Do you really think we would have an open border if super-cheap labor was *draining* the economy?
It is because, with a naive surface examination such as yours, it looks like "them damn immigrants are just SUCKING THE LIFE OUT OF AMERICA!!!" that policy makers pretend to be doing anything about it at all.
No. They really aren't sucking our lifeblood. In fact, they are part of the reason our economy works at all. If we suddenly started to enforce all the laws currently on the books... well, when the price of bread went to 5 bucks (and god help you if you want to make a salad) I'm sure there would be some changes, and fast.
On the counterpoint, it has already been said in sibling posts; high-wage jobs are what we *WANT* for _American_ workers. American workers don't send 1/2 their salary (after taxes) to far away places (in general). They buy homes, cars, take their kids to the doctor, mortgage their souls to MasterCard etc etc.
Now, I'm rather cynical here; I believe that we are a country made of immigrants, and it would be very hypocritical of me to demand a closed door policy. Sadly, others are not so 'open' in their thoughts, even though few Americans have more than a handful of generations behind them. I'm 4th Gen, myself. How about you, reader?
What should be done is: Take this 1000 line programme. Add on 5 lines. Add on 20 lines. Add on 100 lines.
Hear hear!
Although, I think it should be 10K lines. Of poorly commented code. And it should be real, honest to god code; grab it from some department or other. Most (I would imagine *ALL*) engineering departments have a number of 'small' codes that do useful things.
If aerospace FORTRAN codes from the mid 70s don't teach a code-monkey-to-be WHY the goto statement should at LEAST be well commented (if it must be used at all), *NOTHING* will.
Errm, I could be wrong here, but don't think I am:
An object smaller than the wavelength of light you are 'looking at' CAN'T be that color.
It would have to reflect that wavelength of light; unlikely.
Oh, wait. Just remembered: You can't look at an object (structure) that is smaller than the wavelength of whatever you are using to illuminate said object with. Hence things like electron microscopes; resolution is limited by wavelength, diffraction limit just made it *WORSE* than a single wavelength.
So, this would allow you to see structures that are *JUST OVER* a wavelength of, say,(pure) 'green' light in size, probably a bit larger.
useful? Yeah, I suppose it could be in some cases.
"Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house" - Robert A. Heinlein
Re:EMR from high tension power lines?
on
Quantum Wires
·
· Score: 1
The electronics revolution has given us the means to step DC power almost as easily and as efficiently (more efficiently?) than an AC inductor.
Also, DC in the home is a *bad* idea. Although I suppose if one had ground fault interrupt throughout the home it should be no more dangerous than today's juice.
A few volts DC is enough to kill you; it locks your muscles and thus causes you to continue to hold on to the wire that you grabbed in the first place. Hence why all electric fences in the united states are required by law to be pulsed: kids (and some adults) would grab the wire while climbing over the fence, and it would lock their hand on the wire. Unable to let go, the would take many minutes to die from low-voltage current.
Re:EMR from high tension power lines?
on
Quantum Wires
·
· Score: 1
DC for high power long haul
Yeah, I was going to point that out. For reference, there is at least one, and I think there are actually two high voltage DC lines running from the BPA (Oregon/Washington dams) to southern California.
Problem is, current technology seems to limit DC to *ONE WAY* transfer of electricity. So you need to know that the power is always going to be flowing from A to B, and never from B to A.
Obviously this has nothing to do with the wire itself; I'm wagering that the step-up/step-down equipment is just really expensive, and the benefit of DC is currently only seen when you only have to buy one set of said equipment. But I don't really know why. In fact, I'm not even sure that this is true for newer installs. Pretty sure it is though.
nooooooooooo, actually, the concept of superconductivity was proposed LONG before we had ever achieved it. And we didn't know about the Meissner effect until around that time.
'Tis defined as transfer without loss: zero resistance. The only *question* would be to what is it superconductive to? Electricity, heat, mice etc.
Science fiction usually concentrated on superconductive materials that would transfer heat without resistance; reality has given us materials that transfer electrons (or whatever happens in that tangled mess of physics). I'm rather uncertain as to the heat-transfer characteristics of the superconductors we've got today; I'm thinking that loss-less heat transfer would violate a couple of laws of thermodynamics, but I would be glad to be wrong here.
ust don't try that with _CD_s, because the "data" layer is on top of the disk and you can damage _that_ while trying to polish "mirror" surface on the bottom.
