So leaving the Solar System is less than twice as hard propulsion-wise as getting to orbit. Getting there in a timely fashion with working gear makes those sorts of problems harder. But merely being four orders of magnitude further away just isn't that big a deal. If you can get your stuff working in space in isolation for long periods of time, you have it.
How are you going to get the mass of the propellant into LEO? For every pound of payload (which in this case, includes the propellant to go from LEO to an escape trajectory from the solar system) it's something like 50 times as much propellant you need. So even if the propellant you needed was only 10% of what you needed to get into LEO, you would still need a launch vehicle that has 5 times as much propellant.
Hand-waving the time issue away is a big reach as well. Good luck getting anyone to spend a significant amount of money now for something that may pay off in 30-40 years.
Perhaps someone knows... The more massive the gravitational field, the more time dilation, yes? The farther out you go the less drastic the effect is. Could the rotation just appear (to our frame of reference) to be moving not as fast in the middle (where the gravity is strongest) even though it is moving as it should according to our theories?
IINAP (and I'm guessing you're not, either). I used to think of things like this and say, "gosh, couldn't this be the explanation?" Then I remember that there are thousands of experts in the field, and it is extremely improbable that me, a layperson in the field, has thought of something -- especially something relatively (pun intended) simple -- that an expert hasn't thought of and obviously debunked (because we would have read about it were it plausible).
That said, I don't understand the physics behind gravity wells and their relation to time dilation very well, so I would be interested to hear from one of the aforementioned experts why it's not as simple as Taibhsear has made it sound!
Principle's office? Well, only if you have any interest in this.
I believe you tried to make a joke involving something that earns interest, but that too is "principal". Unless your misuse of principle/principal was part of a double joke...
Division is harder than multiplication. Given the choice between sometimes multiplying by 2, and sometimes dividing by two, we should pick the constant that forces the multiplication. Also, e^(pi * i) is nicer than e^((tau / 2) * i).
Hogwash! Multiply by 1/2 or divide by 1/2, and now the problem is reversed!
Since there is little friction in space what is there from stopping us from reaching an appreciable fraction of the speed of light? I was reading that we might attain lightspeed in about 1 year at 1G acceleration rate which only adds a couple of years to the trip..
Using force = mass * acceleration, energy = force * distance, distance = 1/2 * acceleration * time^2, and e=mc^2:
to accelerate a 1000kg payload at 1g (9.8m/s^2) for 1 year:
Energy to do so: 4.8 x 10^19 J
Equivalent mass of that energy: 532kg. That's also assuming Newtonian physics (no relativity), and not counting the fact that you have to account for the mass of the fuel. Let me know when we can produce 216kg of antimatter and then "burn" it in a controlled manner that directly corresponds to thrust.
If you use an energy density of 50,000 Wh/kg (very aggressive estimate of high-end energy density in current/near-future rocket tech), you're talking about needing over 2 billion metric tons of fuel (and don't forget you have to accelerate all that fuel too which now means you're no longer talking about a 1000kg payload.
True enough for people who run a website that mainly revolves around their wiki.
However, lots of people just throw a mediawiki install to supplement the rest of their site, usually precisely because it's dead simple to get running and works on just about any host. Moving to another host just to preserve their little 10 page wiki is probably not sensible, and the content is probably in-appropriate for external wiki hosts (or isn't desirable for other reasons).
Obviously for people with their own server (or in my case, a VPS) this is a non-issue.. but I figure there are probably enough people for which this would be an issue that I can't see them not at least providing a PHP only implementation as an option.
In your simple case, is there any reason to upgrade to a version of MW that implements LUA for templates, especially if it means an incompatibility with your current provider?
$25M for a cruise ship? It cost 372 million pounds (or approximately $570M) to build in 2006. Aside from your order of magnitude, however, you have the right idea. It is quite probable that repairing the ship would be the most cost effective solution for the cruise line and its insurers.
Carnival's estimated financial impact factors in recovery and repairing of the ship rather than scrapping it, currently.
"All you need to know about rating agencies is that in May 2010 Moody’s still rated Greece triple-A." - Mark Steyn
I don't doubt that Mark Steyn said that, but what he said is false. In April 2010, Moody's lowered Greece's rating from A2 to A3, which is definitely not the same as Aaa. It is closer to "junk" rating than a triple-A rating. It is also worth noting that less than two months later, in June, Moody's cut the rating all the way to junk status, Ba1.
Using Pluto's density of 2.03 g/cm^3, I compute (at 21 mile diameter) the moon is 4.2e16 kg.
