It's not fundamentally unfair. It shows the kids that aren't doing as well that they need to get their stuff in gear. Now, if the kid isn't doing well, and you want to take him aside and explain that you will be willing to erase some of his past scores (or increase them) if you see him do really hard work to try to bring himself up. But, when kids get tests back that say "50%" and it's obvious that 50% is your floor, now your kids can exploit the system and do just enough to get that passing grade, instead of working their butts off to try to get the passing grade. The kids don't try as hard, and potentially won't learn. You're doing them a disservice really. Will it take care of the kids that don't want to learn? No, and I would fail those kids as often as I could. It will help those that want to learn, but just have been having a hard time with things.
Re:DVR + Netflix Online + USB + DRM = why bother
on
Bad Signs For Blu-ray
·
· Score: 1
I heard a number the other day. DVR penetration is at 25% of households. People are probably just too dang busy watching all of their DVRed stuff to want to watch DVDs and Blu-Rays.
Here's part of the problem though, that plastic bag may be recyclable, but into what? You may make carpet out of soda bottles and park benches out of plastic bags, but once you are done with those, you can't recycle them. You are left with a product that has lost so much of its integrity through the recycling process that you can only throw it away. Now, there are some polymers out there that can be recycled back into their original form, instead of a different, degraded form of what they once were, but they won't work for everything we need. I'm not advocating to not recycle, but instead advocating that things need to change, like reducing waste usage entirely.
Have a piece of meteorite inset into your band. The jewelery store that I purchased my fiance's engagement ring, as well as our wedding bands, offers this as a an option. It looks really cool with all of the striations going in every which direction. It's cut really nicely too.
It was hit by a larger plane. That's why it came down. You can ignore "cruising speed", because the plane was in a dive. So maximum speeds, cruising speeds, etc., are only applicable to straight and level flight. This was not the case, so it doesn't apply. Also, the towers did survive the impact. It was the fire, insulation being blown off (which probably had not been assumed to happen during the initial calculations), and inability of fire crews to put those fires out that caused the collapse. How is this so hard? It did remain standing after the plane hit it, and it was fire that was the straw that broke the camels back.
With regards to the planes, they actually cruise at similar speeds. Max cruise is faster in a 707. This is all meaningless because the 767s were not in a cruise mode when they hit the buildings. They were in a dive, most likely in an overspeed condition, so cruising speed is worth a hill of beans in this discussion.
It is completely possible that fire can weaken a structure, and when it falls, how else do you want it to fall other than down? It's not going to magically list to one side. When one part of it falls, it'll start pulling on the rest to fall. How hard is that to imagine?
Din't you find it strange that they could identify the teorists as fast as they did,
when identifying other victims took months.
That because they already knew who to blame.
No. They had passenger manifests. 4 planes, maybe 250 people per plane, that's 1000 people. You parse through that list and run it against your gigantic database that you have compiled for decades. Anyone that matches between the two will instantly stand out. That kind of comparison would take no time at all.
I don't know about you but 30 tons is a helluva a bit of weight and mass. First,the site you quoted is wrong. The max cruise (which is stated correctly for the 707 @ ~600 mph) for a 767 is 568 mph, not 530mph. That's the regular cruising speed, which in comparison to the 707-320B is 550mph, which all of a sudden isn't too big of a difference.
Also, their thrust numbers for the 767 are completely wrong. Each engine can produce > 60,000 lb of thrust for the smaller engine on the 767-200ER. Not sure where they got 30,000 lb of thrust, but that's half of what each engine will produce. When you recalculate based off just those numbers, the 767-200ER has a MUCH higher thrust to weight ratio (~.31 compared to.21). Refute that if you will.
Though, in this discussion, a thrust to weight ratio will not play into the max speed that the plane will hit the building at. The higher thrust of the 767 is for efficiency reasons to allow the cruising speed to be close to the vmax. Also, these planes weren't cruising, they were in a dive, and most likely were in an overspeed condition during the dive. So cruising speed really doesn't play a huge role. It would be more for a CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) condition where the plane is flying low and "runs into" a building. These were definitely not that type of condition, but were a "dive bomb" to hit a building on purpose. The maximum velocity is not an airframe rating, but instead is the maximum speed the engines can push the plane in straight and level flight. Those planes can go much faster before breaking apart.
I'm not going to buy into a site (or series of sites parroting the same information) that is incorrectly stating widely available technical data for the purpose of furthering their point of view. I find it alarming that you would subscribe to theories based on incorrect data.
First, that was just a concrete parking garage. Drywall, plus an extra 100 stories of concrete over what that parking garage had, would create a crapload of dust. Second, 707 vs. 767. Big difference in planes. So yeah, maybe they would've been fine after a 707, but in the case of the much larger plane, the building took the hit, and stood for as long as they could.