For CDs just use your fingers/thumbs. Often times just rubbing your thumb over the surface of the disk hard enough to generate a little heat will smooth out enough of the crap to make a copy of the disk. In reality what you are doing is *probably* filling the *small* scratches with the oils etc from your fingers. Whatever, I've managed to recover some info this way in the past. Certainly isn't the heat that does it!;~)
I generally don't even bother to wash the disk after trying this; just toss it in and rip the data off, then throw the disk away.
Also, using CD drives *AND SOFTWAREs* that don't blow is a major aid. Friend of mine had her car broken into and the dumbass kid doing the robbing tried to pry the face of the CD player. Well, the disk inside got the crap scratched out of it. Playing it on most CD players produced the most disturbing skiping and white noise imaginable. Trying to rip it using my GFs PC simply failed.
Using my creative labs 16x8x4(IIRC) CD burner and Nero worked great. Took FOUR HOURS for nero to read the disk, but it worked; all the white *POP* sounds were cleared up. I'm sure there was a significant loss in fidelity at the byte level, but not noticeable in practice.
Thanks, I wasn't positive that we used it here in the US; the number of 'carrier landings' I've had rather made me suspect that we DID have it though;~)
If you are serious, it's a question of safety factors and cost; e.g. letting the autopilot land it is a free option -- if the shuttle is already dead and gone, why not cross our fingers and give it a shot?
I said this earlier, but my guess is that the reason to ditch it without even attempting to auto-land it is based on the fact that there are no US landing sites where the shuttle wouldn't' have to cross a city while coming down. Thus, the potential for major damage.
Re landing gear: I heard it while in classes for Aerospace engineering, and I have repeated it as well; however, after looking around for links earlier I am wondering if is true. I'll ask my NASA friends and see what comes of it. After looking around it looks like the MC takes over just before or after crossing below mach.
The GP is just full of crap and should be marked '-5 Trying to be impressive' or something.: Because landing the shuttle is hard. We can't even reliably auto-land a passenger plane, and they're incredibly forgiving airframces.
Err, yes we can. When we implemented autopilot landings the system was so precise that the engineers had to go back and randomize the landing area; every single landing was basically right on top of the last, pulverizing that area of the runway. Not saying that we use these on commercial flights yet, but the technology is out there. The shuttle is an incredibly unforgiving airframe -- it comes in along a 1:1 glide path. Unpowered. At about twice the speed of sound.
The System *IS* fully automated, that I know for sure. When humans take over the argument is that there is no redundancy in the onboard comp.
The Space shuttle L/D (lift to drag, which equals glide ratio) is about 4 for most of the flight.
Landing speed is a little over 200 nmph.
Did I mention that the shuttle has no maneuverability beyond that provided by its control surfaces? Once committed, it's going to land; there's no second chance.
Well, ok. That is certainly true.
If we tried to bring it down on autopilot, it would only make a really big crater.
Beh. Even assuming that we don't use autopilot because it isn't capable, which isn't the case, the human pilot is only in control for about 4 minutes, and only when the shuttle has dropped below about 600nmph.
What is interesting to me is that they want to ditch the *possibly* damaged shuttle.
Why? The programmers lost a fight to fully automate the landing; but the code is in the machine. Just have the damn computer land the thing. It already applies the brakes! If I recall correctly, pretty much the only thing the pilot gets to do on landing a the shuttle is tell the computer to put the gear down. Maybe parent can confirm/deny this for me?:~)
Not sure about flight paths crossing over cities; I suppose that is probably the driving concern about tossing the shuttly in the water. That, and how would it look if the damn thing actually landed fine?;~)
To *install*. Not use. Often as not it is the installers fault, not the underlying prog. Install Anywhere, etc.
A number of installer progs just arbitrarily crap out if the installer isn't being run in Admin mode. There have been a few times where I litterally unzipped the install package (after it denied me permission to install the softare) and the software ran fine.
Although I am very pissed at Sun about their damn install routine for windows; never asks where you want to but the JRE when you install the JDK, doesn't remove its huge-ass installer from the temp directory (a hidden folder in personal-settings, by the way!), and dumps a bunch of shit into the registry that doesn't need to be there *AND* installs their bloody auto-update prog without any notice.
