops, sorry' from mr Trump isn't going to cut it, I think it is fair to say. Even if they would be prepared to accept the physical damage and the loss of life, I think it would be clear to the world, that a leader of any major power, who is as insanely reckless as that, would have to be removed by whatever means necessary.
Remember when Trump sent those cruise missiles at a Syrian airfield because allegedly they used it to drop chemical weapons on the civilian population of a country that wasn't even the US? If someone nuked one of the major permanent UN Security Council members, the very least that would happen would be a tit for tat. Which could rapidly escalate into a global thermonuclear war.
Like I said, it certainly wouldn't happen in the initial phases, but it isn't *that* hard to do in the long term. Plus I just told you already the fuel processing isn't that energy intensive with gas centrifuge tech. The main issue would likely be the production of Uranium Hexafluoride. Not the isotope separation process.
Getting the energy in place to boostrap the process is not particularly hard. You just bring a workable nuclear reactor and some fuel to start the process. The major issue is transporting all the industrial machinery and transplant the industrial processes required to manufacture the fuel and maintain the machinery in working condition. That's the real problem and that's why there's little chance it will happen in the initial phases.
I don't know about that. It has a high energy density. I also doubt that you can't find uranium deposits on the Moon or Mars considering the geology isn't THAT different from Earth. Plus both those places are essentially untapped unlike the Earth.
The fuel cycle isn't that complicated. The mining is an issue as is the manufacturing of hexafluoride. But with a gas centrifuge process you actually don't need that much power to manufacture the fuel. It wouldn't happen in an initial exploration phase but I could see it happening later on.
Yogurt isn't particularly expensive unlike what people seem to think. When you figure out the amount of water content that they removed from the milk, and look again at the price, you'll see that milk only seems cheaper because of the extra water in it.
But SpaceX has (had) a giant carbon fiber tank which they successfully burst tested to 2/3rds the design pressure back in November, then blew up testing with liquid nitrogen on February 17th 2017. (Judging by the pictures, it failed at the equatorial seam.)
I do not call that a success. I call that a failure. I mean it doesn't even meet the design pressure. I hope SpaceX has a separate team working on Al-Li tanks so they can have a backup plan. I also hope they have a launcher design with the Raptor that is slower in scale than the gargantuan ITS design. It looks a couple steps too far. Still such tanks aren't that far beyond the state of the art. LOX/LCH4 can both be stored at more or less the same temperature. There is plenty of experience of successful design of spherical or cylindrical composite LOX tanks. It's LH2 composite tanks which are the real bugbear.
They've built and tested a 1/3rd scale Raptor engine (which I presume you already knew, but other readers might not). It's the first full flow methane fueled rocket engine ever to be test fired, and only the second full flow design in history. (The first was Russia's RD-270, tested back in 1967.)
IIRC they had DoD funding for a Raptor second stage for the Falcon 9 Heavy so this could be for that.
Having done those things is impressive enough, but the absurdly fantastic part is how rapidly they've done it. They were in Mississippi at the Stennis Space Center in late 2013 to refurbish and modify the E2 test stand to handle methane. Slashdot covered that. They were done with that process April 21st, 2014. Slashdot didn't notice that part. They used that test stand to validate their design and conducted the scale model test firing on September 26th, 2016, just 2 years, 5 months, and 5 days later. And it worked. They were so sure it would work, they didn't even bother with the customary 'burp' test to be sure it would ignite properly. That's a ridiculously rapid development process for any rocket motor, let alone for a design that's been done only once before in history and never for the fuel they selected. For comparison, development of the F-1 used on the Saturn V started in 1955 for the Air Force and it wasn't until 1965 that it underwent a successful test firing without destroying itself, after three years of self-destructive test firings.
I agree that it is impressive. I think a lot of people are not aware of the SpaceX software tools team. They have designed their own combustion simulation tools in-house. There are presentations from their team at GTC online. That is how they knew their engine design was going to work before they even manufactured anything. They simulated it in software with a cluster of GPUs. Compare that to the F-1 engine development where they had issues with combustion instability and had to solve them by basically testing the combustion chambers for resonance with small explosions, i.e. in practice they had to manufacture a lot of hardware prototypes in a trial and error fashion until they got a design that worked. That was slow and really expensive. Still it was an achievement. The Russians never managed to solve combustion instability in large chambers even in the late 1970s. That is why the RD-170 for the Energia was a 4 chamber engine design. Glushko himself for the RD-270 used toxic hypergolic propellant (as he called it 'burning fuel') in an attempt to minimize the combustion instability issues but it was mostly a failure. That's why the RD-270 never went anywhere. Well that and the before mentioned extreme toxicity issues. Especially after the Nedelin disaster happened, the Soviet Defense Ministry (i.e. Ustinov) would have nothing to do with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. The dinossaurs must have been running their SUVs too fast.