Those beams withstood the impact did they not? The building stayed up. But, once the building starts coming down, they're probably going to buckle. 15 floors falling down 10 feet. Do you have any idea the amount of energy there? Also, look at the ground around the picture you posted. See all that debris? See the black car and the film of dust on it? There is a fine ash there and it was just a pancaking effect. Explosives are not required. Concrete grinding against concrete and pulverizing it will create dust too.
Do you realize how much bigger a 767 is than a 707? And some random guy who worked in construction? Chances are that if you are welding it together, you aren't smart enough to have actually designed the thing you are welding/riveting. You are following the plans that an ENGINEER cooked up. And so what if *he* thinks that it could take more than one hit? *HE* may not have a freaking clue. If you can't believe that hitting a couple of buildings with giant airplanes won't cause them to come down, then there's nothing I can say that will ever change your mind.
Having a wall of air moving in speeds in excess of 450 mph into a relatively thin skin of aluminum is quite different from hitting a concrete wall at 600 mph.
You don't have to accelerate the entire mass of the building. You just have to take care of one floor at a time. One floor will not provide much resistance to 15 floors falling on top of it. Once that one goes, you have 16 floors falling onto the one below it. If the floor above didn't stop the first 15 floors from collapsing it, the next floor sure as hell won't stop 16 floors. Keep adding up for the entire height of the building.
More to add to your point, without any training, I've been able to take a 767 and crash it into lots of buildings in MS Flight Sim. The way planes are these days, they are just big video games in essence. Doesn't take a whole hell of a lot of skill.
Just because there are big, strong steel beams doesn't mean they can support an infinite load. You are severely overestimating the strength of a little bit of steel. You don't have to collapse the entire column at once. You only need to get collapse one floor. Show me anywhere, where a structure survived after having a 15 story building dropped on it from 10 feet. It will pulverize any and everything.
And a bunch of stuff was on fire afterwards. Ever seen an office? Notice how much paper and carpeting and everything else there is in there? Also, you don't have to go very hot to remove the temper out of steel and affect its crystalline structure. Go check out some phase diagrams.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8e/Steel_pd.svg/420px-Steel_pd.svg.png
You ever think that maybe, just maybe, some of those guys are bad engineers? Also, architects don't really know shit about buildings. Yeah, they design them and come up with really interesting looking structures, as well as plan out how they can arrange the insides and where they want a bathroom. An engineer is the one who makes all the calculations so that the architects design can actually be built. Sorry, but architects only have *opinions* about building collapse.
It is especially difficult to bring them down into their own footprint such that there are no residual steel columns left standing. With due respect to the authors of this official report and their three years of computer simulations, I do not believe for one moment that thermal expansion from the burning of paper, desks and plastic fittings (even over a period of many hours) is sufficient to explain this. I also do not think it can explain molten steel in the wreckage weeks after the event.
First, they didn't collapse into their own footprint. Debris was spread over quite a large distance. A controlled demolition causes the building to fall inward on itself, so the debris stays within the footprint. WTC collapses had debris shooting out everywhere. Second, there were residual steel columns left standing. Hell, there was at least four stories of twisted steel still standing up. Third, it had nothing to do with thermal expansion, but instead had everything to do with steel getting warm and losing some of its structural integrity. Go look at a some charts like what I have in my materials book from my college days that show temperatures as low as 1300F will begin to remove the temper out of a plain carbon steel. Once your steel has lost some of its temper, and the annealing has gone to shit, look out, because that steel is now extremely weak compared to what it once was.
Noticing how they have cranes in cleaning the site up and removing debris? Isn't it rather plausible that some time before the picture was taken, that an ironworking crew has come in and helped cut some of those beams down so they can move the pieces to the landfill?
Can you show me case where a fire has been on a high rise, covering several floors entirely, and that fire is located at least 15 floors from the roof? If you can cite just one source, I'll consider myself a moron.
You ever watched anybody bend a pipe using a blowtorch? Notice how they heat it up and then bend it? Also notice how the pipe doesn't get all "melty"? It stays in a tubular form? That's because the heat weakened the steel so it could be bent. Now, that's just heating it high enough so a human can actually bend the pipe by hand. It ends up not being a lot of force. If you didn't heat it up as much, it would take a lot more force, but not nearly as much as if it wasn't heated up at all.
compared to the men, no it's not about strength. They don't have various "strength" moves that they are required to perform as part of each of their routines.
Compared to men's gymnastics, women's gymnastics is not really about strength. Nowhere did I say that women's gymnastics didn't require strength. But, when you have the men that hold positions on the rings like iron crosses, are required to perform strength moves on the floor (like keeping their body parallel to the floor and holding it), or events like the pommel horse, it is all about strength. Women's gymnastics are more about grace and fluidity (like the tumbling passes and balance beam).
Now, if you'd rather prove me otherwise, how is women's gymnastics about strength?