Not things I expect when I install a DEVELOPERS kit -- typically a fairly computer-literate group; no real need to 'dumb down' the installer for us.
for 'nix its like 'unzip (where?)'.... then go! The school I was going to was running 1.2, so I just installed my own instance of 1.4. It was grand. *sigh*
When it came to windows, I once set everything up on a pen drive; even textpad. It worked... was a bit slow, but it worked (had to use absolute paths for compile, or run a.bat file at startup everytime)
But it *may* cause alzheimer's like symptoms. Interesting corlation on the number of cases of diabetics having odd symptoms BEFORE saccharin amd the number of cases AFTER the introduction of saccharin.
A concern of mine, as a member of my immediate family has Type II. Regardless, not passing out from elevated blood sugar levels (100% chance) certainly beats a chance at palsy and forgetfulness.
And of course, now we are the test subjects of a new version, sucralose! Which may or may not be any better; only time will tell. HOPEFULLY the fact that it is derived from sugar is actually a benefit; however, I've made rocket fuel out of sugar before, so I'm not all that reassured.
Hell, I don't even want to have to cast it; what the hell else would I want? Why the hell would I try to cram an integer into a custom datatype?
Sadly.... ah fuckit.
Looks nice. I wish this all took less mental overhead; not saying it is *hard* persay -- just so much crap in the attic to pull down, dust off and use every time we need to write a decent prog.
We really are the mages of our time -- waving our hands in funny, highly scripted ways and producing... well, hopefully something interesting, but generally... I digress.
The above paragraph is language neutral -- we all have our own rituals. I am not referring to goats, silver daggers and moonlight here either people.
Yes -- the parent is probably a good option, especially if you can find all the software available for purchase.
Another alternative would be relative position device* such as a gyroscope based nav system like those used on commercial aircraft. These are certainly available commecially, and even if you only buy the hardware and write your own code you should have few problems.... just take care to avoid that divide by zero if you use eigen matrices to do the rotation sequences;~)
If you really do get stuck, consider seeking help from Purdue's Industrial Engineering department; I'm sure that with a few e-mails you would be able to find someone that would sell you their book on this very subject;~) Time and motion studies being a major piece of the industrial engineering field and all.
Good luck!
*Releative to whatever your start point is -- they determine position based on accelerations experienced and can be *extremely* accurate. Possibly to a mm as in the parent's case, but certainly to within a foot for a forklift.
Purdue is looking at PDEs (Pulse Detonation Engines) currently. PDEs operate by detonation, rather than straight combustion*. An explosive gas (most of them are) is mixed with air at such and such a percentage in a 'thrust tube' -- which is just a long pipe, relative to diameter -- then ignited in such a fashion that the shock wave is propogated down the type and out the back. Cool, cutting edge stuff. Very high potential for future engines. Very future -- like many years future;~)
As to true hybrids.... yeah, that's not too likely. Energy density requirements are so incredibly high that, short of a complete revolution in technology, there really isn't even a point in doing the math. It is that bad. Don't even need an envelope, its just BAD;~)
Cars put any extra weight on wheels -- not a big deal. Adding weight on a plane increases drag ('lift induced drag' would be the key search phrase). So batteries are just right out. As are todays gyros/flywheels. Solar.. no. Hydrogen? Fun idea. No. The compression you would need on that would make a plane into a massive bomb waiting to happen -- 9/11 crashes would have leveled a few square blocks, no joke.
You are right on the 'we need to find alternatives' comment, in a general sort of way: increasing efficiency is currently our best route to this. Sadly, Boeing being a typical behemeth corporation decided to cancel the only novel approach that has been considered in decades: the canard based aircraft. Such configurations generally reduce the amount of drag on an aircraft by a very large percentage.
I am an engineer. Aerospace, at that. Not practicing however, so take it for what its worth (which is very little).
*I reserve the right to demonstrate upon someone's body the difference, should said someone claim there isn't one
Copy your own key and send it flying through the detectors on a model rocket. Get HUGE speeding ticket. Sue;~)
Or make hundreds of copies and put them on every car you walk by.
Or copy the tag on the neighbor's Prius and drag-race down main in your 'vet.
