In my country, for example, it's not as much about "registering" as it is about passing a legal test and a technical proficiency test, just like with getting a driving license (because cars can kill people too), so that people don't shoot themselves randomly in the foot (or someone else). Blogs and e-mails are not dangerous, so why would you do the same thing with them?
This is true. I remember the DECSS code thing and how that worked out...
Even better, PGP was classified as a weapon for export purposes but then won on First Amendment basis, unless my memory is wonky (which it very well may be).
I meant delivery of CO2 to Mars. But capturing CO2 on Venus without falling to the ground would be very difficult without something like PROFAC, which would be extremely hardware-intensive compared to just hauling dry ice blocks to Mars using normal-size nuclear thermal rockets.
Actually it's around 0.4% of total energy and 2.8% of electricity if Wikipedia's numbers are correct. But that's still nothing to sneeze at, plus they don't have the problem that Europe has with seasonal variations. They can build quite a bit more than this to cover most of the increased daily power use (3-4 GW on average).
But even without a binding you can easily put a QT GUI on a C program if you want to. You compile main() as C++, add your GUI there, then the rest of your C code is compiled and called as standard C. Alternatively, you can make the small changes required to compile your C code as C++
Except I'm actually mostly interested in putting a Qt GUI on a Common Lisp or Chez program. For C APIs, this is almost trivial because of the fantastic FFIs for these platforms, but C++'s ABI makes it virtually impossible with C++ interfaces because only C++ compilers understand C++'s ABI, not to mention incompatibilities of classes, templates, exceptions etc. Hence KDE's invention of Smoke (which I gave up on around 2010, as I already said).
Anyway, these days I'm mostly eyeing IUP which not only has a rather nice C interface but unlike both Qt and Gtk+ is fully native on Windows, which makes it much, much nicer than either for Windows users.
Mars doesn't have enough mass and magnetic spin to maintain an atmosphere. That's kind of always going to have anything you generate torn away by solar winds.
0.1 kg/s is not exactly a breakneck speed of gas loss.
You'd have to do something absurd like send a Jovian moon into it, then wait for all that to cool down to get enough mass to start making a long-term environment on it. There's not even enough floating ice/rocks in our system to make it work without something like that.
Seriously? Just the water inside Ceres would cover Mars with around 1.4 km layer of oceans. Not to mention all the other bodies in the solar system with lots of water ice, dry ice, nitrogen ice etc.
Mars' atmosphere is being continuously stripped by solar wind too due to lack of magnetic fields.
...at around 100 grams per second. That's replacable by a cube of frozen material with a side of around 15 meters delivered every year from the outer solar system.
Note that without an ozone layer and with Mars' decreased escape velocity, oxygen could get generated spontaneously by means of water vapor photodissociation.
While cometary impacts may increase the amount of water & gases available, it would do nothing to increase the Martian gravity necessary to keep those gases as a part of the planetary atmosphere.
Surely that depends on the molecular weight of the gases. Currently the CO2 atmosphere is only losing several dozen grams per second or something like that, and that includes solar wind stripping. So sufficiently heavy gas fractions are going to stay for quite some time. For example, oxygen at 300K would need something like 12x the median velocity or so to escape, a probability of which is so low I can't even calculate it without multiprecision arithmetics.
It looks like there is no reasonable way to increase the mass of Mars sufficiently to get a reasonable atmosphere.
How did you arrive at this conclusion? You'd get very dense atmosphere even after dropping only a fraction of the mass you've enumerated onto the surface of Mars, since a large fraction of those bodies are volatiles.
You might not need impacts. Just bring blocks of ice and frozen gases into the orbit and have them evaporate. At low temperatures, they mostly won't have escape velocity and will neatly integrate into the atmosphere.
You're making that up, you obviously haven't done it yourself.
Of course, I didn't need to, what I needed already existed (and I'm not going to duplicate an existing effort needlessly). But apparently thirty three language communities decided to bind to Gtk+, sometimes in multiple implementations, but only fourteen language communities decided to bind to Qt5 (of course some bindings are missing from the list, but that happened to both sides) - which is rather telling, isn't it? Not to mention the amazingly fragmented nature of Smoke and competing similar efforts (and the crappy quality of all of them) that I watched developing sometime around 2010 only to give up on waiting and to switch to Gtk+ which simply worked for me. Maybe the situation has changed, I don't know...
Anybody who has coded in both GTK and QT knows exactly why Lubuntu is switching to QT.
...definitely not for any reason related to bindings, rather than, say, the
deep rooted crappiness of GTK shows through to the end user
that you already mentioned - and I do agree that there's too much crappiness inside Gtk+. Mind you, I really like lxqt.
With low labor costs and zero fuel costs, it could be advantageous even if those 4k workers were permanent. Chances are they won't since later maintenance is low.