With a 4.2e16 kg mass and 1.7e4 m radius, I compute an escape velocity of 18 m/s, or 40 miles per hour.
So I suspect you could jump really hard and not come back down, assuming I didn't misplace a decimal point.
I didn't double check your math, and you're obviously intentionally exaggerating the speed of a jump, but someone who could jump at 18m/s would have a vertical leap of about 16m or 50 feet on Earth.
I thought there were still some stupid states that hadn't done that, or are you saying the last holdouts (I'm thinking PA was one) finally changing their exit numbering?
They haven't changed them here in CT or in nearby NY yet. There are, however gaps in the numbers sometimes...not sure if it's because the exits were removed, planned but never made, or someone didn't know how to count. For example, the first exit on I-95 in CT is exit 2.
In the short term it may just be a toy for the wealthy but there are profits to be made in space in the long term. The world's appetite for resources such as iron is increasing and there is a limited supply of it on this rock.
Yes, there is a limited supply of iron on Earth. There is also a limited supply of atoms on Earth, because the Earth is not infinite. However, iron is the most abundant element on Earth (source), although a good portion of that is in the Earth's core. The value of iron compared to the cost of mining it outside of our gravity well doesn't really add up, though. If mining iron outside of Earth ever becomes a profitable proposition then we're likely in dire straits already...
Exceptional people go to these schools. That's why the high achievers tend to come from those schools.
Yes and no. I would imagine that if you could define "exceptional people" empirically and then correlate "high achiever" to them and the schools they attend, you would still get a disproportionate number of people from the "elite" schools such as Harvard and Princeton (as a Harvard grad, I balk at the inclusion of Yale on principle).
These days, especially with a weak job market, who you know is just as important (or in many cases, more important) than who you are -- at least for getting your foot in the door. As people at these "elite" schools are already in a disproportionate number of high-level jobs, you are more likely to have a contact that will get you in the door.
I've seen this first hand. I had a friend that went to a state school for college -- he was very much my equal or superior (and his resume reflected that), yet because my resume had "Harvard" on it and his didn't, there were a few cases where I got called for an interview but he did not.
Zuckerberg scraped all the photos from the Harvard directories when he first launched facebook... without consent of course.
You are confusing FaceMash, which did do this, with "TheFacebook" (later just "Facebook"), which did not. The two, aside from both being created by Zuckerberg and both including the word "Face" in the name, are not related. Everything that was on the site when facebook launched was provided by the actual students.
While the term "habitable" doesn't necessarily have a scientific definition in this case, I'm pretty sure the use of the word "habitable" when talking about exoplanets is to refer to the possibility that life could exist as-is on the planet -- not that humans could go and terraform the planet to live on it. A "habitable" planet is one that could potentially harbor extra-terrestrial life (as we know it). You could argue that pretty much any planet could be considered "habitable" by your definition, as it is likely we would eventually acquire technology that would let us settle in nearly any environment.
And here comes the endless 500 post thread on how shouldn't allow to install without .
This then ends up becoming a debate on operating system security and rights management and 100 other completely unrelated topics.
Oh, and vi is better.
History gradually reduces all events to accomplishments by one person. In a hundred years or so, it will take effort to find out that there was a person named Crick involved.
Clark (of Louis and Clark fame) would probably disagree with you there...
It really just matters how it is popularized -- I've never heard Louis or Clark discussed separately, just as I've never heard anything about Watson without mentioning Crick (although Franklin is the loser in that one), so they will probably stay in the consciousness indefinitely, or at least as long as we're talking about them.
The fact that Wales is often discussed without mentioning Sanger at this point will likely lead to him being completely forgotten in a general sense associated with Wikipedia.
That's funny, because I called Cablevision the other day to resolve an issue where my cable modem wasn't getting an IP address assigned to it, and I was routed to a completely automated system. The beginning line was "You may ask to speak to an agent at any time, but they will be following the same script that I will be following." I gave it about 3 minutes through the script before I moved to the agent because I figured I could get escalated to a tech faster with a real person than a scripted machine.
Slashdot Mirror
Steam has a handful of the old LucasArts games. A quick search popped up an adventure pack: http://store.steampowered.com/sub/2102/
So leaving the Solar System is less than twice as hard propulsion-wise as getting to orbit. Getting there in a timely fashion with working gear makes those sorts of problems harder. But merely being four orders of magnitude further away just isn't that big a deal. If you can get your stuff working in space in isolation for long periods of time, you have it.