Taxis have done this for years. It's also highly illegal. Yet another reason to not invest in Uber.
I disagree with that. It means that patent troll companies which cannot manufacture a product and just carpet bomb with patents can have a business model.
I think it should be like in the XIXth century. Either you provide a working prototype to the patent office or you don't get a patent issued.
If we are talking about vaporware concepts, you can have one here (Nokia Morph):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
More than having a bezel less screen, the whole damn surface is a screen. Try to beat that.
Apple paid squat. Xerox invested in Apple. So if anything Xerox gave Apple money rather than the other way around. Later Xerox managed to sell that stock for more than they purchased it for. But Apple never paid a dime for their tech.
It also means that as a home user you can develop for one of these server architectures on your own workstation and expect it to run pretty much the same way on the server. Seems nice to me.
It seems nice to do kernel compiles or any other compilation of large applications. So it could be nice if you are a developer.
Dude, sometimes the hardest you work for the lowest pay, the more they push you down. If you lowball your prices all the time then clients will start to think you suck at your work and be even more derisive.
I've seen it happen.
Next time get your "News for Nerds" from a site other than USA Today:
http://spacenews.com/spacex-la...
See. Metric. Although in your defense the article did originally come from Florida Today which is usually a decent site for space coverage.
Actually people usually use metric tons to describe the weight of satellites or the payload of a launcher. So the way it should be done is say it was a 6.12t satellite.
Here, have a link to a paper:
"The first part of this paper presents an experimental investigation on explosive spalling of six full-scale normal strength reinforced concrete slabs subjected to conventional fire curve ISO834 and severe hydrocarbon fire curve, performed at the Fire Research Centre, University of Ulster, UK focusing on concrete thermal behaviour and the explosive spalling phenomenon. Each slab was loaded with 65% of its BS8110 design load and was heated from the bottom side only. Temperatures profile was recorded at three depths within the slabs and the moisture content was also measured before and after the tests."
If that's not enough info for you, you can read this entire PhD thesis on the topic.
i.e. at high temperatures high-strength concrete comes apart. If the temperature is high enough it will lose all cohesion.
The airplanes were fully fueled. The fuel basically ignited on crash and flooded the top floors and then dripped down over the elevator shafts and stairs. The temperature was high enough that the concrete lost cohesion and you basically ended up with what looked like a controlled implosion. OBL was a civil engineer. He certainly had the know how to analyze the problem and know this would happen in the first place.
I still remember last time VR was a fad... in the 1990s.
None of the Linux Distributions have the mussel to take advantage of a misstep from Microsoft.
Remember when even magazines like UNIX World said that Windows NT was the future and that UNIX was dead?
Right.
"FlÃvio"? His name is Flávio.
2017. And people still have websites which can't process UTF-8 properly. Jesus.
You know what a non-sequitur is right?
Or, Gods forbid, one of the missiles goes astray and ends up in China or Russia? I think they might well take exception to such a thing, and 'Whoops, sorry' from mr Trump isn't going to cut it, I think it is fair to say. Even if they would be prepared to accept the physical damage and the loss of life, I think it would be clear to the world, that a leader of any major power, who is as insanely reckless as that, would have to be removed by whatever means necessary.
Remember when Trump sent those cruise missiles at a Syrian airfield because allegedly they used it to drop chemical weapons on the civilian population of a country that wasn't even the US? If someone nuked one of the major permanent UN Security Council members, the very least that would happen would be a tit for tat. Which could rapidly escalate into a global thermonuclear war.
What makes you assume that you *need* electricity in the first place?
Like I said, it certainly wouldn't happen in the initial phases, but it isn't *that* hard to do in the long term. Plus I just told you already the fuel processing isn't that energy intensive with gas centrifuge tech. The main issue would likely be the production of Uranium Hexafluoride. Not the isotope separation process.
