For a minority of application developers and other more esoteric developers, the ability to run the same OS against different platforms is very important, and it simplifies things.
But, here, we are comparing linux, not from the professional developer point of view, but from the point of view of the 99% other computer users in regular businesses and at home. What is the advantage for them ?
I can agree with the article that, given the current advancements in computer technology, regular users dont need to fiddle with Solaris, Linux or whatever to get any important return on investment. For them, design stability, consistency and suppport are way more important. Windows gives them that.
From this point of view, an OS that wants to be so universal will never be the best on any single platform. Therefore, Linux will never be better than windows, if we are talking about Inteles alone.
This is like suggesting that we shall not procreate because our children could kill us.
I think that you have seen too many movies. Getting to the point where some AI could
kill humanity is a dream far away from inventing AI itself.
We are just speculating about AI, and the incredible implications by having just a small
box talking..... Think about it, sociology, philosophy, religion all of them will change for
just having ONE box thinking.
The reality is that AI is not so simple. Believing that we can just go and make humanoid
like machines that not only reason like us, but model reality in the same terms as us, so
that we can just talk to them like regular people is naïve.
We have to understand that the first AI is going to be very difficult to understand, since
we will have vastly different ways to interpret reality, just because our different
"Architecture". If the latest studies in philosophy have told us something, is that our
concept of reality is vague and very influenced by what we want it to be, and what it is
useful to be. This is based on many factors, much of which we don't even understand.
I believe that just the study of an AI, and its implication on our current theories of
cognition, metaphysics and ontology will take years. To be able to understand it enough
to be able to use it for practical purposes, and then for the military to put them in a
position that can risk human beings is even farther away.
In conclusion, AI is more just than a technology, it would be like discovering
extraterrestrial life, and I am sure that, by the time we can control it and use it, we will be
well aware of its risks and how to manage them.
I would go a little bit further. It is not only that _escaping from the universe_ does not make sense, but also, I think that _universe_ does not make sense. We are making the same mistakes that did not allow people to understand that the world was round, or that the sun was the center of the solar system.
I believe we are wrong assuming we understand the characteristics of the universe, and even more wrong, assuming that we can do something about it. A time-bound, space-bound universe is absurd. Time-bounded means not infinite, if so, then we live in something within the universe. In other words, if universe is everything, it is all time and all space; it cannot have a beginning or a size.
It feels like we live inside something with space and time bounds, but that does not mean that the universe has a beginning or an end. In addition, assuming these bounds exist, it does not mean that what ever is beyond is the same as the space we live in. Assuming that, is ludicrous, but more dangerous than that, it limits our imagination.... Just like assuming that the earth is flat will not allow you to think about traveling around the world, or assuming that the earth is the center of the universe will not let you understand the mechanics that govern the movement of the planets.
I propose we return to Kant. What we see is not only limited by our senses, but also transformed to our terms for understanding. In other words, space boundaries, time boundaries, they all are very useful things to help us understand life on earth, and we need to apply these concepts to live, but they may be artifacts of our mind, just like a flat earth or an absolute clock. Let us imagine that applying size and beginning to the universe is wrong as well, just as flatness does not apply to earth, and moving around does not apply to the sun. What does this mean? It means that these bounds exist in our minds, but may not apply to _universe_.
But then, what is there, before time.. after the last star..
These limits are there in our mind, that uses time limits and size limits to understand the universe. We cannot see beyond, or before, because we do not know how to see beyond, or before. We don't need a larger telescope, we don't need a more precise clock. The answer is there, in front of us, but we cannot see it.... yet. Just like a telescope would not have helped the ancients to see the end of the earth, because there isn't any. Maybe, we cannot see the beginning of the universe, because there isn't any.
What we need is a new Galileo, a new Copernicus, to come forward and discover concepts beyond classic space and time, to teach us how to see beyond and before.
Maybe I am missing something, but the fact that hydrogen combustion is very
efficient its great for rockets or cars, that are weight concerned, but that does not mean it is an energy _source_.
When people say "If we could find a cheap way to extract hydrogen..." well, sorry,
but that's the problem. Hydrogen can serve to store energy efficiently, but there is
no free hydrogen on earth, so it is not an energy _source_.
Its basic thermodynamics, yep, you get a lot from combining hydrogen with oxygen,
but if we do not have free hydrogen we will _never_ have but the difference between
what we obtain minus the energy required to get the hydrogen in the first place.
