Why do you think that? Things do not improve simply because time passes.
According to Wikipedia, the Rocketdyne-developed F-1 engine is the most powerful single-nozzle liquid-fueled rocket engine ever flown, and the Saturn V the largest rocket ever.
The X-Space plan is very exciting but they have a lot of work cut out for them.
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
You mean mechanical computers, surely not semiconductor based ones. I'm not sure if the energy band gap of semiconductors were known before 1900, but surely that was a curiosity and not well understood.
The transistor was conceived in 1926 by Lilienfeld and implemented for the first time in 1947 by Bardeen, Brattain and Shockley, for which they won the Nobel prize. Notice that QM was the mainstay of physics by then, and that a complete explanation of semiconductor physics requires QM. In semiconductors, electrons behave more like waves than particles.
Free market typically pushes for cheaper first, then good enough and finally fast enough and no further. This makes perfect sense, I think.
NASA does not have an unlimited budget. They have been pushing for cheap, good, fast missions for years, and been very successful lately with New Horizon for instance. They have been saying that manned missions cost too much. Last I heard Elon Musk is the one wanting to go to Mars.
This is not to say that pork barrel projects don't exist at NASA, but note that Congress had people like Tom Coburn, who were very good at exposing them. Note also that public spending is supposed to be fully accountable.
Yes but you do not have to go that low in pressure. Obviously if you recreate the air pressure corresponding to 45,000 feet (10% of sea level pressure), then there is plenty of air for lift. This is altitude where the Concorde used to fly. It would be a marketing feat to call that vacuum, but this is certainly low pressure.
The last time a NASA blew up on its landing pad was a Titan 1 in December 1959. Numerous other rockets have blown up in other situations, however on the launchpad during a pretest may be unprecedented.
Of course, never ascribe to malice what can be adequately explain by stupidity. However, in that case, I would rule in favour of malice. The nice lawyers who thought up the Apple vs Ireland tax scheme surely got off a long time ago with their nice bonus.
It's only 10 years. The EU says it was illegal 10 years ago to propose this tax deal to Apple, because it is actually anti-competitive. If you did something very illegal 10 years ago and it is not prescribed, you have to pay your dues, my friend.
The Apple outfit that collects all the sales from the entirety of Europe is an empty shell company with no employee whatsoever. This is pure tax fraud. Read it here. There is no economic deal "jobs vs. taxes". Ireland did not treat Apple like a normal company, they had a tax rate in 2015 of 0.005%. There is little chance that this was agreed to without some widespread corruption there.
This report is very strange and so is the Slashdot summary. This is not a comparison of hardware platforms, i.e. wether Apple or Samsung phones actually experience some form of hardware failure more often. Instead the report focuses on software issues, like application crashes, which form the bulk of "failures". Also reported are difficulties in accessing Wifi or poor sound quality using Bluetooth.
Their use of statistics is also questionable. Their graphics are misleading.
This is actually a bit dramatic. Methane emissions are only about 10% of greenhouse cases, but methane is 100x more efficient at trapping heat than CO2. Most of the methane emission do come from livestock. The only good thing is that methane disappears from the atmosphere quicker. We should indeed focus on reducing methane emissions.
Define wasting. Do you mean never making mistakes? isn't that a little disingenuous?
40k papers sound enormous but there are about 1.5 million articles published every year (and growing). Inevitably some of that is crap. However properly done science is self-correcting in the long run.
There are many examples of accepted mathematical proofs that turned out to false. This does not mean that mathematics is a worthless endeavour.
Nobody is forcing the UK consumers and companies to buy goods from the EU rather than the rest of the world. If they do, it is because they represent a better deal. Imposing trade barrier with the EU is not going to improve the situation, it will make it worse. It will reduce choice and availability, which will make UK businesses worse of. As a start, all of he UK activities that require free trade with the rest of the EU will cease. This includes most of the City as the financial hub of the EU.
If you think that the UK economy will be better off without the City, you definitely need some education.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you think that? Things do not improve simply because time passes.
According to Wikipedia, the Rocketdyne-developed F-1 engine is the most powerful single-nozzle liquid-fueled rocket engine ever flown, and the Saturn V the largest rocket ever.
The X-Space plan is very exciting but they have a lot of work cut out for them.
Not really sharp, no.
Just like the (first) movie then.
