A lot of the streaming is ad based or subscription based. If you listen to recent music a lot it makes more sense to have this subscription service. If you listen occasionally to old music it often doesn't make sense to own it. Plus the streaming services are a good way to sample and find new music.
The stock exchange isn't supposed to be a casino. It's supposed to be a place where you can buy and sell equity in other companies. Not a place to bet on outcomes of companies which you don't actually own.
Debian's case is completely different because you can choose a different repository than their official one and install from it. No such luck with the iStore.
Also this is not like other retail businesses. Apple does not consume any shelf space to 'stock' applications. At all.
One issue is that the payload of an SSTO is going to be small compared to the size of the vehicle. One can think of using it to carry people or small payloads but making it big enough to launch a comsat or whatever is going to require a much larger vehicle than the ones we are used to. You saw his example with the Shuttle ET. It used 6 SSME engines. The actual Space Shuttle only uses 3 engines.
The other issue is how to recover the vehicle. This is what they were trying to demonstrate with the Douglas DC-X. That you could reliably recover a rocket using powered assists with modern computer flight control avionics. Some people back then just assumed it couldn't be done in an automated fashion. Prior state-of-the-art experience in something like this would be something like the Lunar Lander Module which was certainly not easy to land at all and that environment was a lot more benign than Earth reentry from orbital velocity. Even if you got the avionics on how to do the recovery right then you have thermal protection issues when doing reentry at those kinds of speeds. It is easier to do the thermal shield for a first stage in a TSTO vehicle because it never actually goes to orbital velocity. Most of the people who studied this think it is a lot more cost effective to do a TSTO than a SSTO with current technology even if its possible (barely) to do a SSTO with current technology.
If you want to look at someone attempting to do these kinds of SSTO VTVL experiments right now you just have to look at the Blue Origin vehicles.
SpaceX uses a more pragmatic approach to the problem where they try to augment a conventional TSTO with RLV technology with minimal payload loss. This is more challenging for several aspects but allows them to incrementally develop the vehicle without splurging a fortune doing R&D on vehicles which can't be used to launch anything for years.
It was a prototype fast breeder plant of course it had lots of downtime. It's quite different from just licensing a Westinghouse design that was designed for the US Navy over a decade and then manufacturing it.
Most of the fast breeding reactors use coolants which are corrosive (e.g. sodium) so you have to use passivated metals. One advantage of using those kinds of coolants, rather than water, is that the reactors shut orderly when there's a power failure as the coolant just solidifies instead of thermally decomposing into hydrogen and oxygen and exploding like water does.
As for the damage to the outer building after snowfall who's to say the multiple RPG-7 attacks did not significantly degrade the structural integrity of the building?
The main economic challenge to the fast breeder program everywhere was the drop in uranium prices after the fall of the Soviet Union. It made uranium recycling programs, like the fast breeding reactors, less cost-effective. But we'll need them eventually.
That is the same mistake that prior physicists made when trying to do a Grand Unified Theory.
Most new theories came from the observation of interesting phenomena and often required the invention of new tools (e.g. Calculus). But the tools aren't the end point (like string theorists seem to think), nor is it trivial to just join together things which are mutually inconsistent without having more insight on how things work as they do.
McDonnell didn't get their full-scale vehicle funded. The subscale worked just fine. In fact it worked to well that NASA decided it wasn't complicated and risky enough so they did the X-33. Which was total failure.
Why is Japan investing so heavily in coal? Could it be a replacement for nuclear?
Yes it is. This is what the anti-nuclear "environmentalists" don't like to talk about.
The only cheap alternative to nuclear is coal. Everything else is more expensive. If Japan used something else then their products and economy would stop being competitive with countries which do use coal like China.
That's basically what I've done in my last interviews. If you say a high number they'll dismiss it and usually come back with the number they are willing to fork out. Sometimes they won't but you can just ask them to make a counter-offer and most will. In those cases quite often their counter-offer is a low-ball and you need to negotiate some more.
