First, I do not use any Microsoft products, so I'm not sure what that has to do with anything
does'nt mean anything, maybe your're repeating FUD you heard elsewhere and believe it to be true
Second, is what I said not true?
NOPE Hard drive is plenty fast and the ram is standard DDR SDRAM. And as for flamebait? I don't post anything I don't believe to be true. You're naieve to think that microsoft would not conduct a campaign of lies against competing products!
Bill Gates must really be worried if he has this many minions out desperately trying to convince windows users NOT to switch. You can just see them sitting around the table up in Redmond thinking up negative things to say in online forums. Hmmm.. Your efforts MIGHT save you a coule of points of market share.
See, this MAC is being marketed to people who already have those things. I assume you have a computer? If your monitor is DVI or VGA compatible, it will work! Hell, you can even hook it up to a TV with the optional S video adapter! Your keyboard and mouse must be of the USB variety, but most are these days, and if you can't find them for cheap, you're not trying very hard. Try a swap meet or a flea market (or Ebay) If you don't mind second hand. Or just get an Emac or an Imac. As the Pretenders sang, Stop your sobbin'
When they make it SOOO easy! Their well known security issues, the kludgy software, the shady buisness practices, ect. We all know the litany. Fish in a barrel! Fire away!
There is nothing easier in the world than being a critic, a doubter, a pessimist, a naysayer. Such as those on this forum who cast doubts that spaceship one concept would work and who now doubt that Rutan can even make an orbital vehicle. Well sir, nothing great is ever accomplished by such thinking. I celebrate the crackpot tinkerers and inventors who toil on despite critics and deriders and continue to think outside the box to bring forth "Impossible" wonders. Burt Rutan is a brilliant engineer and those who work for him are equally so. If you watched 'Black sky: the race for space' you will have seen that he already has an orbital vehicle on the drawing board.(at least) I for one will not bet against his eventual success
Power Max computers carries an extensive selection of quality used and Apple certified reconditioned Macs in all models! You can pick up used ibooks, imacs, G4 graphite towers, even the G4 cube, at bargain prices! Go now! Look at all the perfectly good used macs $500.00 and up!
As I was saying before accidentally hit the 'submit' button
Certain people and organizations with certain political agendas are always throwing around statistics- ('Why every day X number of children starve to death in this country and I blame the vast right wing conspiracy!!')- That go unsourced and nobody in the lazy media questions the veracity of.
If you go around making such broad statements, you should be prepared to back it with credible data!
The ET's already know all about us! They will ALLOW contact when they feel we are ready for it, or we force the issue by spreading out into space. Until then-NADA!
OK all you conspiracy advocates, if the moon landings were faked, then explain to me why would the soviets have let us get away with it? They had deep space tracking capability, and the glaring lack of actual spacecraft going to the moon beaming back telemetry data and voice comm would have been a dead giveaway! I grew up in the sixties, and on launch mornings the pre launch broadcasts usually included a shot of the Soviet 'fishing' trawlers hanging off the coast observing the proceedings. The spacecraft could be tracked with radar all the way to, around, and back from the moon. They sent that Luna mission to try to return samples and steal our thunder, (which we were able to track) but crashed instead. After the failure of their own manned lunar program The Soviets would not have tried such a foolish stunt themselves because they knew they would'nt have been able to fool anyone, and neither would we! To this day, no one in the soviet government or space program, has ever made any suggestion that we did'nt actually go to the moon.
If you support space exploration then; WRITE YOUR FRICKIN' CONGRESSMEN AND SENATORS AN EMAIL AND TELL THEM THAT YOU DO! Part of participating in democracy is not just voting for the boobs but also telling them what you want them to do!
I am now further embarassed as I realize I have just posted (or attemted to) a link that was already included in the parent post! Sorry to waste everyones time. (I still would like someone to explain linking hypertext to me.
Quoting Fred H. Martin, At the time Deputy director of mission development;
'I remember bumping into one of our M.I.T. engineers, George Silver, who was usually at our office at Cape Kennedy. George had been involved in and witnessed many pre-flight tests. I asked him in frustration if he had ever seen the Apollo Guidance Computer run slowly and under what conditions. To my surprise and rather matter of fact, he said he had. He called it "cycle stealing" and he said it can occur when the I/O system keeps looking for data. He had seen it when the Rendezvous Radar Switch was on (in the AUTO position) and the computer was looking for radar data. He asked "the Switch isn't on, is it?" "Why would it be on for Descent, it's meant for Ascent?" '
Sorry, this is embarassing but I cant seem to figure out how to make the URL's link to articles, and none of the 'allowed HTML' seems to work for that purpose. I would appreciate if someone could explain to me how that works!
