No, I am not sure, but there is something else to this story. It might be gray-market, which can mean that it's possible but they factory refuses to support it.
Because it was a hybrid and the on-board computer was synced to the battery recharge cycles, the car owner couldn't simply replace the car key without risking the car battery to overcharge and catch fire.
What!? You have to replace the key, and there is some uncontrollable/unresettable battery charging failure? I find that difficult to believe. It suggests that the on-board estimate of battery capacity (which goes down over time, and has to be considered when recharging) somehow gets reset when you replace the key, and that this is somehow uncorrectable. Or alternately, that it writes the battery capacity to the key somehow, which seems inconceivable.
Add to that the fact that you can go to any dealer and get a key with the same code (which means the on-board software has no idea that it is different) for something like a few hundred dollars, and there is a bit of a fishy smell about this story.
I am pretty sure that Toyota did not fail to consider the possibility of a lost key, and if you try to replace it, the car blows up/catches fire.
The approach is interesting, but putting it in the ISS is only slightly more demanding than putting it on your desk. Both remain well under the protection of the Van Allen belts. The real test is out beyond the Van Allen belts where the radiation really gets tough.
but I can also tell you that if somebody or multiple somebodies high up enough in the Chinese Communist Party wanted it done for prestige reasons (ie. "We have a big telescope too!"), nobody would dare raise these questions until it got done. Remember, this the country that has built cities that almost nobody has ever moved into and shopping malls that have no customers or stores in them.
Certainly, that's the other possibility - a vanity project like the Concorde.
It's also likely a vanity job req - they want to get a "name" astronomer so they can brag about it, too.
Did it somehow come as a surprise to them that they built this telescope? Wouldn't you think it would have occurred to someone along the way that at some point they needed to turn it on and operate it, and plan accordingly? In fact, the obvious place to look would be the scientists and engineers who developed the design and specified the requirements for the thing in the first place.
Something doesn't smell quite right about this story - either it's wrong/misleading, or it's a ChiCom vanity project that was unplanned from science perspective.
"Build it and they will come" might be an OK premise for a movie but it makes *no* sense for a multi-billion-yuan science project. I have to believe there is something else to this story than is being described, because it's too crazy/irresponsible to be what it seems.
Why in God's name would you want that? Reusable engines are of no interest, we have had resuabe engines for 50 years. The RL-10 could be used for an arbitrary number of flights if you could get it back. They have individual engines with 50+ flight worth of run time with nearly no wear of the major parts since the 60's. The SSMEs were reusable, along with OMS engines (they are going to reuse flown engines for Orion SM at least in some cases). Methane as a fuel is net no better than anything else, less good than a lot of things, and any trade-off advantages are very marginal.
This is a "so what" development, I can't imagine why it would engender any significant enthusiasm.
Of course, but "gender studies" isn't a scientific discipline in the first place. It's not even a legitimate branch of social science. This turns peer review into a cheering section, or not, for whatever predispositions the reviewer and author, have. Any notion that it is legitimate science is a complete delusion on the part of the participants. Biology and psychology cover the topic adequately, "gender studies" is a thin veneer over politics.
Not only have others done the same thing before, even without these examples, "peer review" is almost always a load of bullshit. Unless someone repeats the experiment/study/analysis themselves as a peer-reviewer, the peer review tends to be little more than a grammar and spelling check, did everyone label their figures correctly, etc.
It's adding a step that gives the impression that the paper or whatever has been checked, but in reality, any errors that are baked-in are very likely to blow through the process with no problem.
Agreed. I had to read the first few "sentences" multiple times before I got the gist of it.
This is one of the most poorly written summaries I have seen here, and that's setting the bar pretty low. I am not much for grammar flames, but the point of communications is to communicate, and this isn't accomplishing the goal.
'Secret Contract"? Really? NASA had and has nearly NO connection to any DOD or other governmental customer programs in any way. Far from it, NASA competes with other organizations for funding. And the very few attempted collaborations - like with the AF "supplying" Atlas and Titan boosters, and another agency supplying Agena Target vehicles, and NASA attempting to test the MMU for the Air Force on Gemini flights - were generally problematic.
I am pretty much certain that this is more-or-less exactly as described, there was surplus equipment left over at the end of a contract, they were going to scrap it, and this guy took it home instead.
There's no way this was the result of any "secret" missions or contracts that NASA had with IBM. Far more likely, it was a small contract, and the contract number was a one-off from a defunct contracting numbering system, or an internal description for IBM that everyone has forgotten about
Marijuana has long been known to be a "gateway drug" leading to more serious addictions, analysis by drug-addled hippy idiots since the 60s notwithstanding. It also has no medical use, and it's illegal. Aside from that, excellent post
This is the same state the encourages hard drug addiction by having a "medical marijuana" "dispensary" on ever third street corner. Despite the fact that it is a Schedule 1 drug and a federal felony to possess, use, or distribute.
I get the impression you are suggesting that the EU parliament is just gassing on about something it doesn't understand. If so, I have to object most strenuously, because they seem pretty on-the-ball all the rest of the time.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I am not sure, but there is something else to this story. It might be gray-market, which can mean that it's possible but they factory refuses to support it.
