^only about js, but it's quite characteristic and from a fabulous source.
Standards compliance of course might be a problem here and there, in places still not far from "best viewed in IE" - some pages unfortunately settled on "best in IE and FF" instead of targeting standards, not much of an improvement - but it's getting better. Especially where there's strong third or even fourth major player, as in most of CIS / ex Warsaw Pact (where BTW Opera is often actually at or near the top)
In fact, one funny thing: I keep an old version of Opera (9.27, a solid "classic" release) on an old dual PII 266 that I keep around and still boot sometimes. Lately many pages tend to work much better in it (despite obviously not targeting such old release, probably not even Opera generally) - I suspect due to dropping focus on IE6.
It's perfectly fine with some (face it) niche ones. It gets old really, really quickly with majority of whiners, listing functionalities present in Opera for a long time... (or even pioneered by them)
It's not about hosts, and could give you at least most of what you want. JS can be whitelisted and disabled by domains, that's a bit more than all or nothing.
As for you list (at least when it comes to those with descriptive names) - page zooming and fit-to-width works in Opera also for images, there was some weather widget and also way to put forecasts in the Speed Dial IIRC, downloader has a bit more features than is typical (maybe list of files on a given page and filtering, by chance? Similar with cookies) and sync is built-in - shared across different versions of Opera (Desktop, Mobile, Mini)
What does it change? It still means that those people are simply eating too much (while claiming they eat normally or even very little, hence me making a jab at such claims, amounting to claiming one is a thermodynamic perpetuum mobile...). There is no obesity epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa.
Opera had adblocking built in for a long time, it just needed a list - yes, somewhat more basic (much more basic script blocking also there); but even with rare updates of the list I don't remember having to use GUI website element blocker.
Diet coke tricks your organism into expecting lots of sugar to process...which doesn't come. So now your organism, revved up, really starts to crave it / you will eat unhealthy quantities (but feeling small) quickly enough.
There's another factor at work except present fertility and likely ability to take care of a child for a few years (Playboy) - young age and future "potential" (Vogue)
Better throw in the requirement how, for each passing year / each human added to the station, there has to be a proportional decrease in reliance on launched resources (even if for a long time they will be growing in absolute numbers of course, because of population increase)
You really want to avoid using lunar "colonists" merely as tax-dodging method - existing there on absolute subsistence for relatively negligible payment sent to their families, for example.
The Shuttle was generally a compromise between what is possible on one hand and fantasies on the other (many of them - so the "vision" itself was a compromise too) - plus, I guess, a lot of its designers raised on scifi from 1940s, partly '50s, which (no doubt influenced by rapid advances in aircraft technology) had lots of shiny spaceplanes, Buck Rogers style.
Similarly to those airplanes from "our" times (/. & unicode links...), as imagined ~130 years ago, no doubt influenced by rapid advances in (sub?)marine technology. I have difficulties finding similarities between them and this - and not merely technical, also in regards to the usage concept. We can build them! (take a Harrier, remove wings and canopy), doesn't change how they are a horrible idea. Not many flying boats around nowadays, too (not a bad analogy to what the Shuttle is, IMHO)
Consider how they didn't plan all those available systems for (problematic) Ares I; Shuttle SRBs are huge in comparison with other solid rockets, that might be one reason.
It doesn't make sense to talk about them in isolation, not comparing with the advantages of "other" option.
And FYI, there was virtually no explosion in the case of Challenger - what looked like one was mostly burning of the fuel behind the stack, after it was ripped apart by aerodynamic forces (because one uncontrollable SRB was wrecking havoc with structural integrity and orientation (in relation to the airstream))
And yet almost nothing uses it as pure first stage, not when the costs are most important (commercial launches; well, except small launches using surplus / paid for ex-Soviet ICBMs) - at best, they are used in tandem with liquid fueled rocket, typically LOH fueled one. But much more rarely with kerosene fueled ones - and if you look at thrust/mass/specific impulse ratios, it's quite apparent that kerosene rocket sits nicely between solid and LOH. Seems both of them miss the ideal spot, to which kerosene is much nearer.
They aren't smaller by mass. Cheaper? The only example of a vehicle which uses large solid boosters doesn't support such claim at all (plus: military can afford them, for niche properties), and some cheap ex-Soviet ICBMs repurposed sometimes as launch vehicles are...small, and surplus. Consider, say, complexity of handling (in contrast - liquid booster is virtually inert most of the time, to the point where it can be mass produced by unskilled labour, as V-2 infamously demonstrated)
And liquid fueled rocket will get to orbit in a more efficient manner, that's what matters most.
And there were instances when the properties of liquid booster probably contributed to survival in an emergency situation, Soyuz 18a for example (really interesting launch abort)
Both first launch of Scud and entering service were actually slightly before Redstone.