Rest assured, the engineers at scaled are likely already working on a follow up vehicle that WILL make orbit, using the same systems they developed for SS1. If you visit their web site you will notice they pointedly do not disclose how much payload the white knight vehicle can lift. Also note these quotes from their FAQ pages; "Scaled has completed 34 manned research aircraft. None were announced until they were ready to fly."..AND..." Scaled Composites is a research and development facility with other proprietary projects. Tours are not permitted." Oh yes, SS1 is not Burt Rutans' last word on space flight!
The main problem you have with this is that almost all scripted television works with a set cast - Jolene Blalock and Scott Bakula weren't just brought in for their acting or looks, but because they'd play characters that fans would tune in to see every week.
The classic series I referenced, police story, as well as Twilight zone were quite successful without regular casts. But that's why I suggested the starfleet academy history lesson as a device to tie the series together. Your stars would be the history professor, who would introduce the key characters and situations portrayed, (sorta like Rod Serling) and the students with whom he would discuss the critical decisions and actions of the featured crews as well as their effects on federation history. You could also have interesting side plots involving the students and faculty.
Another great thing you could do is feature stories about Vulcan or Klingon or other races ships besides just the federations. I thought one of the most interesting parts of the first ST movie was the Klingons battle with vger. Imagine whole stories involving alien crews!
Personally, I find the usual format of star trek (one captain/crew/ship) limiting. After all there is supposed to be an entire FLEET of ships zooming around the galaxy, but it seems there is ever only ONE ship having interesting adventures. I would like to see a anthology ST series, sort of like the old Police stories series where you feature a different ship/crew every week (or two). You could use the premise of history lessons at starfleet academy to set up each episode and tie the series together. It could be called 'Star fleet chronicles' or some such. Of course, whatever type of series they make, they need better, more imaginative scripts, that aren't retreads of the same old tired themes. (time travel, alien possesion, ect.) That and I wish they paid more attention to continuity. I don't read Star Trek novels, because they have nothing to do with series or movie cannon.
ACME ORBITAL SALVAGE
Recovered space artefacts for sale! -from vintage to conteporary! Satellites, Astronauts lost articles, assorted booster fragments. AUCTION SPECIALS THIS WEEK; COMSAT 1!! historic vintage bird! Lost glove from Gemini IV! 100's of bargains!
Wealthy people always get the best new stuff! The provide the initial demand that amortizes development costs, and over time manufacturing efficiency improves, leading to further price reductions. Lower prices attract more customers generating more profit. Air travel, when new, could only be afforded by the wealthy. How may people could afford the first VCR or CD player? So be grateful for rich people! They will help drive down the cost of space access.
Perfomance and economy
on
X-43A Hits Mach 7
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Orbital velocity is damn near escape velocity, and thats the whole point. Getting to orbit economically is the key to making space travel pay instead of cost. It takes WAY more energy to get to orbit than to get from orbit to anywhere else in the solar system. Think about the Saturn V moon stack. You needed all the fuel in the 1st and 2nd stages, and most of the fuel in the 3rd, just to make orbit. only a small additional thrust from the third stage was required to send it on its way. We have all sorts of economical solutions for interplanetary travel, such as ion engines, solar sails, and nuclear engines. We need an economical booster technology, and this is it! 3500 mph to 5000+ mph in ten seconds with TWO POUNDS of fuel! Thats outstanding power and fuel economy In my opinion.
Imagine a conventional LOOKING rocket, with 3 or 4 scramjets in nacelles mounted around it's perimeter and a single rocket engine at its base. Boosted off the pad by solid rockets,(this is just for cargo, not humans) and accelerated to mach 3 at SRB burn out, the scramjets would then propel it to the upper atmosphere near orbital velocity where it would finally need its rocket engine and oxidizer to make orbit. I believe you could launch quite a heavy payload very efficiency with this configuration. Any real rocket scientists have a thought on this?