Getting the energy in place to boostrap the process is not particularly hard. You just bring a workable nuclear reactor and some fuel to start the process. The major issue is transporting all the industrial machinery and transplant the industrial processes required to manufacture the fuel and maintain the machinery in working condition. That's the real problem and that's why there's little chance it will happen in the initial phases.
You mean old NexGen designers. Not Cyrix. The K6 was based on NexGen's processor.
The original Itanium (Merced) had hardware i386 support. They removed it in later versions.
I don't know about that. It has a high energy density. I also doubt that you can't find uranium deposits on the Moon or Mars considering the geology isn't THAT different from Earth. Plus both those places are essentially untapped unlike the Earth.
The fuel cycle isn't that complicated. The mining is an issue as is the manufacturing of hexafluoride. But with a gas centrifuge process you actually don't need that much power to manufacture the fuel. It wouldn't happen in an initial exploration phase but I could see it happening later on.
Yogurt isn't particularly expensive unlike what people seem to think. When you figure out the amount of water content that they removed from the milk, and look again at the price, you'll see that milk only seems cheaper because of the extra water in it.
Link:
"SpaceX Merlin (& Raptor ) Engine R&D, GPU-Powered"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
But SpaceX has (had) a giant carbon fiber tank which they successfully burst tested to 2/3rds the design pressure back in November, then blew up testing with liquid nitrogen on February 17th 2017. (Judging by the pictures, it failed at the equatorial seam.)
I do not call that a success. I call that a failure. I mean it doesn't even meet the design pressure. I hope SpaceX has a separate team working on Al-Li tanks so they can have a backup plan. I also hope they have a launcher design with the Raptor that is slower in scale than the gargantuan ITS design. It looks a couple steps too far. Still such tanks aren't that far beyond the state of the art. LOX/LCH4 can both be stored at more or less the same temperature. There is plenty of experience of successful design of spherical or cylindrical composite LOX tanks. It's LH2 composite tanks which are the real bugbear.
They've built and tested a 1/3rd scale Raptor engine (which I presume you already knew, but other readers might not). It's the first full flow methane fueled rocket engine ever to be test fired, and only the second full flow design in history. (The first was Russia's RD-270, tested back in 1967.)
IIRC they had DoD funding for a Raptor second stage for the Falcon 9 Heavy so this could be for that.
Having done those things is impressive enough, but the absurdly fantastic part is how rapidly they've done it. They were in Mississippi at the Stennis Space Center in late 2013 to refurbish and modify the E2 test stand to handle methane. Slashdot covered that. They were done with that process April 21st, 2014. Slashdot didn't notice that part. They used that test stand to validate their design and conducted the scale model test firing on September 26th, 2016, just 2 years, 5 months, and 5 days later. And it worked. They were so sure it would work, they didn't even bother with the customary 'burp' test to be sure it would ignite properly. That's a ridiculously rapid development process for any rocket motor, let alone for a design that's been done only once before in history and never for the fuel they selected. For comparison, development of the F-1 used on the Saturn V started in 1955 for the Air Force and it wasn't until 1965 that it underwent a successful test firing without destroying itself, after three years of self-destructive test firings.
I agree that it is impressive. I think a lot of people are not aware of the SpaceX software tools team. They have designed their own combustion simulation tools in-house. There are presentations from their team at GTC online. That is how they knew their engine design was going to work before they even manufactured anything. They simulated it in software with a cluster of GPUs. Compare that to the F-1 engine development where they had issues with combustion instability and had to solve them by basically testing the combustion chambers for resonance with small explosions, i.e. in practice they had to manufacture a lot of hardware prototypes in a trial and error fashion until they got a design that worked. That was slow and really expensive. Still it was an achievement. The Russians never managed to solve combustion instability in large chambers even in the late 1970s. That is why the RD-170 for the Energia was a 4 chamber engine design. Glushko himself for the RD-270 used toxic hypergolic propellant (as he called it 'burning fuel') in an attempt to minimize the combustion instability issues but it was mostly a failure. That's why the RD-270 never went anywhere. Well that and the before mentioned extreme toxicity issues. Especially after the Nedelin disaster happened, the Soviet Defense Ministry (i.e. Ustinov) would have nothing to do with it.