Mmmmm. Get a set of CBs. Make a copy of your own tag. Have friend stand next to one 'monitoring station' (B) and you stand next to the one before it (A). Send tag through B 1/2 second after your tag goes through A. If they are a mile apart, your speed will appear to be 7200mph!!! That'll make the papers.
- 'hdparm -I' on one of my discs showed exactly the entries they were talking about.
Proof positive that it isn't an April fools joke... if it were, the command would have initiated a low level format of your HD, causing hearty chuckles all around.;)
On this particular rebate (and probably most) sending the required stuff to get the rebate meant that you could no longer make a warranty claim. The warranty of the item required the original UPC, and so did the rebate. So you were given the choice of $x back -OR- the warranty for the product.
I vaguely recall this not being legal -- same kind of deal as the one that says your warranty cannot depend on you sending in a registration form....
"Currently, women workers make up nearly 10 percent of the construction industry or more than 900,000 nationally"
Worked in new home construction from 12 to about 18, never once saw a woman framer, plumber, electrition, roofer, sider, landscaper....
Architect... check. The company that we got plans from did have a few women on staff, one or maybe two in design positions.
Also, we did use a cabinent crew that had a woman in it.
Soooo, 2 or three out of a thousand? Two thousand? Something like that.
Those stats are BS. I'd guess we are talking sign-holders, secretaries, accountants-in-the-construction-office-that-don't- think-of-themselves-as-accountants-because-they-do n't-have-a-degree, etc.
The stats should be expressed more like '[...] 40% of x, a construction related field'.
Two 'FWYs': 1: I am not expressing an opinion as to whether or not this is a good or a bad thing. 2: I worked in Portland Oregon, which is pretty much going to be the place you are most likely to find a woman in a sterotypically male field. Except logging.
PS FYI #3: Logging comment was a joke. If you are from Portland you laughed, admit it.
Slashdot Mirror
rather than a net drain thereon?
*sigh*
Do you really think we would have an open border if super-cheap labor was *draining* the economy?
It is because, with a naive surface examination such as yours, it looks like "them damn immigrants are just SUCKING THE LIFE OUT OF AMERICA!!!" that policy makers pretend to be doing anything about it at all.
No. They really aren't sucking our lifeblood. In fact, they are part of the reason our economy works at all. If we suddenly started to enforce all the laws currently on the books... well, when the price of bread went to 5 bucks (and god help you if you want to make a salad) I'm sure there would be some changes, and fast.
On the counterpoint, it has already been said in sibling posts; high-wage jobs are what we *WANT* for _American_ workers. American workers don't send 1/2 their salary (after taxes) to far away places (in general). They buy homes, cars, take their kids to the doctor, mortgage their souls to MasterCard etc etc.
Now, I'm rather cynical here; I believe that we are a country made of immigrants, and it would be very hypocritical of me to demand a closed door policy. Sadly, others are not so 'open' in their thoughts, even though few Americans have more than a handful of generations behind them. I'm 4th Gen, myself. How about you, reader?
Cheers,
What should be done is: Take this 1000 line programme. Add on 5 lines. Add on 20 lines. Add on 100 lines.
Hear hear!
Although, I think it should be 10K lines. Of poorly commented code. And it should be real, honest to god code; grab it from some department or other. Most (I would imagine *ALL*) engineering departments have a number of 'small' codes that do useful things.
If aerospace FORTRAN codes from the mid 70s don't teach a code-monkey-to-be WHY the goto statement should at LEAST be well commented (if it must be used at all), *NOTHING* will.
There's no reason this product can't take out crystal reports
Thats an insult!!!
Crystal reports could be replaced by crack addicted squirrels with pencils. Actually, I think I like this idea. My life would be so much easier...
Sorry. Anyone that codes to CR will understand.
Interesting thoughts... ones that are over my head :~)
:~)
Thanks for the correction
Errm, I could be wrong here, but don't think I am:
An object smaller than the wavelength of light you are 'looking at' CAN'T be that color.
It would have to reflect that wavelength of light; unlikely.
Oh, wait. Just remembered: You can't look at an object (structure) that is smaller than the wavelength of whatever you are using to illuminate said object with. Hence things like electron microscopes; resolution is limited by wavelength, diffraction limit just made it *WORSE* than a single wavelength.