But the best success story of such type is probably the R-7 rocket family. R-7 Semyorka, the first operational ICBM. It also launched Sputnik. And Yuri Gagarin. Launches Soyuz and Progress spacecraft to this day, together with many other payloads (according to ESA it is "the most reliable... the most frequently used launch vehicle in the world")
Also purely liquid (though here it's kerosene and liquid oxygen)
Even the Russians used liquid fueled strap-on boosters in their Buran
In their Energia, to be more exact. It was quite a bit more flexible / Buran was just one of the payloads.
It showed flexibility also in another way, in how its liquid boosters were easy to repurpose - in fact, the first launch of the booster was independent, in Zenit configuration; and they continue to this day as one of the best launchers around (contrast that with Ares I...), with one of the lowest cost per kg.
Also in certain level of modularity (Vulcan variant, with eight boosters) - though still not too great (also because core stage was very different). It will be great with Angara - from 1 to 7 identical core stages.
An NO, even if properly funded, it would not have had a liquid first stage. We don't have the materials technology even today to be able to build what is essentially a flying tank that can contain liquid hydrogen without it breaking up.
Let me introduce you then to the Energia rocket and one of its possible payloads, the Buran shuttle (still a horrible idea / forced by paranoid Soviet generals as a "response", but...). Fully liquid (why exactly do you assume only LOH as the fuel for the first stage? - which indeed is not the best choice). I know, I know, it's rude to make such late introduction, of a tech possible 3 decades ago.
Challenger was also destroyed by aerodynamic forces BTW - when uncontrollable SRB reoriented the stack so the windshear ripped it apart. With failure of one liquid booster there would be at least a possibility of shutting it down / reorienting nozzles of the rest to compensate.
Soyuz and Progress (also modified ones, built for the mission - which you need to do anyway, when it comes to the cargo placed in the Shuttle hold) are plenty flexible. The "place to go" can assemble itself, with autonomous rendezvous capabilities - the only reason why Shuttle was so useful in the assembly of the ISS is because many of its modules were specifically build to be launched by it, to give it some purpose.
Pakistan, by preventing also their "secular" elite from succumbing to the Taliban/etc.? (I suspect the pakistani gov is quite in line with Iran, generally)
Going fast while drifting, on the level of technology, doesn't seem much different from preventing drifting / skid at all costs - what modern stability systems do quite well.
Slashdot Mirror
http://blog.chromium.org/2010/03/does-your-browser-behave.html
^only about js, but it's quite characteristic and from a fabulous source.
Standards compliance of course might be a problem here and there, in places still not far from "best viewed in IE" - some pages unfortunately settled on "best in IE and FF" instead of targeting standards, not much of an improvement - but it's getting better. Especially where there's strong third or even fourth major player, as in most of CIS / ex Warsaw Pact (where BTW Opera is often actually at or near the top)
In fact, one funny thing: I keep an old version of Opera (9.27, a solid "classic" release) on an old dual PII 266 that I keep around and still boot sometimes. Lately many pages tend to work much better in it (despite obviously not targeting such old release, probably not even Opera generally) - I suspect due to dropping focus on IE6.
It's perfectly fine with some (face it) niche ones. It gets old really, really quickly with majority of whiners, listing functionalities present in Opera for a long time... (or even pioneered by them)
It's not about hosts, and could give you at least most of what you want. JS can be whitelisted and disabled by domains, that's a bit more than all or nothing.
As for you list (at least when it comes to those with descriptive names) - page zooming and fit-to-width works in Opera also for images, there was some weather widget and also way to put forecasts in the Speed Dial IIRC, downloader has a bit more features than is typical (maybe list of files on a given page and filtering, by chance? Similar with cookies) and sync is built-in - shared across different versions of Opera (Desktop, Mobile, Mini)
I was actually aiming at "Funny" (telling how it got "Insightful"...) - I thought describing those people as perpetuum mobile gave it away.
What does it change? It still means that those people are simply eating too much (while claiming they eat normally or even very little, hence me making a jab at such claims, amounting to claiming one is a thermodynamic perpetuum mobile...). There is no obesity epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa.
Opera had adblocking built in for a long time, it just needed a list - yes, somewhat more basic (much more basic script blocking also there); but even with rare updates of the list I don't remember having to use GUI website element blocker.
Diet coke tricks your organism into expecting lots of sugar to process...which doesn't come. So now your organism, revved up, really starts to crave it / you will eat unhealthy quantities (but feeling small) quickly enough.
There's another factor at work except present fertility and likely ability to take care of a child for a few years (Playboy) - young age and future "potential" (Vogue)
Better throw in the requirement how, for each passing year / each human added to the station, there has to be a proportional decrease in reliance on launched resources (even if for a long time they will be growing in absolute numbers of course, because of population increase)
You really want to avoid using lunar "colonists" merely as tax-dodging method - existing there on absolute subsistence for relatively negligible payment sent to their families, for example.
The Shuttle was generally a compromise between what is possible on one hand and fantasies on the other (many of them - so the "vision" itself was a compromise too) - plus, I guess, a lot of its designers raised on scifi from 1940s, partly '50s, which (no doubt influenced by rapid advances in aircraft technology) had lots of shiny spaceplanes, Buck Rogers style.