Now, this is not a technological limitation, it's a law of physics.
The reason why we all love oil its because, although dirty and smelly, its there underground for you to pump it. Now, if there was free hydrogen underground....
Then it would be an energy source.
I dont know about those, but that seems expensive and complicated.
Here in NJ, in the middle of no where, many lights have radar sensors.
You can see them, they are like little comeras pointing at you, but with no lens.
How do I know they are radar? Cause they mess up with radar detectors.
Actually, you can correlate the stop of the beeping whit the light turning green.
There are many all over, and they have been there for the last three years at least. ( age of my detector:) )
While I think that programmers are "evolving", the analogy with "Blacksmith and the Bookkeeper" is not right.
Bookkeepers, blacksmiths, even secretaries are disappearing because their jobs can be automated and computers are taking over. Programmers are disappearing because of a different reason. It is not because computers are taking over us; to this day no computer can write a program or fix a bug.
I believe that the problem is that the software is becoming so complex that what could have been done by one-person years ago, takes a team these days. I remember that in 1991 I wrote several systems like inventory managers, stuff like that. Today you require testers, DBA expert, GUI designers...
I think it is more like what happened to the aviation industry. In the 1900 you could build your own airplane, there were people building airplanes all over the world. Today, only a few companies can do that, and the demand for airplane-building skills is gone. Well, not gone, its just that it has changed, now you have to specialize in some area, you can not know ALL what is required to build an airplane. ( well, unless you are Burt Rutan)
I think that software is evolving the same. Eventually we will have to specialize in GUI, or DB or whatever. The generic programmer is not disappearing, just evolving. ( Read with Hannibal Lecters accent. )
This is BS, I design stuff all the time, thats not
a design issue, its so simple, they just didnt
test it!!!
Its a quality assurance issue. And if you dig deeper, not even quality processs issue, but a general
oranization philosophy problem.
This is just another victim to the quick, dirty and cheap....
I see that all the time in software.
Anyway, I cant believe this, they just didnt make an integrated test of the stupid thing.
Just a kick was all what was reuired to test that.
Just like the mars lander, a simple simulation of the whole
flight could have prevented its destruction.
How many failures will it take to learn the reality ->
Woooo, congratulations to all... impressive.
But with a reminder that this is not easy.
I just want to point that, after what happen,
its clear that the design and construction of SS1 is one of the greatest of all time
When I saw the first complete roll, when the surfaces ran out of air, my heart just stopped, I was just waiting for a major structural failure.
If he had not been able to keep the longitude axis straight, the twisting effect would have shattered the aircraft to pieces. Let us not forget that an X-15 was lost this way, and the pilot killed.
Indeed, this was impressive.
Im amazed by the number of people supporting the
Canadian Arrow project.
But, if you ask me, as a pilot, I would never
volunteer for that thing. It has too many single points of failure.
Somthing more like the SS1 has much better chances
of failing, and still bringing you back.
Im not personally against them, and I
surely wish them good luck. But just look at the
engine. Just the turbopump is more complex than SS1 .
Make no mistake, the few minutes after blast off, at low alt, are its Achilles heel.
Just like any other rocket....
* Guidance puter failure at low alt = crash
* Engine failure at low alt = crash
* Parachute failure = crash
Maybe i am bias because I am a pilot, but I rather
fly something that I can bring back with no
puter, no parachute, or no power.
I do not think google, if indeed they alter results, is doing the right thing.
This is not about respecting other countries laws.
Otherwise people would complaint likewise for
german laws, and others.
But we are talking about a country with a proven
record of basic human rights violations,
that range for forbidding religious beliefs
to torture and rape.
What we argue here is that, google, if in fact this
is true, is helping this going on.
This is about helping a goverment to abuse power, and closing the door on other peoples rights.
At least price-wise, I can see that, after adding up what you pay for all the normal instruments in a regular GA airplane, probably its about the same.
But, at the same time you hit on one problem.
-Reliability
If the vacuum quits, you know you have the turn coordinator, a completely separate piece of equipment, with a completely different power source.
And, if you need to replace it, you only replace that part, not the whole panel!
I have seen LCD's die on me. What will you do then? IS that going to last 10 > 20 years like
a good old VOR indicator, or a gyro compass?
I dont think so. That is not theri market
There are several practical reasons, not only economical, why this could not be a full gauge replacement,and, anyway, I dont think this is the
intent of the designers.