Hilarious.:) And it had to do no less than thoroughly rape C++ with a preprocessor only to accomplish what Smalltalk accomplished naturally. Meanwhile creating bindings to Gtk+, whatever its deficiencies in manual C programming are (admittedly that really sucks), is way easier, not least because of C++'s ABI's piss-poor interoperability compared to C's ABI, hence the much higher avalability of higher language bindings for Gtk+.
The problem is that once you go the TSTO route, SABRE becomes irrelevant and a combination of a ramjet and a simple rocket engine becomes highly competitive with your technologically risky SABRE (and we're good at building both ramjets *and* rocket engines). I did once some very rudimentary calculations for a Skylon-sized TSTO with a ramjet and a rocket engine and the payload was +50% above the most recent SSTO Skylon concept, all because you lose over 50 tonnes of dead mass with staging at ~3 km/s. A "dumb", cheap upper stage has less than 5 tonnes dry mass.
I think they did a *massive* mistake by not going for hydrocarbons in the winged stage. Aside from getting rid of the RS-25 boondoggle, it would empty (a 2.6 times increase in propellant density!) a lot of space in the stage for a payload bay that would simultaneously enable larger diameter payloads *and* get rid of the expendable fairing. Hell, it might even increase the payload mass. But I guess pork is pork...
Skylon is sadly a stillborn concept. They're so obsessed with the complicated that they overlooked the simple. Making a rugged winged first stage would have been much more practical than building a winged SSTO at the outermost of our capability.
Some quick math says that the FH based on the current F9 can lift about 2.8 times as much as a current F9. Applying that to the original F9 means that an FH based on the original F9 should have been able to lift 28 tonnes to LEO.
That is stupid quick math because the original Merlin engines are not throttleable. You can't just apply a multiplier like that if in one case, all the engines burn out at the same time and in the other case they don't. You have to do an entirely new performance calculation.
Putting the two together, the rocket can lift 5.5 tonnes to GTO in reusable mode, and 8.3 tonnes in expendable. Extrapolating that down to LEO gives the same numbers I quoted earlier; 22 tonnes expendable, or 13 tonnes reusable.
You're extrapolating wrongly then. In no way should you be getting a 1.5 ratio for GTO payloads but 1.7 for LEO payloads. Better outline your Tsiolkovsky calculations.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, I'm not sure where the law is on manufacturing arms vs the right to keep and bare arms.
I'm fairly sure you can roll up your sleeves on your prosthetic arms without any repercussions.
In my country, for example, it's not as much about "registering" as it is about passing a legal test and a technical proficiency test, just like with getting a driving license (because cars can kill people too), so that people don't shoot themselves randomly in the foot (or someone else). Blogs and e-mails are not dangerous, so why would you do the same thing with them?
This is true. I remember the DECSS code thing and how that worked out...
Even better, PGP was classified as a weapon for export purposes but then won on First Amendment basis, unless my memory is wonky (which it very well may be).
I meant delivery of CO2 to Mars. But capturing CO2 on Venus without falling to the ground would be very difficult without something like PROFAC, which would be extremely hardware-intensive compared to just hauling dry ice blocks to Mars using normal-size nuclear thermal rockets.
That's a decent, if not amazing price considering the output. LCOE comes out as around $50-60/MWh or something like that?
Actually it's around 0.4% of total energy and 2.8% of electricity if Wikipedia's numbers are correct. But that's still nothing to sneeze at, plus they don't have the problem that Europe has with seasonal variations. They can build quite a bit more than this to cover most of the increased daily power use (3-4 GW on average).
But even without a binding you can easily put a QT GUI on a C program if you want to. You compile main() as C++, add your GUI there, then the rest of your C code is compiled and called as standard C. Alternatively, you can make the small changes required to compile your C code as C++
Except I'm actually mostly interested in putting a Qt GUI on a Common Lisp or Chez program. For C APIs, this is almost trivial because of the fantastic FFIs for these platforms, but C++'s ABI makes it virtually impossible with C++ interfaces because only C++ compilers understand C++'s ABI, not to mention incompatibilities of classes, templates, exceptions etc. Hence KDE's invention of Smoke (which I gave up on around 2010, as I already said).
Anyway, these days I'm mostly eyeing IUP which not only has a rather nice C interface but unlike both Qt and Gtk+ is fully native on Windows, which makes it much, much nicer than either for Windows users.
That's unlikely. it will push the earth away (along with the other inner planets).
How, by magic?
By the time that happens, the output of the sun will have already fallen far below the levels we enjoy now.
That's not how stellar evolution works! Solar output will keep increasing until it reaches twice of today's output or more.
Mars doesn't have enough mass and magnetic spin to maintain an atmosphere. That's kind of always going to have anything you generate torn away by solar winds.
0.1 kg/s is not exactly a breakneck speed of gas loss.
You'd have to do something absurd like send a Jovian moon into it, then wait for all that to cool down to get enough mass to start making a long-term environment on it. There's not even enough floating ice/rocks in our system to make it work without something like that.
Seriously? Just the water inside Ceres would cover Mars with around 1.4 km layer of oceans. Not to mention all the other bodies in the solar system with lots of water ice, dry ice, nitrogen ice etc.