So, this would allow you to see structures that are *JUST OVER* a wavelength of, say,(pure) 'green' light in size, probably a bit larger.
useful? Yeah, I suppose it could be in some cases.
Cheers
"Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house" - Robert A. Heinlein
The electronics revolution has given us the means to step DC power almost as easily and as efficiently (more efficiently?) than an AC inductor.
Also, DC in the home is a *bad* idea. Although I suppose if one had ground fault interrupt throughout the home it should be no more dangerous than today's juice.
A few volts DC is enough to kill you; it locks your muscles and thus causes you to continue to hold on to the wire that you grabbed in the first place. Hence why all electric fences in the united states are required by law to be pulsed: kids (and some adults) would grab the wire while climbing over the fence, and it would lock their hand on the wire. Unable to let go, the would take many minutes to die from low-voltage current.
DC for high power long haul
Yeah, I was going to point that out. For reference, there is at least one, and I think there are actually two high voltage DC lines running from the BPA (Oregon/Washington dams) to southern California.
Problem is, current technology seems to limit DC to *ONE WAY* transfer of electricity. So you need to know that the power is always going to be flowing from A to B, and never from B to A.
Obviously this has nothing to do with the wire itself; I'm wagering that the step-up/step-down equipment is just really expensive, and the benefit of DC is currently only seen when you only have to buy one set of said equipment. But I don't really know why. In fact, I'm not even sure that this is true for newer installs. Pretty sure it is though.
nooooooooooo, actually, the concept of superconductivity was proposed LONG before we had ever achieved it. And we didn't know about the Meissner effect until around that time.
'Tis defined as transfer without loss: zero resistance. The only *question* would be to what is it superconductive to? Electricity, heat, mice etc.
Science fiction usually concentrated on superconductive materials that would transfer heat without resistance; reality has given us materials that transfer electrons (or whatever happens in that tangled mess of physics). I'm rather uncertain as to the heat-transfer characteristics of the superconductors we've got today; I'm thinking that loss-less heat transfer would violate a couple of laws of thermodynamics, but I would be glad to be wrong here.
ust don't try that with _CD_s, because the "data" layer is on top of the disk and you can damage _that_ while trying to polish "mirror" surface on the bottom.
;~)
For CDs just use your fingers/thumbs. Often times just rubbing your thumb over the surface of the disk hard enough to generate a little heat will smooth out enough of the crap to make a copy of the disk. In reality what you are doing is *probably* filling the *small* scratches with the oils etc from your fingers. Whatever, I've managed to recover some info this way in the past. Certainly isn't the heat that does it!
I generally don't even bother to wash the disk after trying this; just toss it in and rip the data off, then throw the disk away.
Also, using CD drives *AND SOFTWAREs* that don't blow is a major aid. Friend of mine had her car broken into and the dumbass kid doing the robbing tried to pry the face of the CD player. Well, the disk inside got the crap scratched out of it. Playing it on most CD players produced the most disturbing skiping and white noise imaginable. Trying to rip it using my GFs PC simply failed.
Using my creative labs 16x8x4(IIRC) CD burner and Nero worked great. Took FOUR HOURS for nero to read the disk, but it worked; all the white *POP* sounds were cleared up. I'm sure there was a significant loss in fidelity at the byte level, but not noticeable in practice.
Thanks, I wasn't positive that we used it here in the US; the number of 'carrier landings' I've had rather made me suspect that we DID have it though ;~)
Would be rather funny, wouldn't it?
If you are serious, it's a question of safety factors and cost; e.g. letting the autopilot land it is a free option -- if the shuttle is already dead and gone, why not cross our fingers and give it a shot?
I said this earlier, but my guess is that the reason to ditch it without even attempting to auto-land it is based on the fact that there are no US landing sites where the shuttle wouldn't' have to cross a city while coming down. Thus, the potential for major damage.
Cheers,
Re landing gear: I heard it while in classes for Aerospace engineering, and I have repeated it as well; however, after looking around for links earlier I am wondering if is true. I'll ask my NASA friends and see what comes of it. After looking around it looks like the MC takes over just before or after crossing below mach.
The GP is just full of crap and should be marked '-5 Trying to be impressive' or something.:
Because landing the shuttle is hard.
We can't even reliably auto-land
a passenger plane, and they're incredibly forgiving airframces.