Bullshit. Nokia was still the top smartphone vendor when Elop came on board. He's fully responsible for the mess he created.
He forced people to change to a totally incompatible Windows OS that was itself obsoleted by yet another Windows OS. Of course application developers fled.
Nokia and Ericsson saw the commoditisation of the handset market and Nokia in particular watched their margins evaporate and decided it was time to get out.
HAH. Apple bet on that same business and is making a killing. They just couldn't keep up with technology and were their own worst enemy that's all.
Does a car pushing against a road break conservation of momentum? Does a boat with a propeller in the water break conservation of momentum?
The only reason we use reaction engines in space is that we haven't found anything to push against in space. But who's to tell that EmDrive isn't doing precisely that?
First the costs for long term securing spent fuel are grossly underestimated. After all, can we really estimate the cost of securing spent fuel for over 100'000 years? It's a bit of a philosophical question, but point is - it can't really be estimated.
It doesn't work because it makes elecricity more expensive and hence makes people overall poorer since next to everything requires electricity to be produced.
In short you could do it, if you accept worse living standards for no good reason at all.
Solar cell production is quite dirty too but you won't hear that from Greenpeace.
Don't. It works with normal people but some co-workers are conniving little backstabbing bitches. How to Win Friends and Influence People is the wrong book. You would be better off reading The Prince. Or the section on how to handle spies in the Art of War.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of the streaming is ad based or subscription based. If you listen to recent music a lot it makes more sense to have this subscription service. If you listen occasionally to old music it often doesn't make sense to own it. Plus the streaming services are a good way to sample and find new music.
The stock exchange isn't supposed to be a casino. It's supposed to be a place where you can buy and sell equity in other companies. Not a place to bet on outcomes of companies which you don't actually own.
Which did not forbid people from wanting to break up IBM's mainframe business at one point.
Debian's case is completely different because you can choose a different repository than their official one and install from it. No such luck with the iStore.
Also this is not like other retail businesses. Apple does not consume any shelf space to 'stock' applications. At all.
One issue is that the payload of an SSTO is going to be small compared to the size of the vehicle. One can think of using it to carry people or small payloads but making it big enough to launch a comsat or whatever is going to require a much larger vehicle than the ones we are used to. You saw his example with the Shuttle ET. It used 6 SSME engines. The actual Space Shuttle only uses 3 engines.
The other issue is how to recover the vehicle. This is what they were trying to demonstrate with the Douglas DC-X. That you could reliably recover a rocket using powered assists with modern computer flight control avionics. Some people back then just assumed it couldn't be done in an automated fashion. Prior state-of-the-art experience in something like this would be something like the Lunar Lander Module which was certainly not easy to land at all and that environment was a lot more benign than Earth reentry from orbital velocity. Even if you got the avionics on how to do the recovery right then you have thermal protection issues when doing reentry at those kinds of speeds. It is easier to do the thermal shield for a first stage in a TSTO vehicle because it never actually goes to orbital velocity. Most of the people who studied this think it is a lot more cost effective to do a TSTO than a SSTO with current technology even if its possible (barely) to do a SSTO with current technology.
If you want to look at someone attempting to do these kinds of SSTO VTVL experiments right now you just have to look at the Blue Origin vehicles.
SpaceX uses a more pragmatic approach to the problem where they try to augment a conventional TSTO with RLV technology with minimal payload loss. This is more challenging for several aspects but allows them to incrementally develop the vehicle without splurging a fortune doing R&D on vehicles which can't be used to launch anything for years.
It was a prototype fast breeder plant of course it had lots of downtime. It's quite different from just licensing a Westinghouse design that was designed for the US Navy over a decade and then manufacturing it.
Most of the fast breeding reactors use coolants which are corrosive (e.g. sodium) so you have to use passivated metals. One advantage of using those kinds of coolants, rather than water, is that the reactors shut orderly when there's a power failure as the coolant just solidifies instead of thermally decomposing into hydrogen and oxygen and exploding like water does.