What!? You have to replace the key, and there is some uncontrollable/unresettable battery charging failure? I find that difficult to believe. It suggests that the on-board estimate of battery capacity (which goes down over time, and has to be considered when recharging) somehow gets reset when you replace the key, and that this is somehow uncorrectable. Or alternately, that it writes the battery capacity to the key somehow, which seems inconceivable.
Add to that the fact that you can go to any dealer and get a key with the same code (which means the on-board software has no idea that it is different) for something like a few hundred dollars, and there is a bit of a fishy smell about this story.
I am pretty sure that Toyota did not fail to consider the possibility of a lost key, and if you try to replace it, the car blows up/catches fire.
Which merely proves that the concept of "protected classes" is fundamentally incompatible with freedom of speech.
The approach is interesting, but putting it in the ISS is only slightly more demanding than putting it on your desk. Both remain well under the protection of the Van Allen belts. The real test is out beyond the Van Allen belts where the radiation really gets tough.
Certainly, that's the other possibility - a vanity project like the Concorde.
It's also likely a vanity job req - they want to get a "name" astronomer so they can brag about it, too.
Did it somehow come as a surprise to them that they built this telescope? Wouldn't you think it would have occurred to someone along the way that at some point they needed to turn it on and operate it, and plan accordingly? In fact, the obvious place to look would be the scientists and engineers who developed the design and specified the requirements for the thing in the first place.
Something doesn't smell quite right about this story - either it's wrong/misleading, or it's a ChiCom vanity project that was unplanned from science perspective.
"Build it and they will come" might be an OK premise for a movie but it makes *no* sense for a multi-billion-yuan science project. I have to believe there is something else to this story than is being described, because it's too crazy/irresponsible to be what it seems.
What about Jodie Foster? Unlike performer with no science training at al Bill Nye, Jodie Foster was at least in a movie involving radio telescopes.
Why in God's name would you want that? Reusable engines are of no interest, we have had resuabe engines for 50 years. The RL-10 could be used for an arbitrary number of flights if you could get it back. They have individual engines with 50+ flight worth of run time with nearly no wear of the major parts since the 60's. The SSMEs were reusable, along with OMS engines (they are going to reuse flown engines for Orion SM at least in some cases). Methane as a fuel is net no better than anything else, less good than a lot of things, and any trade-off advantages are very marginal.
This is a "so what" development, I can't imagine why it would engender any significant enthusiasm.
Yes. Recently, the military suspended the use of certain drone manufacturers products for the same reason.
Er, never mind, I AM saying it was aliens - it's my JOB!
Slap in the words "patriarchical" and "hetero-normative" and you have the core of your doctoral thesis.
Speciest!
Of course, but "gender studies" isn't a scientific discipline in the first place. It's not even a legitimate branch of social science. This turns peer review into a cheering section, or not, for whatever predispositions the reviewer and author, have. Any notion that it is legitimate science is a complete delusion on the part of the participants. Biology and psychology cover the topic adequately, "gender studies" is a thin veneer over politics.
Not only have others done the same thing before, even without these examples, "peer review" is almost always a load of bullshit. Unless someone repeats the experiment/study/analysis themselves as a peer-reviewer, the peer review tends to be little more than a grammar and spelling check, did everyone label their figures correctly, etc.
It's adding a step that gives the impression that the paper or whatever has been checked, but in reality, any errors that are baked-in are very likely to blow through the process with no problem.
More like Deadbot!
Kid's gonna have some things to work through, I think.
Agreed. I had to read the first few "sentences" multiple times before I got the gist of it.
This is one of the most poorly written summaries I have seen here, and that's setting the bar pretty low. I am not much for grammar flames, but the point of communications is to communicate, and this isn't accomplishing the goal.
You people are nothing if not predictable.
Well done, you are showing your capability for independent thought by parroting the party line. That should show'em.
And it was so bad they cancelled the series immediately afterwards.
I donate any prizes I win to widows and orphans.
I would have thought the Greys would have taken care of this issue themselves, if it was so important.
'Secret Contract"? Really? NASA had and has nearly NO connection to any DOD or other governmental customer programs in any way. Far from it, NASA competes with other organizations for funding. And the very few attempted collaborations - like with the AF "supplying" Atlas and Titan boosters, and another agency supplying Agena Target vehicles, and NASA attempting to test the MMU for the Air Force on Gemini flights - were generally problematic.
I am pretty much certain that this is more-or-less exactly as described, there was surplus equipment left over at the end of a contract, they were going to scrap it, and this guy took it home instead.
There's no way this was the result of any "secret" missions or contracts that NASA had with IBM. Far more likely, it was a small contract, and the contract number was a one-off from a defunct contracting numbering system, or an internal description for IBM that everyone has forgotten about
Why does local TV news tend to do in-depth expose's of the prostitution industry during May sweeps?
Marijuana has long been known to be a "gateway drug" leading to more serious addictions, analysis by drug-addled hippy idiots since the 60s notwithstanding. It also has no medical use, and it's illegal. Aside from that, excellent post
This is the same state the encourages hard drug addiction by having a "medical marijuana" "dispensary" on ever third street corner. Despite the fact that it is a Schedule 1 drug and a federal felony to possess, use, or distribute.
I get the impression you are suggesting that the EU parliament is just gassing on about something it doesn't understand. If so, I have to object most strenuously, because they seem pretty on-the-ball all the rest of the time.