How are you going to get the mass of the propellant into LEO? For every pound of payload (which in this case, includes the propellant to go from LEO to an escape trajectory from the solar system) it's something like 50 times as much propellant you need. So even if the propellant you needed was only 10% of what you needed to get into LEO, you would still need a launch vehicle that has 5 times as much propellant.
Hand-waving the time issue away is a big reach as well. Good luck getting anyone to spend a significant amount of money now for something that may pay off in 30-40 years.
Perhaps someone knows... The more massive the gravitational field, the more time dilation, yes? The farther out you go the less drastic the effect is. Could the rotation just appear (to our frame of reference) to be moving not as fast in the middle (where the gravity is strongest) even though it is moving as it should according to our theories?
IINAP (and I'm guessing you're not, either). I used to think of things like this and say, "gosh, couldn't this be the explanation?" Then I remember that there are thousands of experts in the field, and it is extremely improbable that me, a layperson in the field, has thought of something -- especially something relatively (pun intended) simple -- that an expert hasn't thought of and obviously debunked (because we would have read about it were it plausible).
That said, I don't understand the physics behind gravity wells and their relation to time dilation very well, so I would be interested to hear from one of the aforementioned experts why it's not as simple as Taibhsear has made it sound!
Principle's office? Well, only if you have any interest in this.
I believe you tried to make a joke involving something that earns interest, but that too is "principal". Unless your misuse of principle/principal was part of a double joke...
Division is harder than multiplication. Given the choice between sometimes multiplying by 2, and sometimes dividing by two, we should pick the constant that forces the multiplication. Also, e^(pi * i) is nicer than e^((tau / 2) * i).
Hogwash! Multiply by 1/2 or divide by 1/2, and now the problem is reversed!
Since there is little friction in space what is there from stopping us from reaching an appreciable fraction of the speed of light? I was reading that we might attain lightspeed in about 1 year at 1G acceleration rate which only adds a couple of years to the trip..
Using force = mass * acceleration, energy = force * distance, distance = 1/2 * acceleration * time^2, and e=mc^2:
to accelerate a 1000kg payload at 1g (9.8m/s^2) for 1 year:
Energy to do so: 4.8 x 10^19 J
Equivalent mass of that energy: 532kg. That's also assuming Newtonian physics (no relativity), and not counting the fact that you have to account for the mass of the fuel. Let me know when we can produce 216kg of antimatter and then "burn" it in a controlled manner that directly corresponds to thrust.
If you use an energy density of 50,000 Wh/kg (very aggressive estimate of high-end energy density in current/near-future rocket tech), you're talking about needing over 2 billion metric tons of fuel (and don't forget you have to accelerate all that fuel too which now means you're no longer talking about a 1000kg payload.
True enough for people who run a website that mainly revolves around their wiki.
However, lots of people just throw a mediawiki install to supplement the rest of their site, usually precisely because it's dead simple to get running and works on just about any host. Moving to another host just to preserve their little 10 page wiki is probably not sensible, and the content is probably in-appropriate for external wiki hosts (or isn't desirable for other reasons).
Obviously for people with their own server (or in my case, a VPS) this is a non-issue .. but I figure there are probably enough people for which this would be an issue that I can't see them not at least providing a PHP only implementation as an option.
In your simple case, is there any reason to upgrade to a version of MW that implements LUA for templates, especially if it means an incompatibility with your current provider?
Carnival's estimated financial impact factors in recovery and repairing of the ship rather than scrapping it, currently.
(e.g. visit the link in a new tab, either by menu or by middle button click).
Middle click automatically opens up in a new tab? All this time I've been right clicking and using the menu to do so...thanks!
"All you need to know about rating agencies is that in May 2010 Moody’s still rated Greece triple-A." - Mark Steyn
I don't doubt that Mark Steyn said that, but what he said is false. In April 2010, Moody's lowered Greece's rating from A2 to A3, which is definitely not the same as Aaa. It is closer to "junk" rating than a triple-A rating. It is also worth noting that less than two months later, in June, Moody's cut the rating all the way to junk status, Ba1.
It's ok, Texas can have them. They can take Lieberman while they're at it, too.
Sincerely,
A Connecticut Resident
Using Pluto's density of 2.03 g/cm^3, I compute (at 21 mile diameter) the moon is 4.2e16 kg.
With a 4.2e16 kg mass and 1.7e4 m radius, I compute an escape velocity of 18 m/s, or 40 miles per hour.