Im just talking for all the GA pilots not flying
jet powered Gulfstreams, or almost supersonic Citation Jets, that can not afford this, and have
been forgotten by the FAA who only cares about
airliners, or looking good infront of Congress.
Since we are not paying a million or two for a
gulfstream, or own an airline , the only way we
can see this improve is with goverment money.
Dont get me wrong, this technology is great. But, last year there were ZERO deaths in US ariline flights. They have the latest in flight directors, MFDs, radio alts.... thats great.
What is being done for the almost 1000 GA pilots who died that year because of using ancient vaccum designs or >10 year old VORS, just because it take years for the FAA and the industry in general to do something about us ?
My 2 cents, and thats it, cause flying leaves me with not much else.... but I love it:)
HSI's are expensive enough that not every one has them...!!!
80%.... I dont think so.
More over, this is so unrealistic, that it really makes me think this is being done by scientists with 0 flight hours, not pilots.
I love flying, and I think the situation is so sad.
The FAA presumes every year of declining accident rates, yes, sure, what they dont tell you is that their pretty charts dont show the also declining number of total pilots every year.
I can see it, by 2020, new mandatory equipment for all IFR flight!!! Great 100 less accidents on its first year....... beacuse 100 less pilots who could nor afford it....
:(
We dont need new fancy computer equipment, we need
to make more efficient what we already have.
We need for airplanes, what Robinson just did for helicopters
Instead of adding fancy equipement NASA should invest
in making current equipment more efficient and cheap!
Most GA airplanes are over 20 years old!!!
The radios are around 5-15 years old on average in a GA airplane, the VOR navigation dates from the
second world war!.......
We dont need to add toys to this, we need to fix what we already have.
Im not a rocket scientist either, but, maybe,
you are half right.
Theres another weird phenomena that happens
during eclipses. Its the light interference patterns. Basically, just before, and after the eclipse, the light reflected in the floor will
show interference patterns.
I know this is not a myth, cause I ve seen them. Like an army of snake shadows traveling in parallel. Just for a few secs.
Im wondering, could it be that the gravity waves of the moon and sun get into the same phase and augment or cancel each other when aligned???
At least that happens with light waves, I was at the Mexico eclipse mentioned in the article.
Hopefully someone else has seen them, and can comment. Sorry, got no pics.
Re:Nothing for us to see here, move along.
on
Katie Jones Interviewed
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Hello, Im not a lawyer, much less a "cyber lawyer".
But I understand that you can claim a domain name
if you own a trade mark for it, right ?
Well, I own alejandro.net, and I own a birth cetificate for that since 1972.
If i were a freelance consultant like she is, then
my name would be my trade mark.
If katie can prove that the term "Katie" has been registered as a trade mark for herself, she should have the right to own it, and, IMHO, she has
more right to claim the name for her life's work, than a publisher and a book.
That is NOT the limiting factor for whether or not it would be able to reach orbital velocities - the issue would be whether or not it could carry enough fuel to maintain trust long enough (or whether the design can accomodate changes to allow it to). Once you're out of the gravity well, ANY sustained trust will eventually allow you to reach orbital velocities if you can carry enough fuel, and it is by no means given that low trust (and hence lower ascent speeds) wouldn't be more economical.
Discussing speed during ascent as some sort of indicator of whether or not the technology can bring us into orbit is meaningless.
I'm sorry to disagree.
I agree that, if you can maintain any thrust long enough, you will achieve orbit. Well, let me put it this way, if you can keep thrust long enough, you can get to Alpha Centaury.
But that is an academic issue that has nothing to do with SS1 or any of today's spacecraft.
I'm sorry, but today's spacecraft, including SS1, are of the type of one big push, not continuous thrust. And for this specific kind of spacecraft everything is the final speed at MECO. That's why you see lost of people talking about it, and that's why the speed is the first thing in all the panels and calculations. I agree that in theory is not necessary, but the reality of the space shuttle, the soyuz and SS1 is that, if X speed is not reached at MECO, well, you are going back down.
I say this because it might clear some questions, and explain why we insist on this. I look forward to hear your comment.
First, I'm a pilot, and for a pilot, attitude is just one simple thing:
"Attitude is the aircraft's pitch and roll angles relative to the ground."
Second, are we really any closer to space?
The X15 from the 50's flew at more than Mach 6. And that was with technology of the 50'. Since traveling to space is all about speed, is this flight any significant?