Slashdot Mirror
"If you nail together two things that have never been nailed together before, - some schmuck will buy it from you!" -George Carlin
you're welcome
does'nt mean anything, maybe your're repeating FUD you heard elsewhere and believe it to be true
Second, is what I said not true?
NOPE Hard drive is plenty fast and the ram is standard DDR SDRAM. And as for flamebait?
I don't post anything I don't believe to be true. You're naieve to think that microsoft would not conduct a campaign of lies against competing products!
Bill Gates must really be worried if he has this many minions out desperately trying to convince windows users NOT to switch. You can just see them sitting around the table up in Redmond thinking up negative things to say in online forums. Hmmm.. Your efforts MIGHT save you a coule of points of market share.
See, this MAC is being marketed to people who already have those things. I assume you have a computer? If your monitor is DVI or VGA compatible, it will work! Hell, you can even hook it up to a TV with the optional S video adapter! Your keyboard and mouse must be of the USB variety, but most are these days, and if you can't find them for cheap, you're not trying very hard. Try a swap meet or a flea market (or Ebay) If you don't mind second hand. Or just get an Emac or an Imac. As the Pretenders sang, Stop your sobbin'
When they make it SOOO easy! Their well known security issues, the kludgy software, the shady buisness practices, ect. We all know the litany. Fish in a barrel! Fire away!
There is nothing easier in the world than being a critic, a doubter, a pessimist, a naysayer. Such as those on this forum who cast doubts that spaceship one concept would work and who now doubt that Rutan can even make an orbital vehicle. Well sir, nothing great is ever accomplished by such thinking. I celebrate the crackpot tinkerers and inventors who toil on despite critics and deriders and continue to think outside the box to bring forth "Impossible" wonders. Burt Rutan is a brilliant engineer and those who work for him are equally so. If you watched 'Black sky: the race for space' you will have seen that he already has an orbital vehicle on the drawing board.(at least) I for one will not bet against his eventual success
Power Max computers carries an extensive selection of quality used and Apple certified reconditioned Macs in all models! You can pick up used ibooks, imacs, G4 graphite towers, even the G4 cube, at bargain prices! Go now! Look at all the perfectly good used macs $500.00 and up!
But If you need to place something in a specific orbit, the imprecise flight path of a baloon will make you burn more fuel adjusting your orbit.
Certain people and organizations with certain political agendas are always throwing around statistics- ('Why every day X number of children starve to death in this country and I blame the vast right wing conspiracy!!')- That go unsourced and nobody in the lazy media questions the veracity of.
If you go around making such broad statements, you should be prepared to back it with credible data!
You care to prove that statement?
What data do you base that on?
Certain people and organizations with certain political agendas are always throwing around
The ET's already know all about us! They will ALLOW contact when they feel we are ready for it, or we force the issue by spreading out into space. Until then-NADA!
OK all you conspiracy advocates, if the moon landings were faked, then explain to me why would the soviets have let us get away with it? They had deep space tracking capability, and the glaring lack of actual spacecraft going to the moon beaming back telemetry data and voice comm would have been a dead giveaway! I grew up in the sixties, and on launch mornings the pre launch broadcasts usually included a shot of the Soviet 'fishing' trawlers hanging off the coast observing the proceedings. The spacecraft could be tracked with radar all the way to, around, and back from the moon. They sent that Luna mission to try to return samples and steal our thunder, (which we were able to track) but crashed instead. After the failure of their own manned lunar program The Soviets would not have tried such a foolish stunt themselves because they knew they would'nt have been able to fool anyone, and neither would we! To this day, no one in the soviet government or space program, has ever made any suggestion that we did'nt actually go to the moon.
If you support space exploration then; WRITE YOUR FRICKIN' CONGRESSMEN AND SENATORS AN EMAIL AND TELL THEM THAT YOU DO! Part of participating in democracy is not just voting for the boobs but also telling them what you want them to do!