Similarly to those airplanes from "our" times (/. & unicode links...), as imagined ~130 years ago, no doubt influenced by rapid advances in (sub?)marine technology. I have difficulties finding similarities between them and this - and not merely technical, also in regards to the usage concept. We can build them! (take a Harrier, remove wings and canopy), doesn't change how they are a horrible idea. Not many flying boats around nowadays, too (not a bad analogy to what the Shuttle is, IMHO)
...instead of killing it.
Consider how they didn't plan all those available systems for (problematic) Ares I; Shuttle SRBs are huge in comparison with other solid rockets, that might be one reason.
It doesn't make sense to talk about them in isolation, not comparing with the advantages of "other" option.
And FYI, there was virtually no explosion in the case of Challenger - what looked like one was mostly burning of the fuel behind the stack, after it was ripped apart by aerodynamic forces (because one uncontrollable SRB was wrecking havoc with structural integrity and orientation (in relation to the airstream))
All the top launchers in cost per kg are exclusively liquid fueled.
They don't have to be that complex - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTRAG (yes, this one perhaps goes too far - but consider how liquid ones are far easier to mass-produce (they are inert during manufacture & transport); the only mass produced large booster, V-2, was liquid)
And yet almost nothing uses it as pure first stage, not when the costs are most important (commercial launches; well, except small launches using surplus / paid for ex-Soviet ICBMs) - at best, they are used in tandem with liquid fueled rocket, typically LOH fueled one. But much more rarely with kerosene fueled ones - and if you look at thrust/mass/specific impulse ratios, it's quite apparent that kerosene rocket sits nicely between solid and LOH. Seems both of them miss the ideal spot, to which kerosene is much nearer.
The lowest costs per kg are apparently offered by Zenit - simple, pure liquid (kerosene...) design. "The most reliable ... most frequently used launch vehicle in the world" - also liquid only, kerosene (and Russians do have the tech of solid boosters)
They aren't smaller by mass. Cheaper? The only example of a vehicle which uses large solid boosters doesn't support such claim at all (plus: military can afford them, for niche properties), and some cheap ex-Soviet ICBMs repurposed sometimes as launch vehicles are...small, and surplus. Consider, say, complexity of handling (in contrast - liquid booster is virtually inert most of the time, to the point where it can be mass produced by unskilled labour, as V-2 infamously demonstrated)
And liquid fueled rocket will get to orbit in a more efficient manner, that's what matters most.
And there were instances when the properties of liquid booster probably contributed to survival in an emergency situation, Soyuz 18a for example (really interesting launch abort)
Remind me how did that work for maintaining moon effort?
Both first launch of Scud and entering service were actually slightly before Redstone.
But the best success story of such type is probably the R-7 rocket family. R-7 Semyorka, the first operational ICBM. It also launched Sputnik. And Yuri Gagarin. Launches Soyuz and Progress spacecraft to this day, together with many other payloads (according to ESA it is "the most reliable ... the most frequently used launch vehicle in the world")
Also purely liquid (though here it's kerosene and liquid oxygen)
Even the Russians used liquid fueled strap-on boosters in their Buran
In their Energia, to be more exact. It was quite a bit more flexible / Buran was just one of the payloads.
It showed flexibility also in another way, in how its liquid boosters were easy to repurpose - in fact, the first launch of the booster was independent, in Zenit configuration; and they continue to this day as one of the best launchers around (contrast that with Ares I...), with one of the lowest cost per kg.
Also in certain level of modularity (Vulcan variant, with eight boosters) - though still not too great (also because core stage was very different). It will be great with Angara - from 1 to 7 identical core stages.
An NO, even if properly funded, it would not have had a liquid first stage. We don't have the materials technology even today to be able to build what is essentially a flying tank that can contain liquid hydrogen without it breaking up.
Let me introduce you then to the Energia rocket and one of its possible payloads, the Buran shuttle (still a horrible idea / forced by paranoid Soviet generals as a "response", but...). Fully liquid (why exactly do you assume only LOH as the fuel for the first stage? - which indeed is not the best choice). I know, I know, it's rude to make such late introduction, of a tech possible 3 decades ago.
Challenger was also destroyed by aerodynamic forces BTW - when uncontrollable SRB reoriented the stack so the windshear ripped it apart. With failure of one liquid booster there would be at least a possibility of shutting it down / reorienting nozzles of the rest to compensate.
Soyuz and Progress (also modified ones, built for the mission - which you need to do anyway, when it comes to the cargo placed in the Shuttle hold) are plenty flexible. The "place to go" can assemble itself, with autonomous rendezvous capabilities - the only reason why Shuttle was so useful in the assembly of the ISS is because many of its modules were specifically build to be launched by it, to give it some purpose.
Pakistan, by preventing also their "secular" elite from succumbing to the Taliban/etc.? (I suspect the pakistani gov is quite in line with Iran, generally)
Support of shah regime defined our relationship with Iran, that embassy thing (among other) was just a symptom...
Going fast while drifting, on the level of technology, doesn't seem much different from preventing drifting / skid at all costs - what modern stability systems do quite well.