Any good stable orbit requires at least Mach 28, and that is well below the speed required for interplanetary travel.
SS1 reached 62miles, that's about 3 times what a U2 or SR71 can reach, but those are airplanes that can also fly for hours. Orbiting thingees usually fly at 130+ miles at more than 7000 meters per sec. So, why is this flight any significant?
I guess it is significant because of the way it was founded. And that's incredible enough but, I'm still not feeling any close to walking on the moon any time soon.
Wait, wait.... earth orbit is achived by speed, not height.
Once you achieve orbital speed, you are in orbit.
The only reason you need height, is because the atmospehere gets on the way. In the moon you can
orbit at any altitude.
Space Ship one is not even close to orbital speeds. Orbit requires something equivalent to MACH 28.0
Its just a very heigh jump, thats it.
Impressive, never the less....
Slashdot Mirror
Hello, Im sorry to disagree.
For a minority of application developers and other more esoteric developers, the ability to run the same OS against different platforms is very important, and it simplifies things.
But, here, we are comparing linux, not from the professional developer point of view, but from the point of view of the 99% other computer users in regular businesses and at home. What is the advantage for them ?
I can agree with the article that, given the current advancements in computer technology, regular users dont need to fiddle with Solaris, Linux or whatever to get any important return on investment. For them, design stability, consistency and suppport are way more important. Windows gives them that.
From this point of view, an OS that wants to be so universal will never be the best on any single platform. Therefore, Linux will never be better than windows, if we are talking about Inteles alone.
-Ale
This is like suggesting that we shall not procreate because our children could kill us.
I think that you have seen too many movies. Getting to the point where some AI could
kill humanity is a dream far away from inventing AI itself.
We are just speculating about AI, and the incredible implications by having just a small
box talking..... Think about it, sociology, philosophy, religion all of them will change for
just having ONE box thinking.
The reality is that AI is not so simple. Believing that we can just go and make humanoid
like machines that not only reason like us, but model reality in the same terms as us, so
that we can just talk to them like regular people is naïve.
We have to understand that the first AI is going to be very difficult to understand, since
we will have vastly different ways to interpret reality, just because our different
"Architecture". If the latest studies in philosophy have told us something, is that our
concept of reality is vague and very influenced by what we want it to be, and what it is
useful to be. This is based on many factors, much of which we don't even understand.
I believe that just the study of an AI, and its implication on our current theories of
cognition, metaphysics and ontology will take years. To be able to understand it enough
to be able to use it for practical purposes, and then for the military to put them in a
position that can risk human beings is even farther away.
In conclusion, AI is more just than a technology, it would be like discovering
extraterrestrial life, and I am sure that, by the time we can control it and use it, we will be
well aware of its risks and how to manage them.
-Alejo
I would go a little bit further. It is not only that _escaping from the universe_ does not make sense, but also, I think that _universe_ does not make sense. We are making the same mistakes that did not allow people to understand that the world was round, or that the sun was the center of the solar system.
I believe we are wrong assuming we understand the characteristics of the universe, and even more wrong, assuming that we can do something about it. A time-bound, space-bound universe is absurd. Time-bounded means not infinite, if so, then we live in something within the universe. In other words, if universe is everything, it is all time and all space; it cannot have a beginning or a size.
It feels like we live inside something with space and time bounds, but that does not mean that the universe has a beginning or an end. In addition, assuming these bounds exist, it does not mean that what ever is beyond is the same as the space we live in. Assuming that, is ludicrous, but more dangerous than that, it limits our imagination.... Just like assuming that the earth is flat will not allow you to think about traveling around the world, or assuming that the earth is the center of the universe will not let you understand the mechanics that govern the movement of the planets.
I propose we return to Kant. What we see is not only limited by our senses, but also transformed to our terms for understanding. In other words, space boundaries, time boundaries, they all are very useful things to help us understand life on earth, and we need to apply these concepts to live, but they may be artifacts of our mind, just like a flat earth or an absolute clock. Let us imagine that applying size and beginning to the universe is wrong as well, just as flatness does not apply to earth, and moving around does not apply to the sun. What does this mean? It means that these bounds exist in our minds, but may not apply to _universe_.
But then, what is there, before time.. after the last star..