As for the damage to the outer building after snowfall who's to say the multiple RPG-7 attacks did not significantly degrade the structural integrity of the building?
The main economic challenge to the fast breeder program everywhere was the drop in uranium prices after the fall of the Soviet Union. It made uranium recycling programs, like the fast breeding reactors, less cost-effective. But we'll need them eventually.
Had anyone launch an RPG-7 into a coal power plant like they did at the SuperPhoenix in France?
Yeah thought so.
No, quoting a quote from the WSJ isn't good enough.
There were more factors than the "environmentalist" propaganda campaign against nuclear but it is foolish to ignore the propaganda as a factor.
Thankfully South Korea hasn't fallen into this nonsense yet or their economy would have cratered just as hard as Japan's did.
That is the same mistake that prior physicists made when trying to do a Grand Unified Theory.
Most new theories came from the observation of interesting phenomena and often required the invention of new tools (e.g. Calculus). But the tools aren't the end point (like string theorists seem to think), nor is it trivial to just join together things which are mutually inconsistent without having more insight on how things work as they do.
The SSME has (barely) enough performance to do it.
You could easily conceive something with even better performance than the SSME with chemical engines e.g. LOX/Slush LH2, TAN nozzle, etc.
The DC-X is akin to something like Grasshopper. It wasn't designed to withstand orbital reentry speeds which a wholly different ball of wax.
McDonnell didn't get their full-scale vehicle funded. The subscale worked just fine. In fact it worked to well that NASA decided it wasn't complicated and risky enough so they did the X-33. Which was total failure.
Why is Japan investing so heavily in coal? Could it be a replacement for nuclear?
Yes it is. This is what the anti-nuclear "environmentalists" don't like to talk about.
The only cheap alternative to nuclear is coal. Everything else is more expensive. If Japan used something else then their products and economy would stop being competitive with countries which do use coal like China.
Solvents. Semiconductor manufacturing is dirty. Particularly using the methods they use in China:
https://www.chinadialogue.net/...
Mining rare earths to make magnets for windmills is not exactly clean either:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/hom...
That's basically what I've done in my last interviews. If you say a high number they'll dismiss it and usually come back with the number they are willing to fork out. Sometimes they won't but you can just ask them to make a counter-offer and most will. In those cases quite often their counter-offer is a low-ball and you need to negotiate some more.
Bullshit. Nokia was still the top smartphone vendor when Elop came on board. He's fully responsible for the mess he created.
He forced people to change to a totally incompatible Windows OS that was itself obsoleted by yet another Windows OS. Of course application developers fled.
Nokia and Ericsson saw the commoditisation of the handset market and Nokia in particular watched their margins evaporate and decided it was time to get out.
HAH. Apple bet on that same business and is making a killing. They just couldn't keep up with technology and were their own worst enemy that's all.
Does a car pushing against a road break conservation of momentum? Does a boat with a propeller in the water break conservation of momentum?
The only reason we use reaction engines in space is that we haven't found anything to push against in space. But who's to tell that EmDrive isn't doing precisely that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
First the costs for long term securing spent fuel are grossly underestimated. After all, can we really estimate the cost of securing spent fuel for over 100'000 years? It's a bit of a philosophical question, but point is - it can't really be estimated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
It doesn't work because it makes elecricity more expensive and hence makes people overall poorer since next to everything requires electricity to be produced.
In short you could do it, if you accept worse living standards for no good reason at all.
Solar cell production is quite dirty too but you won't hear that from Greenpeace.
Hearing the advice of someone who's been out there is always a good idea.
Don't. It works with normal people but some co-workers are conniving little backstabbing bitches. How to Win Friends and Influence People is the wrong book. You would be better off reading The Prince. Or the section on how to handle spies in the Art of War.
Treasury bonds.
That's what you say but job seeking is a full time job. It's not as easy as you claim and some interviews happen during working hours.
You should never be in a position where you cannot say NO though. Avoid being in that position.