The younger you are, the smaller you tend to be. If you are smaller, you can spin/rotate faster (pure physics there). Additionally, you are more flexible, so you can perform certain maneuvers that get more difficult as you get older. There also is a "fear" issue that plays a small part where a younger person, not having the same number of opportunities to fall and hurt themselves, will be more fearless than an older person who has been banged up a bit. Women's gymnastics isn't really about strength, so age doesn't help you. Whereas in other sports, men's gymnastics even, the stronger you are, the better you probably will be, and the older you are, the stronger you tend to be.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not fundamentally unfair. It shows the kids that aren't doing as well that they need to get their stuff in gear. Now, if the kid isn't doing well, and you want to take him aside and explain that you will be willing to erase some of his past scores (or increase them) if you see him do really hard work to try to bring himself up. But, when kids get tests back that say "50%" and it's obvious that 50% is your floor, now your kids can exploit the system and do just enough to get that passing grade, instead of working their butts off to try to get the passing grade. The kids don't try as hard, and potentially won't learn. You're doing them a disservice really. Will it take care of the kids that don't want to learn? No, and I would fail those kids as often as I could. It will help those that want to learn, but just have been having a hard time with things.
I heard a number the other day. DVR penetration is at 25% of households. People are probably just too dang busy watching all of their DVRed stuff to want to watch DVDs and Blu-Rays.
Here's part of the problem though, that plastic bag may be recyclable, but into what? You may make carpet out of soda bottles and park benches out of plastic bags, but once you are done with those, you can't recycle them. You are left with a product that has lost so much of its integrity through the recycling process that you can only throw it away. Now, there are some polymers out there that can be recycled back into their original form, instead of a different, degraded form of what they once were, but they won't work for everything we need. I'm not advocating to not recycle, but instead advocating that things need to change, like reducing waste usage entirely.
Have a piece of meteorite inset into your band. The jewelery store that I purchased my fiance's engagement ring, as well as our wedding bands, offers this as a an option. It looks really cool with all of the striations going in every which direction. It's cut really nicely too.
It was hit by a larger plane. That's why it came down. You can ignore "cruising speed", because the plane was in a dive. So maximum speeds, cruising speeds, etc., are only applicable to straight and level flight. This was not the case, so it doesn't apply. Also, the towers did survive the impact. It was the fire, insulation being blown off (which probably had not been assumed to happen during the initial calculations), and inability of fire crews to put those fires out that caused the collapse. How is this so hard? It did remain standing after the plane hit it, and it was fire that was the straw that broke the camels back.
It is completely possible that fire can weaken a structure, and when it falls, how else do you want it to fall other than down? It's not going to magically list to one side. When one part of it falls, it'll start pulling on the rest to fall. How hard is that to imagine?
Din't you find it strange that they could identify the teorists as fast as they did, when identifying other victims took months.
That because they already knew who to blame.
No. They had passenger manifests. 4 planes, maybe 250 people per plane, that's 1000 people. You parse through that list and run it against your gigantic database that you have compiled for decades. Anyone that matches between the two will instantly stand out. That kind of comparison would take no time at all.
Also, their thrust numbers for the 767 are completely wrong. Each engine can produce > 60,000 lb of thrust for the smaller engine on the 767-200ER. Not sure where they got 30,000 lb of thrust, but that's half of what each engine will produce. When you recalculate based off just those numbers, the 767-200ER has a MUCH higher thrust to weight ratio (~.31 compared to .21). Refute that if you will.
Though, in this discussion, a thrust to weight ratio will not play into the max speed that the plane will hit the building at. The higher thrust of the 767 is for efficiency reasons to allow the cruising speed to be close to the vmax. Also, these planes weren't cruising, they were in a dive, and most likely were in an overspeed condition during the dive. So cruising speed really doesn't play a huge role. It would be more for a CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) condition where the plane is flying low and "runs into" a building. These were definitely not that type of condition, but were a "dive bomb" to hit a building on purpose. The maximum velocity is not an airframe rating, but instead is the maximum speed the engines can push the plane in straight and level flight. Those planes can go much faster before breaking apart.
I'm not going to buy into a site (or series of sites parroting the same information) that is incorrectly stating widely available technical data for the purpose of furthering their point of view. I find it alarming that you would subscribe to theories based on incorrect data.
First, that was just a concrete parking garage. Drywall, plus an extra 100 stories of concrete over what that parking garage had, would create a crapload of dust. Second, 707 vs. 767. Big difference in planes. So yeah, maybe they would've been fine after a 707, but in the case of the much larger plane, the building took the hit, and stood for as long as they could.
Those beams withstood the impact did they not? The building stayed up. But, once the building starts coming down, they're probably going to buckle. 15 floors falling down 10 feet. Do you have any idea the amount of energy there? Also, look at the ground around the picture you posted. See all that debris? See the black car and the film of dust on it? There is a fine ash there and it was just a pancaking effect. Explosives are not required. Concrete grinding against concrete and pulverizing it will create dust too.