These limits are there in our mind, that uses time limits and size limits to understand the universe. We cannot see beyond, or before, because we do not know how to see beyond, or before. We don't need a larger telescope, we don't need a more precise clock. The answer is there, in front of us, but we cannot see it.... yet. Just like a telescope would not have helped the ancients to see the end of the earth, because there isn't any. Maybe, we cannot see the beginning of the universe, because there isn't any.
What we need is a new Galileo, a new Copernicus, to come forward and discover concepts beyond classic space and time, to teach us how to see beyond and before.
Alejo
Hydrogen as an energy source... ??
Maybe I am missing something, but the fact that hydrogen combustion is very
efficient its great for rockets or cars, that are weight concerned, but that does not mean it is an energy _source_.
When people say "If we could find a cheap way to extract hydrogen..." well, sorry,
but that's the problem. Hydrogen can serve to store energy efficiently, but there is
no free hydrogen on earth, so it is not an energy _source_.
Its basic thermodynamics, yep, you get a lot from combining hydrogen with oxygen,
but if we do not have free hydrogen we will _never_ have but the difference between
what we obtain minus the energy required to get the hydrogen in the first place.
Now, this is not a technological limitation, it's a law of physics.
The reason why we all love oil its because, although dirty and smelly, its there
underground for you to pump it. Now, if there was free hydrogen underground....
Then it would be an energy source.
My two cents.
Weight sensors under the tarmac ?
I dont know about those, but that seems expensive and complicated.
Here in NJ, in the middle of no where, many lights have radar sensors.
You can see them, they are like little comeras pointing at you, but with no lens.
How do I know they are radar? Cause they mess up with radar detectors.
Actually, you can correlate the stop of the beeping whit the light turning green.
There are many all over, and they have been there for the last three years at least. ( age of my detector
3,389.61 USD !!!
I can build something like that for 2000 +/-....
No way, I rather buy expensive fans !!
The 'ick' factor?
Maybe, in part, but its the same the other way around.
Look at the news these days...
Are we the best god could do??
I think that that is way more dispappointing, and "Iky".
I believe that, to think that god just created a
simple set of rules that are the source of
all nature, is way more difficult and beautiful.
My 2 cents
While I think that programmers are "evolving", the
analogy with "Blacksmith and the
Bookkeeper" is not right.
Bookkeepers, blacksmiths, even secretaries are
disappearing because their jobs can be automated and computers are taking over.
Programmers are disappearing because of a different reason. It is not because computers are
taking over us; to this day no computer can write a program or fix a bug.
I believe that the problem is that the software is
becoming so complex that what could have been done by one-person years ago, takes a team
these days. I remember that in 1991 I wrote several systems like inventory managers, stuff
like that. Today you require testers, DBA expert, GUI designers...
I think it is more like what happened to the
aviation industry. In the 1900 you could build your own airplane, there were people building
airplanes all over the world. Today, only a few companies can do that,
and the demand for airplane-building skills is gone. Well, not gone,
its just that it has changed, now you have to specialize in some area, you can not know ALL what
is required to build an airplane. ( well, unless you are Burt Rutan)
I think that software is evolving the same.
Eventually we will have to specialize in GUI, or DB or whatever. The generic programmer is not
disappearing, just evolving. ( Read with Hannibal Lecters accent. )
My 2 cents...
-Ale
Missdesigned sensor ???
This is BS, I design stuff all the time, thats not
a design issue, its so simple, they just didnt
test it!!!
Its a quality assurance issue. And if you dig deeper, not even quality processs issue, but a general
oranization philosophy problem.
This is just another victim to the quick, dirty and cheap....
I see that all the time in software.
Anyway, I cant believe this, they just didnt make an integrated test of the stupid thing.
Just a kick was all what was reuired to test that.
Just like the mars lander, a simple simulation of the whole
flight could have prevented its destruction.
How many failures will it take to learn the reality ->
"Quick and dirty" is an oxymoron!
Waiittt a minute....
Unfortunately, NASA's X-15 didnt come out of the blue.
The X-15 was the next step in a ladder that had three original steps:
1) The X-1
2) The lifting bodies (M2-F2,M2-F3,HL-10,X-24A and lastly the X-24B)
3) X-15
First X-1 was used to learn supersonic flight,
then the lifting bodies proved that a low lift
non powered aircraft could by flown, and landed, safely.
We need to add those to the list.
