Unfortunately, for you, it will mean exactly what the parent poster said... SWAT will come and drag you away, alive or dead depending on how you behave. Since you have "endangered your children", they will be taken away and given to foster care. Under foster care they will be given medical examinations, which will include any vaccinations they've missed. You'll lose, possibly both your life AND your children.
If you're serious... use offsite storage. If you think your house might burn to the ground, and you think your fire safe won't protect optical media, then backup to an offsite location. If you think your house might catch fire and the fire department will come and put out the fire before reaching the limits guaranteed by your safe, then backup to an offsite location because the fire department is going to flood your home with water in the process. If you think your safe is waterproof; and, you live within the 500 year flood zone, backup to offsite storage because a "waterproof safe" won't survive long term immersion... If you're not within the 500 year flood zone, backup to offsite storage anyway because a severe storm may rip the roof off your house and flood it anyway.
There's a theme there. You can't plan for every possibility. Either put the data onto a portable drive and store it in a local bank's safety deposit box; or, encrypt your data and backup to the cloud. Just make sure there's a copy offsite somewhere
There was a time... back in the 80's and 90's when I used tape backup. QIC comes to mind. Iomega had some other solution as well. If you cared about your data you backed it up to something. Period.
I'm not familiar with CERN; but, in U.S. installations these systems were typically built with robotic tape silos and a big disk cache. Something like 6 to 10 tape drives and thousands of tapes per silo.
DC itself is on a sedimentary deposit and sits in a former tidal swamp. The geology of the area is such that they might not notice small quakes all that much. Just west of DC (beginning around Alexandria) is the Piedmont, the edge of the mountains; so, it is possible to transmit energy to the area if the quake is sufficiently large. There's a region around Louisa County and Charlottesville, about 100 miles south west of DC, that regularly spawns small earthquakes . They occur a couple of times a year and are typically in the 2 to 3 range like the Oklahoma quakes. This is the region that spawned the 5.8 quake that damaged the Washington Monument.
Nope. It goes somewhere but there are use cases where it's put into the ocean. Yes, energy goes somewhere in the system, it doesn't disappear. The question was about the affect on the atmosphere.
Earth's sustainable population using current tech is somewhere between 9 and 12 billion. People are only going hungry for political reasons. There's plenty of food, it just doesn't get to those who need it. As to energy, there's not enough resources readily available for everyone to live at U.S. levels, which are frankly a bit wasteful; but, it is possible to pull everyone up to a similar standard of living, in time.
Affects of wind turbines on the atmosphere have been studied. Of course they have a localized effect. Short version is the turbines cause local mixing of higher altitude and ground level air, resulting in minor changes to local weather down-wind. The mixing and turbulence will affect pollen and dust in different ways, depending on particle size and where they were (high/low) to begin with. Overall you're pulling heat out of the atmosphere; so, not a bad thing. Turbine numbers would have to get truly massive in order for them to have any significant global effect.
Wind is the playground bully. Bigger than everyone, towering above all the other kids. It' a big blowhard, mouthing off at the slightest provocation. Flailing it's arms around and thumping anyone who gets in it's way. No one likes a bully.
That's the general idea. You have to add all the objects that meet the criteria. The current criteria does not depend on characteristics of the object itself; the definition includes characteristics of the surrounding objects as well. I tend to agree with the argument that the current definition is wrong, for this reason.
The Kuiper belt and scattered disk are where all the remaining stuff left over from the formation of the solar system ended up. It was pushed out there by the larger planets. Unless the body is very large, for example like Uranus, it's not going to be able to "clear it's orbit" in that region of the solar system. If another large planet did exist out there, it would probably scatter everything in it's orbit, effectively pushing the Kuiper belt and scattered disk further out. Any smaller body, perhaps even an Earth sized body, would be unable to clear it's orbit. So, if the Earth's double was found out there, you would have to call it a "dwarf planet" by the current definition. That doesn't make sense.
it would be much more than 10 or 11. There are 4 other objects that have been recognized by the IAU, Haumaea, Makemake, Eris, and Sedna. There are a number of others which have been observed but have not been recognized yet by IAU. The number could easily be > 20.
You can, like, pick up uranium ore from the ground. If you happen to be standing in the right place. *picks up rock* Look, it's uranium ore. And you're surrounded by all kinds of radiation sources. Bricks. Bananas. Smoke detectors. Sunlight. Horror. The Geiger counter is there to help the child understand what they're holding, not for parents to measure how contaminated their child has become. Please... Let's over-react some more.
That's basically the idea. Shut down now, and use grid power to bring it down in a controlled fashion... Or, shut down later, and rely on the diesel backup generators to bring it down in a controlled fashion. Either works. Either is safe. Using grid power is safer.