Do you realize how much bigger a 767 is than a 707? And some random guy who worked in construction? Chances are that if you are welding it together, you aren't smart enough to have actually designed the thing you are welding/riveting. You are following the plans that an ENGINEER cooked up. And so what if *he* thinks that it could take more than one hit? *HE* may not have a freaking clue. If you can't believe that hitting a couple of buildings with giant airplanes won't cause them to come down, then there's nothing I can say that will ever change your mind.
Having a wall of air moving in speeds in excess of 450 mph into a relatively thin skin of aluminum is quite different from hitting a concrete wall at 600 mph.
You don't have to accelerate the entire mass of the building. You just have to take care of one floor at a time. One floor will not provide much resistance to 15 floors falling on top of it. Once that one goes, you have 16 floors falling onto the one below it. If the floor above didn't stop the first 15 floors from collapsing it, the next floor sure as hell won't stop 16 floors. Keep adding up for the entire height of the building.
More to add to your point, without any training, I've been able to take a 767 and crash it into lots of buildings in MS Flight Sim. The way planes are these days, they are just big video games in essence. Doesn't take a whole hell of a lot of skill.
Just because there are big, strong steel beams doesn't mean they can support an infinite load. You are severely overestimating the strength of a little bit of steel. You don't have to collapse the entire column at once. You only need to get collapse one floor. Show me anywhere, where a structure survived after having a 15 story building dropped on it from 10 feet. It will pulverize any and everything.
And a bunch of stuff was on fire afterwards. Ever seen an office? Notice how much paper and carpeting and everything else there is in there? Also, you don't have to go very hot to remove the temper out of steel and affect its crystalline structure. Go check out some phase diagrams. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8e/Steel_pd.svg/420px-Steel_pd.svg.png
You ever think that maybe, just maybe, some of those guys are bad engineers? Also, architects don't really know shit about buildings. Yeah, they design them and come up with really interesting looking structures, as well as plan out how they can arrange the insides and where they want a bathroom. An engineer is the one who makes all the calculations so that the architects design can actually be built. Sorry, but architects only have *opinions* about building collapse.
It is especially difficult to bring them down into their own footprint such that there are no residual steel columns left standing. With due respect to the authors of this official report and their three years of computer simulations, I do not believe for one moment that thermal expansion from the burning of paper, desks and plastic fittings (even over a period of many hours) is sufficient to explain this. I also do not think it can explain molten steel in the wreckage weeks after the event.
First, they didn't collapse into their own footprint. Debris was spread over quite a large distance. A controlled demolition causes the building to fall inward on itself, so the debris stays within the footprint. WTC collapses had debris shooting out everywhere. Second, there were residual steel columns left standing. Hell, there was at least four stories of twisted steel still standing up. Third, it had nothing to do with thermal expansion, but instead had everything to do with steel getting warm and losing some of its structural integrity. Go look at a some charts like what I have in my materials book from my college days that show temperatures as low as 1300F will begin to remove the temper out of a plain carbon steel. Once your steel has lost some of its temper, and the annealing has gone to shit, look out, because that steel is now extremely weak compared to what it once was.
Noticing how they have cranes in cleaning the site up and removing debris? Isn't it rather plausible that some time before the picture was taken, that an ironworking crew has come in and helped cut some of those beams down so they can move the pieces to the landfill?
Can you show me case where a fire has been on a high rise, covering several floors entirely, and that fire is located at least 15 floors from the roof? If you can cite just one source, I'll consider myself a moron.
You ever watched anybody bend a pipe using a blowtorch? Notice how they heat it up and then bend it? Also notice how the pipe doesn't get all "melty"? It stays in a tubular form? That's because the heat weakened the steel so it could be bent. Now, that's just heating it high enough so a human can actually bend the pipe by hand. It ends up not being a lot of force. If you didn't heat it up as much, it would take a lot more force, but not nearly as much as if it wasn't heated up at all.
compared to the men, no it's not about strength. They don't have various "strength" moves that they are required to perform as part of each of their routines.
That's a contract problem, not a problem with copyright.
Now, if you'd rather prove me otherwise, how is women's gymnastics about strength?
The younger you are, the smaller you tend to be. If you are smaller, you can spin/rotate faster (pure physics there). Additionally, you are more flexible, so you can perform certain maneuvers that get more difficult as you get older. There also is a "fear" issue that plays a small part where a younger person, not having the same number of opportunities to fall and hurt themselves, will be more fearless than an older person who has been banged up a bit. Women's gymnastics isn't really about strength, so age doesn't help you. Whereas in other sports, men's gymnastics even, the stronger you are, the better you probably will be, and the older you are, the stronger you tend to be.