Woooo, congratulations to all... impressive. But with a reminder that this is not easy. I just want to point that, after what happen, its clear that the design and construction of SS1 is one of the greatest of all time When I saw the first complete roll, when the surfaces ran out of air, my heart just stopped, I was just waiting for a major structural failure. If he had not been able to keep the longitude axis straight, the twisting effect would have shattered the aircraft to pieces. Let us not forget that an X-15 was lost this way, and the pilot killed. Indeed, this was impressive.
Yes, 10 million per "launch".
Problem here is not the operational cost,
is the research and develop cost.
For example, for 20K you can get a Ford Saber,
and oeprate it for under 10 bucks a trip.
Sure, but the development cost was close to
a billion for several years.
Thats the problem.
-Vmax
Im amazed by the number of people supporting the
Canadian Arrow project.
But, if you ask me, as a pilot, I would never
volunteer for that thing. It has too many single points of failure.
Somthing more like the SS1 has much better chances of failing, and still bringing you back.
Im not personally against them, and I
surely wish them good luck. But just look at the
engine. Just the turbopump is more complex than SS1
.
Make no mistake, the few minutes after blast off, at low alt, are its Achilles heel.
Just like any other rocket....
* Guidance puter failure at low alt = crash
* Engine failure at low alt = crash
* Parachute failure = crash
Maybe i am bias because I am a pilot, but I rather
fly something that I can bring back with no
puter, no parachute, or no power.
Just my two cents. God bless both teams.
Man, I disagree.
I do not think google, if indeed they alter results, is doing the right thing.
This is not about respecting other countries laws.
Otherwise people would complaint likewise for
german laws, and others.
But we are talking about a country with a proven
record of basic human rights violations,
that range for forbidding religious beliefs
to torture and rape.
What we argue here is that, google, if in fact this is true, is helping this going on.
This is about helping a goverment to abuse power, and closing the door on other peoples rights.
Thats way this could be wrong, VERY wrong.
Well, thats the problem with outsourcing...
People argue that we need only to keep the high pay jobs, that designs are still made in the US...
Yes, but for how long ????
College grads in the US work at BurgerKing, while
in India they work at Microsoft.
So, its just a matter of time before the
high-pay jobs move to India... and then what?
Then we will start moving to India!!!!????
I dont care who, Bush or Kerry, but someone needs to do something, pronto.
Maybe because we dont cut to the point, and we keep arguing.
I think you are 100% percent right, but....
Whether JAVA can be optimized, whether Hot Spot can out perform C++ code......
Thats all nonsense, the real point is simple:
In what language do people think are all those fancy JVMs were written....????
Sure JAVA under hotspot is the fastest language around!!!.... mmmhhh, wait, was HotSpot written in java then
Hellooooo....
You have a point there.
At least price-wise, I can see that, after adding up what you pay for all the normal instruments in a regular GA airplane, probably its about the same.
But, at the same time you hit on one problem.
-Reliability
If the vacuum quits, you know you have the turn coordinator, a completely separate piece of equipment, with a completely different power source.
And, if you need to replace it, you only replace that part, not the whole panel!
I have seen LCD's die on me. What will you do then? IS that going to last 10 > 20 years like
a good old VOR indicator, or a gyro compass?
I dont think so. That is not theri market
There are several practical reasons, not only economical, why this could not be a full gauge replacement,and, anyway, I dont think this is the intent of the designers.
Im just talking for all the GA pilots not flying jet powered Gulfstreams, or almost supersonic Citation Jets, that can not afford this, and have been forgotten by the FAA who only cares about airliners, or looking good infront of Congress.
Since we are not paying a million or two for a gulfstream, or own an airline , the only way we can see this improve is with goverment money.
Dont get me wrong, this technology is great. But, last year there were ZERO deaths in US ariline flights. They have the latest in flight directors, MFDs, radio alts.... thats great.
What is being done for the almost 1000 GA pilots who died that year because of using ancient vaccum designs or >10 year old VORS, just because it take years for the FAA and the industry in general to do something about us ?
My 2 cents, and thats it, cause flying leaves me with not much else
How expesive is it going to be ??????
HSI's are expensive enough that not every one has them...!!!
80%.... I dont think so.
More over, this is so unrealistic, that it really makes me think this is being done by scientists with 0 flight hours, not pilots.
I love flying, and I think the situation is so sad.
The FAA presumes every year of declining accident rates, yes, sure, what they dont tell you is that their pretty charts dont show the also declining number of total pilots every year.
I can see it, by 2020, new mandatory equipment for all IFR flight!!! Great 100 less accidents on its first year....... beacuse 100 less pilots who could nor afford it....