One of the multiply redundant 1st stage telemetry radios on the vehicle was glitching. They will go ahead and swap it out before tomorrow's launch attempt..
The imagery was supposed to be live streamed to the internet, for one thing. Most of the climate or weather satellites are in Earth orbit, between 350 and 23,000 miles up. This will be all the way out at L1. Being at L1, there will always be a sunlit Earth image and you'll always see the a full hemisphere. Don't know that it will actually end up implemented like that, but that was the intent.
For what it's worth, this mission isn't going into Earth orbit; it's leaving orbit (escape trajectory). It will eventually park in a sun synchronous halo orbit at the L1 Lagrange point.
It was nicknamed Goresat by it's detractors for two reasons. One of the primary payloads is designed to monitor albedo, which is there to support global climate research. A secondary payload is a camera, supposedly requested by Gore. The camera was to provide high definition, continuous real-time imagery of the entire Earth -- a full sunlit globe. The Wikipedia description matches my memory of the debate: " Gore hoped not only to advance science with these images, but also to raise awareness of the Earth itself, updating the influential The Blue Marble photograph taken by Apollo 17"
Well, Gallifreyans are/were millions of years ahead of us, philosophically and technologically. Why confuse the humans, as wonderful as they may be, with a bunch of technical jargon.
As to the role of the neutron flow... Isn't it obvious?
background information: I own and personally drive both ends of the spectrum, a 2014 model car and a 1970 model year truck. The 2014 has all the available electronics features. The 1970... the only electronic device in that vehicle is the ignition module; and, that was an upgrade (I hate setting points). The 1970 truck doesn't even have power brakes. I'm not a luddite. Hell, I make a living as an engineer working for a company that designs and manufactures sensors; I'm not going to argue against technology.
To the point: I read this discussion and I listen to people talking about the active cruise control and collision avoidance systems in their cars and I come to an unfortunate conclusion... These systems can and do lead to people becoming less attentive while they drive. I totally get that these systems save lives. It's just that I see people becoming dependent on these systems and not using them as they are intended.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, for you, it will mean exactly what the parent poster said... SWAT will come and drag you away, alive or dead depending on how you behave. Since you have "endangered your children", they will be taken away and given to foster care. Under foster care they will be given medical examinations, which will include any vaccinations they've missed. You'll lose, possibly both your life AND your children.
For some time now, Mark Russinovich at Microsoft has been talking about just how bad the Windows kernel was/is in his blog.
If you're serious... use offsite storage. If you think your house might burn to the ground, and you think your fire safe won't protect optical media, then backup to an offsite location. If you think your house might catch fire and the fire department will come and put out the fire before reaching the limits guaranteed by your safe, then backup to an offsite location because the fire department is going to flood your home with water in the process. If you think your safe is waterproof; and, you live within the 500 year flood zone, backup to offsite storage because a "waterproof safe" won't survive long term immersion... If you're not within the 500 year flood zone, backup to offsite storage anyway because a severe storm may rip the roof off your house and flood it anyway.
There's a theme there. You can't plan for every possibility. Either put the data onto a portable drive and store it in a local bank's safety deposit box; or, encrypt your data and backup to the cloud. Just make sure there's a copy offsite somewhere
There was a time... back in the 80's and 90's when I used tape backup. QIC comes to mind. Iomega had some other solution as well. If you cared about your data you backed it up to something. Period.
I'm not familiar with CERN; but, in U.S. installations these systems were typically built with robotic tape silos and a big disk cache. Something like 6 to 10 tape drives and thousands of tapes per silo.
Orbit is too circular for that solution to work.
DC itself is on a sedimentary deposit and sits in a former tidal swamp. The geology of the area is such that they might not notice small quakes all that much. Just west of DC (beginning around Alexandria) is the Piedmont, the edge of the mountains; so, it is possible to transmit energy to the area if the quake is sufficiently large. There's a region around Louisa County and Charlottesville, about 100 miles south west of DC, that regularly spawns small earthquakes . They occur a couple of times a year and are typically in the 2 to 3 range like the Oklahoma quakes. This is the region that spawned the 5.8 quake that damaged the Washington Monument.
Nope. It goes somewhere but there are use cases where it's put into the ocean. Yes, energy goes somewhere in the system, it doesn't disappear. The question was about the affect on the atmosphere.
This. Grandparent shouldn't have been modded up.
Earth's sustainable population using current tech is somewhere between 9 and 12 billion. People are only going hungry for political reasons. There's plenty of food, it just doesn't get to those who need it. As to energy, there's not enough resources readily available for everyone to live at U.S. levels, which are frankly a bit wasteful; but, it is possible to pull everyone up to a similar standard of living, in time.