Err, yes we can. When we implemented autopilot landings the system was so precise that the engineers had to go back and randomize the landing area; every single landing was basically right on top of the last, pulverizing that area of the runway. Not saying that we use these on commercial flights yet, but the technology is out there.
The shuttle is an incredibly unforgiving airframe -- it comes in along a 1:1 glide path. Unpowered. At about twice the speed of sound.
The System *IS* fully automated, that I know for sure. When humans take over the argument is that there is no redundancy in the onboard comp.
The Space shuttle L/D (lift to drag, which equals glide ratio) is about 4 for most of the flight.
Landing speed is a little over 200 nmph.
Did I mention that the shuttle has no maneuverability beyond that provided by its control surfaces? Once committed, it's going to land; there's no second chance.
Well, ok. That is certainly true.
If we tried to bring it down on autopilot, it would only make a really big crater.
Beh. Even assuming that we don't use autopilot because it isn't capable, which isn't the case, the human pilot is only in control for about 4 minutes, and only when the shuttle has dropped below about 600nmph.
What is interesting to me is that they want to ditch the *possibly* damaged shuttle.
:~)
;~)
Why? The programmers lost a fight to fully automate the landing; but the code is in the machine. Just have the damn computer land the thing. It already applies the brakes! If I recall correctly, pretty much the only thing the pilot gets to do on landing a the shuttle is tell the computer to put the gear down. Maybe parent can confirm/deny this for me?
Not sure about flight paths crossing over cities; I suppose that is probably the driving concern about tossing the shuttly in the water. That, and how would it look if the damn thing actually landed fine?
To *install*. Not use. Often as not it is the installers fault, not the underlying prog. Install Anywhere, etc.
.bat file at startup everytime)
A number of installer progs just arbitrarily crap out if the installer isn't being run in Admin mode. There have been a few times where I litterally unzipped the install package (after it denied me permission to install the softare) and the software ran fine.
Although I am very pissed at Sun about their damn install routine for windows; never asks where you want to but the JRE when you install the JDK, doesn't remove its huge-ass installer from the temp directory (a hidden folder in personal-settings, by the way!), and dumps a bunch of shit into the registry that doesn't need to be there *AND* installs their bloody auto-update prog without any notice.
Not things I expect when I install a DEVELOPERS kit -- typically a fairly computer-literate group; no real need to 'dumb down' the installer for us.
for 'nix its like 'unzip (where?)'.... then go! The school I was going to was running 1.2, so I just installed my own instance of 1.4. It was grand. *sigh*
When it came to windows, I once set everything up on a pen drive; even textpad. It worked... was a bit slow, but it worked (had to use absolute paths for compile, or run a
cheers,
"There is now."
(Stolen from one of the best short stories ever)
But it *may* cause alzheimer's like symptoms. Interesting corlation on the number of cases of diabetics having odd symptoms BEFORE saccharin amd the number of cases AFTER the introduction of saccharin.
A concern of mine, as a member of my immediate family has Type II. Regardless, not passing out from elevated blood sugar levels (100% chance) certainly beats a chance at palsy and forgetfulness.
And of course, now we are the test subjects of a new version, sucralose! Which may or may not be any better; only time will tell. HOPEFULLY the fact that it is derived from sugar is actually a benefit; however, I've made rocket fuel out of sugar before, so I'm not all that reassured.
I'd rather call
MyObject obj = (MyObject)getmydamnobject(Object searchParamA, Object searchParamB);
Hell, I don't even want to have to cast it; what the hell else would I want? Why the hell would I try to cram an integer into a custom datatype?
Sadly.... ah fuckit.
Looks nice. I wish this all took less mental overhead; not saying it is *hard* persay -- just so much crap in the attic to pull down, dust off and use every time we need to write a decent prog.
We really are the mages of our time -- waving our hands in funny, highly scripted ways and producing... well, hopefully something interesting, but generally... I digress.
The above paragraph is language neutral -- we all have our own rituals. I am not referring to goats, silver daggers and moonlight here either people.
Yes -- the parent is probably a good option, especially if you can find all the software available for purchase.
;~)
;~) Time and motion studies being a major piece of the industrial engineering field and all.