We dont need new fancy computer equipment, we need
to make more efficient what we already have.
We need for airplanes, what Robinson just did for helicopters
Instead of adding fancy equipement NASA should invest
in making current equipment more efficient and cheap!
Most GA airplanes are over 20 years old!!!
The radios are around 5-15 years old on average in a GA airplane, the VOR navigation dates from the second world war!.......
We dont need to add toys to this, we need to fix what we already have.
Im not a rocket scientist either, but, maybe, you are half right.
Theres another weird phenomena that happens during eclipses. Its the light interference patterns. Basically, just before, and after the eclipse, the light reflected in the floor will show interference patterns.
I know this is not a myth, cause I ve seen them. Like an army of snake shadows traveling in parallel. Just for a few secs.
Im wondering, could it be that the gravity waves of the moon and sun get into the same phase and augment or cancel each other when aligned???
At least that happens with light waves, I was at the Mexico eclipse mentioned in the article.
Hopefully someone else has seen them, and can comment. Sorry, got no pics.
Hello, Im not a lawyer, much less a "cyber lawyer".
But I understand that you can claim a domain name if you own a trade mark for it, right ?
Well, I own alejandro.net, and I own a birth cetificate for that since 1972.
If i were a freelance consultant like she is, then
my name would be my trade mark.
If katie can prove that the term "Katie" has been registered as a trade mark for herself, she should have the right to own it, and, IMHO, she has
more right to claim the name for her life's work, than a publisher and a book.
-Alex
Hello, this is a test of the
We will pay $100 to every one who replies to this and help testing.
Also, we will pay $10 for each person who replies below your posting.
Thanks!
Now that's a good idea.
As a platform for launching satellites, well, you still have to reach orbital speeds, but as a super fast intercontinental transport, that could work.
SS1 may not be able to fly that fast, but with no drag from the atmosphere; you could fly much farther away. And with a great view!!!
I think that that has a great potential, and could revolutionize travel.
That is NOT the limiting factor for whether or not it would be able to reach orbital velocities - the issue would be whether or not it could carry enough fuel to maintain trust long enough (or whether the design can accomodate changes to allow it to). Once you're out of the gravity well, ANY sustained trust will eventually allow you to reach orbital velocities if you can carry enough fuel, and it is by no means given that low trust (and hence lower ascent speeds) wouldn't be more economical.
Discussing speed during ascent as some sort of indicator of whether or not the technology can bring us into orbit is meaningless.
I'm sorry to disagree.
I agree that, if you can maintain any thrust long enough, you will achieve orbit. Well, let me put it this way, if you can keep thrust long enough, you can get to Alpha Centaury. But that is an academic issue that has nothing to do with SS1 or any of today's spacecraft.
I'm sorry, but today's spacecraft, including SS1, are of the type of one big push, not continuous thrust. And for this specific kind of spacecraft everything is the final speed at MECO. That's why you see lost of people talking about it, and that's why the speed is the first thing in all the panels and calculations. I agree that in theory is not necessary, but the reality of the space shuttle, the soyuz and SS1 is that, if X speed is not reached at MECO, well, you are going back down.
I say this because it might clear some questions, and explain why we insist on this. I look forward to hear your comment.
-Alex
Hello
First, I'm a pilot, and for a pilot, attitude is just one simple thing:
"Attitude is the aircraft's pitch and roll angles relative to the ground."
Second, are we really any closer to space?
The X15 from the 50's flew at more than Mach 6. And that was with technology of the 50'. Since traveling to space is all about speed, is this flight any significant?
Any good stable orbit requires at least Mach 28, and that is well below the speed required for interplanetary travel.
SS1 reached 62miles, that's about 3 times what a U2 or SR71 can reach, but those are airplanes that can also fly for hours. Orbiting thingees usually fly at 130+ miles at more than 7000 meters per sec. So, why is this flight any significant?
I guess it is significant because of the way it was founded. And that's incredible enough but, I'm still not feeling any close to walking on the moon any time soon.
Wait, wait.... earth orbit is achived by speed, not height.
Once you achieve orbital speed, you are in orbit. The only reason you need height, is because the atmospehere gets on the way. In the moon you can orbit at any altitude.
Space Ship one is not even close to orbital speeds. Orbit requires something equivalent to MACH 28.0
Its just a very heigh jump, thats it. Impressive, never the less....