Affects of wind turbines on the atmosphere have been studied. Of course they have a localized effect. Short version is the turbines cause local mixing of higher altitude and ground level air, resulting in minor changes to local weather down-wind. The mixing and turbulence will affect pollen and dust in different ways, depending on particle size and where they were (high/low) to begin with. Overall you're pulling heat out of the atmosphere; so, not a bad thing. Turbine numbers would have to get truly massive in order for them to have any significant global effect.
Wind is the playground bully. Bigger than everyone, towering above all the other kids. It' a big blowhard, mouthing off at the slightest provocation. Flailing it's arms around and thumping anyone who gets in it's way. No one likes a bully.
Clearly you don't work in the embedded world, where VLIW processors, using word lengths that are not a multiple of a byte, are common.
In science, if you're having to make exceptions to fit the rule to nature, then the rule doesn't make sense.
That's the general idea. You have to add all the objects that meet the criteria. The current criteria does not depend on characteristics of the object itself; the definition includes characteristics of the surrounding objects as well. I tend to agree with the argument that the current definition is wrong, for this reason.
The Kuiper belt and scattered disk are where all the remaining stuff left over from the formation of the solar system ended up. It was pushed out there by the larger planets. Unless the body is very large, for example like Uranus, it's not going to be able to "clear it's orbit" in that region of the solar system. If another large planet did exist out there, it would probably scatter everything in it's orbit, effectively pushing the Kuiper belt and scattered disk further out. Any smaller body, perhaps even an Earth sized body, would be unable to clear it's orbit. So, if the Earth's double was found out there, you would have to call it a "dwarf planet" by the current definition. That doesn't make sense.
it would be much more than 10 or 11. There are 4 other objects that have been recognized by the IAU, Haumaea, Makemake, Eris, and Sedna. There are a number of others which have been observed but have not been recognized yet by IAU. The number could easily be > 20.
You can, like, pick up uranium ore from the ground. If you happen to be standing in the right place. *picks up rock* Look, it's uranium ore. And you're surrounded by all kinds of radiation sources. Bricks. Bananas. Smoke detectors. Sunlight. Horror. The Geiger counter is there to help the child understand what they're holding, not for parents to measure how contaminated their child has become. Please... Let's over-react some more.
That's basically the idea. Shut down now, and use grid power to bring it down in a controlled fashion... Or, shut down later, and rely on the diesel backup generators to bring it down in a controlled fashion. Either works. Either is safe. Using grid power is safer.
And now Elon's thinking... Great, now I need to make my own Air Force with my own radar systems...
At the Texas launch site, will SpaceX be providing launch radar or will the Air Force?
One of the multiply redundant 1st stage telemetry radios on the vehicle was glitching. They will go ahead and swap it out before tomorrow's launch attempt..
The imagery was supposed to be live streamed to the internet, for one thing. Most of the climate or weather satellites are in Earth orbit, between 350 and 23,000 miles up. This will be all the way out at L1. Being at L1, there will always be a sunlit Earth image and you'll always see the a full hemisphere. Don't know that it will actually end up implemented like that, but that was the intent.
For what it's worth, this mission isn't going into Earth orbit; it's leaving orbit (escape trajectory). It will eventually park in a sun synchronous halo orbit at the L1 Lagrange point.
It was nicknamed Goresat by it's detractors for two reasons. One of the primary payloads is designed to monitor albedo, which is there to support global climate research. A secondary payload is a camera, supposedly requested by Gore. The camera was to provide high definition, continuous real-time imagery of the entire Earth -- a full sunlit globe. The Wikipedia description matches my memory of the debate: " Gore hoped not only to advance science with these images, but also to raise awareness of the Earth itself, updating the influential The Blue Marble photograph taken by Apollo 17"
Well, Gallifreyans are/were millions of years ahead of us, philosophically and technologically. Why confuse the humans, as wonderful as they may be, with a bunch of technical jargon.
As to the role of the neutron flow... Isn't it obvious?
what we really need is a booster that uses a nuclear pulse engine. Then weight limitations sort of, well, there are no weight limits.
background information: I own and personally drive both ends of the spectrum, a 2014 model car and a 1970 model year truck. The 2014 has all the available electronics features. The 1970... the only electronic device in that vehicle is the ignition module; and, that was an upgrade (I hate setting points). The 1970 truck doesn't even have power brakes. I'm not a luddite. Hell, I make a living as an engineer working for a company that designs and manufactures sensors; I'm not going to argue against technology.
To the point: I read this discussion and I listen to people talking about the active cruise control and collision avoidance systems in their cars and I come to an unfortunate conclusion... These systems can and do lead to people becoming less attentive while they drive. I totally get that these systems save lives. It's just that I see people becoming dependent on these systems and not using them as they are intended.
If you want engine noise, don't fake it. Refurbish a classic car.