Another alternative would be relative position device* such as a gyroscope based nav system like those used on commercial aircraft. These are certainly available commecially, and even if you only buy the hardware and write your own code you should have few problems.... just take care to avoid that divide by zero if you use eigen matrices to do the rotation sequences
If you really do get stuck, consider seeking help from Purdue's Industrial Engineering department; I'm sure that with a few e-mails you would be able to find someone that would sell you their book on this very subject
Good luck!
*Releative to whatever your start point is -- they determine position based on accelerations experienced and can be *extremely* accurate. Possibly to a mm as in the parent's case, but certainly to within a foot for a forklift.
This story has then been perpetuated as 'fact' ever sense. .... only by American high schools ;~)
hmmm. Do school kids in Columbia get taught that Amerigo Vespucci discovered Colombia?
Purdue is looking at PDEs (Pulse Detonation Engines) currently. PDEs operate by detonation, rather than straight combustion*. An explosive gas (most of them are) is mixed with air at such and such a percentage in a 'thrust tube' -- which is just a long pipe, relative to diameter -- then ignited in such a fashion that the shock wave is propogated down the type and out the back. Cool, cutting edge stuff. Very high potential for future engines. Very future -- like many years future;~)
;~)
As to true hybrids.... yeah, that's not too likely. Energy density requirements are so incredibly high that, short of a complete revolution in technology, there really isn't even a point in doing the math. It is that bad. Don't even need an envelope, its just BAD
Cars put any extra weight on wheels -- not a big deal. Adding weight on a plane increases drag ('lift induced drag' would be the key search phrase). So batteries are just right out. As are todays gyros/flywheels. Solar.. no. Hydrogen? Fun idea. No. The compression you would need on that would make a plane into a massive bomb waiting to happen -- 9/11 crashes would have leveled a few square blocks, no joke.
You are right on the 'we need to find alternatives' comment, in a general sort of way: increasing efficiency is currently our best route to this. Sadly, Boeing being a typical behemeth corporation decided to cancel the only novel approach that has been considered in decades: the canard based aircraft. Such configurations generally reduce the amount of drag on an aircraft by a very large percentage.
I am an engineer. Aerospace, at that. Not practicing however, so take it for what its worth (which is very little).
*I reserve the right to demonstrate upon someone's body the difference, should said someone claim there isn't one
Copy your own key and send it flying through the detectors on a model rocket. Get HUGE speeding ticket. Sue ;~)
Or make hundreds of copies and put them on every car you walk by.
Or copy the tag on the neighbor's Prius and drag-race down main in your 'vet.
Mmmmm. Get a set of CBs. Make a copy of your own tag. Have friend stand next to one 'monitoring station' (B) and you stand next to the one before it (A). Send tag through B 1/2 second after your tag goes through A. If they are a mile apart, your speed will appear to be 7200mph!!! That'll make the papers.
- 'hdparm -I' on one of my discs showed exactly the entries they were talking about.
;)
Proof positive that it isn't an April fools joke... if it were, the command would have initiated a low level format of your HD, causing hearty chuckles all around.
On this particular rebate (and probably most) sending the required stuff to get the rebate meant that you could no longer make a warranty claim. The warranty of the item required the original UPC, and so did the rebate. So you were given the choice of $x back -OR- the warranty for the product.
I vaguely recall this not being legal -- same kind of deal as the one that says your warranty cannot depend on you sending in a registration form....
Not certain; anyone?
"Currently, women workers make up nearly 10 percent of the construction industry or more than 900,000 nationally"
- think-of-themselves-as-accountants-because-they-do n't-have-a-degree, etc.
Worked in new home construction from 12 to about 18, never once saw a woman framer, plumber, electrition, roofer, sider, landscaper....
Architect... check. The company that we got plans from did have a few women on staff, one or maybe two in design positions.
Also, we did use a cabinent crew that had a woman in it.
Soooo, 2 or three out of a thousand? Two thousand? Something like that.
Those stats are BS. I'd guess we are talking sign-holders, secretaries, accountants-in-the-construction-office-that-don't
The stats should be expressed more like '[...] 40% of x, a construction related field'.
Two 'FWYs':
1: I am not expressing an opinion as to whether or not this is a good or a bad thing.
2: I worked in Portland Oregon, which is pretty much going to be the place you are most likely to find a woman in a sterotypically male field. Except logging.
PS
FYI #3: Logging comment was a joke. If you are from Portland you laughed, admit it.