Clarke's first law
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
You mean mechanical computers, surely not semiconductor based ones. I'm not sure if the energy band gap of semiconductors were known before 1900, but surely that was a curiosity and not well understood.
The transistor was conceived in 1926 by Lilienfeld and implemented for the first time in 1947 by Bardeen, Brattain and Shockley, for which they won the Nobel prize. Notice that QM was the mainstay of physics by then, and that a complete explanation of semiconductor physics requires QM. In semiconductors, electrons behave more like waves than particles.
He should have. This is what rockets do, more often than we want them to.
Free market typically pushes for cheaper first, then good enough and finally fast enough and no further. This makes perfect sense, I think.
NASA does not have an unlimited budget. They have been pushing for cheap, good, fast missions for years, and been very successful lately with New Horizon for instance. They have been saying that manned missions cost too much. Last I heard Elon Musk is the one wanting to go to Mars.
This is not to say that pork barrel projects don't exist at NASA, but note that Congress had people like Tom Coburn, who were very good at exposing them. Note also that public spending is supposed to be fully accountable.
This video is asking many of the right questions.
It does help that Norway is very rich from the oils it pumps form the North Sea. They do manage their wealth very well though.
Yes but you do not have to go that low in pressure. Obviously if you recreate the air pressure corresponding to 45,000 feet (10% of sea level pressure), then there is plenty of air for lift. This is altitude where the Concorde used to fly. It would be a marketing feat to call that vacuum, but this is certainly low pressure.
The last time a NASA blew up on its landing pad was a Titan 1 in December 1959. Numerous other rockets have blown up in other situations, however on the launchpad during a pretest may be unprecedented.
I hope SpaceX find out what happened.
its not a complete vacuum. At supersonic speed there is still enough air to provide some lift (also heating, compression wave, etc). Engineering fun.
Also, pressuring the poorest workers in China to deliver products even cheaper.
Of course, never ascribe to malice what can be adequately explain by stupidity. However, in that case, I would rule in favour of malice. The nice lawyers who thought up the Apple vs Ireland tax scheme surely got off a long time ago with their nice bonus.
It's only 10 years. The EU says it was illegal 10 years ago to propose this tax deal to Apple, because it is actually anti-competitive. If you did something very illegal 10 years ago and it is not prescribed, you have to pay your dues, my friend.
The Apple outfit that collects all the sales from the entirety of Europe is an empty shell company with no employee whatsoever. This is pure tax fraud. Read it here. There is no economic deal "jobs vs. taxes". Ireland did not treat Apple like a normal company, they had a tax rate in 2015 of 0.005%. There is little chance that this was agreed to without some widespread corruption there.
Thanks, very well put.
This report is very strange and so is the Slashdot summary. This is not a comparison of hardware platforms, i.e. wether Apple or Samsung phones actually experience some form of hardware failure more often. Instead the report focuses on software issues, like application crashes, which form the bulk of "failures". Also reported are difficulties in accessing Wifi or poor sound quality using Bluetooth.
Their use of statistics is also questionable. Their graphics are misleading.
Take this report with a grain of salt.
This is actually a bit dramatic. Methane emissions are only about 10% of greenhouse cases, but methane is 100x more efficient at trapping heat than CO2. Most of the methane emission do come from livestock. The only good thing is that methane disappears from the atmosphere quicker. We should indeed focus on reducing methane emissions.
Not true, according to EPA.
Define wasting. Do you mean never making mistakes? isn't that a little disingenuous?
40k papers sound enormous but there are about 1.5 million articles published every year (and growing). Inevitably some of that is crap. However properly done science is self-correcting in the long run.
There are many examples of accepted mathematical proofs that turned out to false. This does not mean that mathematics is a worthless endeavour.
Nobody is forcing the UK consumers and companies to buy goods from the EU rather than the rest of the world. If they do, it is because they represent a better deal. Imposing trade barrier with the EU is not going to improve the situation, it will make it worse. It will reduce choice and availability, which will make UK businesses worse of. As a start, all of he UK activities that require free trade with the rest of the EU will cease. This includes most of the City as the financial hub of the EU.
If you think that the UK economy will be better off without the City, you definitely need some education.
Definitely need a course in macroeconomics. Should be a requirement for voting these days.
Get a course on macroeconomics, the money lost is real enough.
Mod up, informative.