Mars' atmosphere is being continuously stripped by solar wind too due to lack of magnetic fields.
Venus might be a better idea for that, actually. But even better are probably outer solar system bodies where you're likely to find lots of dry ice.
Note that without an ozone layer and with Mars' decreased escape velocity, oxygen could get generated spontaneously by means of water vapor photodissociation.
While cometary impacts may increase the amount of water & gases available, it would do nothing to increase the Martian gravity necessary to keep those gases as a part of the planetary atmosphere.
Surely that depends on the molecular weight of the gases. Currently the CO2 atmosphere is only losing several dozen grams per second or something like that, and that includes solar wind stripping. So sufficiently heavy gas fractions are going to stay for quite some time. For example, oxygen at 300K would need something like 12x the median velocity or so to escape, a probability of which is so low I can't even calculate it without multiprecision arithmetics.
It looks like there is no reasonable way to increase the mass of Mars sufficiently to get a reasonable atmosphere.
How did you arrive at this conclusion? You'd get very dense atmosphere even after dropping only a fraction of the mass you've enumerated onto the surface of Mars, since a large fraction of those bodies are volatiles.
You might not need impacts. Just bring blocks of ice and frozen gases into the orbit and have them evaporate. At low temperatures, they mostly won't have escape velocity and will neatly integrate into the atmosphere.
You're making that up, you obviously haven't done it yourself.
Of course, I didn't need to, what I needed already existed (and I'm not going to duplicate an existing effort needlessly). But apparently thirty three language communities decided to bind to Gtk+, sometimes in multiple implementations, but only fourteen language communities decided to bind to Qt5 (of course some bindings are missing from the list, but that happened to both sides) - which is rather telling, isn't it? Not to mention the amazingly fragmented nature of Smoke and competing similar efforts (and the crappy quality of all of them) that I watched developing sometime around 2010 only to give up on waiting and to switch to Gtk+ which simply worked for me. Maybe the situation has changed, I don't know...
Anybody who has coded in both GTK and QT knows exactly why Lubuntu is switching to QT.
...definitely not for any reason related to bindings, rather than, say, the
deep rooted crappiness of GTK shows through to the end user
that you already mentioned - and I do agree that there's too much crappiness inside Gtk+. Mind you, I really like lxqt.
With low labor costs and zero fuel costs, it could be advantageous even if those 4k workers were permanent. Chances are they won't since later maintenance is low.
especially being actual OO instead
Hilarious. :) And it had to do no less than thoroughly rape C++ with a preprocessor only to accomplish what Smalltalk accomplished naturally. Meanwhile creating bindings to Gtk+, whatever its deficiencies in manual C programming are (admittedly that really sucks), is way easier, not least because of C++'s ABI's piss-poor interoperability compared to C's ABI, hence the much higher avalability of higher language bindings for Gtk+.
I meant the AC who was referring to the spaceplane bringing stuff back from orbit. It obviously can't do that if it doesn't get anywhere near orbit.
The problem is that once you go the TSTO route, SABRE becomes irrelevant and a combination of a ramjet and a simple rocket engine becomes highly competitive with your technologically risky SABRE (and we're good at building both ramjets *and* rocket engines). I did once some very rudimentary calculations for a Skylon-sized TSTO with a ramjet and a rocket engine and the payload was +50% above the most recent SSTO Skylon concept, all because you lose over 50 tonnes of dead mass with staging at ~3 km/s. A "dumb", cheap upper stage has less than 5 tonnes dry mass.
I think you missed the part where the space plane is not actually getting to orbit.
I think they did a *massive* mistake by not going for hydrocarbons in the winged stage. Aside from getting rid of the RS-25 boondoggle, it would empty (a 2.6 times increase in propellant density!) a lot of space in the stage for a payload bay that would simultaneously enable larger diameter payloads *and* get rid of the expendable fairing. Hell, it might even increase the payload mass. But I guess pork is pork...
Skylon is sadly a stillborn concept. They're so obsessed with the complicated that they overlooked the simple. Making a rugged winged first stage would have been much more practical than building a winged SSTO at the outermost of our capability.
Some quick math says that the FH based on the current F9 can lift about 2.8 times as much as a current F9. Applying that to the original F9 means that an FH based on the original F9 should have been able to lift 28 tonnes to LEO.
That is stupid quick math because the original Merlin engines are not throttleable. You can't just apply a multiplier like that if in one case, all the engines burn out at the same time and in the other case they don't. You have to do an entirely new performance calculation.
Putting the two together, the rocket can lift 5.5 tonnes to GTO in reusable mode, and 8.3 tonnes in expendable. Extrapolating that down to LEO gives the same numbers I quoted earlier; 22 tonnes expendable, or 13 tonnes reusable.
You're extrapolating wrongly then. In no way should you be getting a 1.5 ratio for GTO payloads but 1.7 for LEO payloads. Better outline your Tsiolkovsky calculations.