So I suspect you could jump really hard and not come back down, assuming I didn't misplace a decimal point.
I didn't double check your math, and you're obviously intentionally exaggerating the speed of a jump, but someone who could jump at 18m/s would have a vertical leap of about 16m or 50 feet on Earth.
I thought there were still some stupid states that hadn't done that, or are you saying the last holdouts (I'm thinking PA was one) finally changing their exit numbering?
They haven't changed them here in CT or in nearby NY yet. There are, however gaps in the numbers sometimes...not sure if it's because the exits were removed, planned but never made, or someone didn't know how to count. For example, the first exit on I-95 in CT is exit 2.
[obscure?]
Not to even a casual Simpsons fan...or at least it shouldn't be!
In the short term it may just be a toy for the wealthy but there are profits to be made in space in the long term. The world's appetite for resources such as iron is increasing and there is a limited supply of it on this rock.
Yes, there is a limited supply of iron on Earth. There is also a limited supply of atoms on Earth, because the Earth is not infinite. However, iron is the most abundant element on Earth (source), although a good portion of that is in the Earth's core. The value of iron compared to the cost of mining it outside of our gravity well doesn't really add up, though. If mining iron outside of Earth ever becomes a profitable proposition then we're likely in dire straits already...
... and then you move focus to your SSH session to your router...hit control-V and log in
I call shenanigans! Unless you have very windows-user-friendly SSH software, CTRL+V is not going to help you out too much when trying to paste.
Exceptional people go to these schools. That's why the high achievers tend to come from those schools.
Yes and no. I would imagine that if you could define "exceptional people" empirically and then correlate "high achiever" to them and the schools they attend, you would still get a disproportionate number of people from the "elite" schools such as Harvard and Princeton (as a Harvard grad, I balk at the inclusion of Yale on principle).
These days, especially with a weak job market, who you know is just as important (or in many cases, more important) than who you are -- at least for getting your foot in the door. As people at these "elite" schools are already in a disproportionate number of high-level jobs, you are more likely to have a contact that will get you in the door.
I've seen this first hand. I had a friend that went to a state school for college -- he was very much my equal or superior (and his resume reflected that), yet because my resume had "Harvard" on it and his didn't, there were a few cases where I got called for an interview but he did not.
More like Facebook itself.
Zuckerberg scraped all the photos from the Harvard directories when he first launched facebook... without consent of course.
You are confusing FaceMash, which did do this, with "TheFacebook" (later just "Facebook"), which did not. The two, aside from both being created by Zuckerberg and both including the word "Face" in the name, are not related. Everything that was on the site when facebook launched was provided by the actual students.
While the term "habitable" doesn't necessarily have a scientific definition in this case, I'm pretty sure the use of the word "habitable" when talking about exoplanets is to refer to the possibility that life could exist as-is on the planet -- not that humans could go and terraform the planet to live on it. A "habitable" planet is one that could potentially harbor extra-terrestrial life (as we know it). You could argue that pretty much any planet could be considered "habitable" by your definition, as it is likely we would eventually acquire technology that would let us settle in nearly any environment.
+1 internets to you, sir.
And here comes the endless 500 post thread on how [Browser X] shouldn't allow [Add-on Y] to install without [User doing Z].
This then ends up becoming a debate on operating system security and rights management and 100 other completely unrelated topics.
Oh, and vi is better.
And here comes the endless 500 post thread on how shouldn't allow to install without . This then ends up becoming a debate on operating system security and rights management and 100 other completely unrelated topics. Oh, and vi is better.
History gradually reduces all events to accomplishments by one person. In a hundred years or so, it will take effort to find out that there was a person named Crick involved.
Clark (of Louis and Clark fame) would probably disagree with you there...
It really just matters how it is popularized -- I've never heard Louis or Clark discussed separately, just as I've never heard anything about Watson without mentioning Crick (although Franklin is the loser in that one), so they will probably stay in the consciousness indefinitely, or at least as long as we're talking about them.
The fact that Wales is often discussed without mentioning Sanger at this point will likely lead to him being completely forgotten in a general sense associated with Wikipedia.
Clearly the solution is to convert all text into Captchas so we never forget the words!
That's funny, because I called Cablevision the other day to resolve an issue where my cable modem wasn't getting an IP address assigned to it, and I was routed to a completely automated system. The beginning line was "You may ask to speak to an agent at any time, but they will be following the same script that I will be following." I gave it about 3 minutes through the script before I moved to the agent because I figured I could get escalated to a tech faster with a real person than a scripted machine.