I am now further embarassed as I realize I have just posted (or attemted to) a link that was already included in the parent post! Sorry to waste everyones time. (I still would like someone to explain linking hypertext to me.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11 /a11.1201-fm.html
Quoting Fred H. Martin, At the time Deputy director of mission development;
'I remember bumping into one of our M.I.T. engineers, George Silver, who was usually at our office at Cape Kennedy. George had been involved in and witnessed many pre-flight tests. I asked him in frustration if he had ever seen the Apollo Guidance Computer run slowly and under what conditions. To my surprise and rather matter of fact, he said he had. He called it "cycle stealing" and he said it can occur when the I/O system keeps looking for data. He had seen it when the Rendezvous Radar Switch was on (in the AUTO position) and the computer was looking for radar data. He asked "the Switch isn't on, is it?" "Why would it be on for Descent, it's meant for Ascent?" '
Sorry, this is embarassing but I cant seem to figure out how to make the URL's link to articles, and none of the 'allowed HTML' seems to work for that purpose. I would appreciate if someone could explain to me how that works!
Rest assured, the engineers at scaled are likely already working on a follow up vehicle that WILL make orbit, using the same systems they developed for SS1. If you visit their web site you will notice they pointedly do not disclose how much payload the white knight vehicle can lift. Also note these quotes from their FAQ pages; "Scaled has completed 34 manned research aircraft. None were announced until they were ready to fly." ..AND..." Scaled Composites is a research and development facility with other proprietary projects. Tours are not permitted." Oh yes, SS1 is not Burt Rutans' last word on space flight!
dinosaurs=birds?
Tastes just like chicken!
The classic series I referenced, police story, as well as Twilight zone were quite successful without regular casts. But that's why I suggested the starfleet academy history lesson as a device to tie the series together. Your stars would be the history professor, who would introduce the key characters and situations portrayed, (sorta like Rod Serling) and the students with whom he would discuss the critical decisions and actions of the featured crews as well as their effects on federation history. You could also have interesting side plots involving the students and faculty.
Another great thing you could do is feature stories about Vulcan or Klingon or other races ships besides just the federations. I thought one of the most interesting parts of the first ST movie was the Klingons battle with vger. Imagine whole stories involving alien crews!
Personally, I find the usual format of star trek (one captain/crew/ship) limiting. After all there is supposed to be an entire FLEET of ships zooming around the galaxy, but it seems there is ever only ONE ship having interesting adventures. I would like to see a anthology ST series, sort of like the old Police stories series where you feature a different ship/crew every week (or two). You could use the premise of history lessons at starfleet academy to set up each episode and tie the series together. It could be called 'Star fleet chronicles' or some such. Of course, whatever type of series they make, they need better, more imaginative scripts, that aren't retreads of the same old tired themes. (time travel, alien possesion, ect.) That and I wish they paid more attention to continuity. I don't read Star Trek novels, because they have nothing to do with series or movie cannon.
They can take it out to the salt flats and establish the first land speed record for a clockwork powered vehicle!
ACME ORBITAL SALVAGE Recovered space artefacts for sale! -from vintage to conteporary! Satellites, Astronauts lost articles, assorted booster fragments. AUCTION SPECIALS THIS WEEK; COMSAT 1!! historic vintage bird! Lost glove from Gemini IV! 100's of bargains!
Wealthy people always get the best new stuff! The provide the initial demand that amortizes development costs, and over time manufacturing efficiency improves, leading to further price reductions. Lower prices attract more customers generating more profit. Air travel, when new, could only be afforded by the wealthy. How may people could afford the first VCR or CD player? So be grateful for rich people! They will help drive down the cost of space access.
Orbital velocity is damn near escape velocity, and thats the whole point. Getting to orbit economically is the key to making space travel pay instead of cost. It takes WAY more energy to get to orbit than to get from orbit to anywhere else in the solar system. Think about the Saturn V moon stack. You needed all the fuel in the 1st and 2nd stages, and most of the fuel in the 3rd, just to make orbit. only a small additional thrust from the third stage was required to send it on its way. We have all sorts of economical solutions for interplanetary travel, such as ion engines, solar sails, and nuclear engines. We need an economical booster technology, and this is it! 3500 mph to 5000+ mph in ten seconds with TWO POUNDS of fuel! Thats outstanding power and fuel economy In my opinion.
Imagine a conventional LOOKING rocket, with 3 or 4 scramjets in nacelles mounted around it's perimeter and a single rocket engine at its base. Boosted off the pad by solid rockets,(this is just for cargo, not humans) and accelerated to mach 3 at SRB burn out, the scramjets would then propel it to the upper atmosphere near orbital velocity where it would finally need its rocket engine and oxidizer to make orbit. I believe you could launch quite a heavy payload very efficiency with this configuration. Any real rocket scientists have a thought on this?