However, the real point of not having an RTG on board of the probe was. EAS does not have one. And they cannot buy one, because the US is not selling and the other states are not selling either. It is very simple: You cannot use what you do not have.
Yes a RTG would have worked without solar power. However, there are two main problems with an RTG. First, ESA does not have Plutonium-238. Therefore, they cannot built an RTG. NASA was short on supplies. Second, RTG units are heavy compared to solar cells. That would have increased lift-off mass which would have made the whole thing more expensive. And they had already money problems.
So yes, if NASA wouldn't have chickened out and would not have problems to get their hands on sufficient Plutonium for the RTG and they could acquire the funding, then they could have put an RTG in the probe. However, if one of the flipping landing mechanism would have worked as intended, it would have worked too. So all in all, we could have had more data from the mission in a number of hypothetical scenarios. But this is reality and so we have to work with that.
If you study something you like, despite being good at it, you most likely will not make any money at all.
You will also not be able to make much money in any profession, when you are not good at it. In CS, I see people fail miserably. In Germany we have approx 45% drop-outs in CS, because of two groups. (A) People who play a lot with computers thinks they could study CS successful. And (B) people think economics + CS is a good combination to make a lot of money.
The truth is, yes you can, but there is a difference between you can and you will.
It is the same in economics, people study it because they think it is helpful to get a job, but every jerk who was not able to come up with something creative studies that subject. So in the end you might get a job after a couple of internships, but you will mostly end up in some dumb job. You will not end up in higher management.
It didn't use to be, but it's so freaking expensive to go to college these days (even a public university will cost you about $100k for a four-year degree) that you have to consider ROI.
In Germany, we have only minor study fees (approx 200-600 EUR per year). So you only need money for living. And there are subsidies for that as well. So I had approx. 20000 EUR to pay back after my studies (MSc. equiv.).
My niece studied "European Studies" (politics, economics, and law) in Maastricht (NL) and Tallinn (Estonia), while having a bigger bill in terms of college fees, she still got a paid job at an NGO after one year with 34k€ before tax.
In Germany, an university graduate is normally in a paid job after 6-12 month. CS and engineers require less time. And the arts normally need more time up to 24 month for a job with a descent salary.
You are trained (hopefully) in scientific and critical thinking, working self-controlled, and be able to solve problems on your own.
None of those are valuable to an employer. They don't want you thinking too much, they can't conceive of any other management style than suffocating helicoptering micromanaging, and if you can solve problems on your own, then you have a degree of independence that won't be tolerated.
They are the key ingredient in any good job. Only menial jobs are micromanaged and only if the person performing it is a retard or the boss is a retard of the other kind.;-)
In CS and engineering you need people with problem solving skills. If you micro manage them, they cannot solve the problems because you interfere with their work. In the end you have to solve it. However, then you do not need those people. In 2008 I attended a conference in Germany and the CTO of Munich Re held a key note. He said that they need people who can think on their own. Therefore, they are only employing MSc. because the chance that they are able to do so is much higher. Maybe this is different in the US. I don't know. But how could you ever be innovative if people do not use their problem solving skills?
Well this is different here. Beside the university education system, we have an apprenticeship style education combined with school, called "Duale Ausbildung" (engl, literally "dual education") where 2/3 of the people get their education for carpenters, mechanics, secretaries, etc.
You do not study a job at university, you study skills and acquire knowledge, which can in most cases be used in different jobs. If you pick the topic solely on companies need today, you might face unemployment in the envisioned jobs, because the situation changed. If you want to be good in your field, you need to not only like it, but also be willing to invest yourself in it. Otherwise, you might be better of outside university.
Philosophers can work in any number of jobs, including McJobs, taxi driving, etc., but also in consulting companies, and any other place where the ability to handle language and to think intensively about problems, they can be useful.
If you study something you do not like, you are most likely not very good at it. So you won't get a lot of money. Maybe you get even laid off and have to find a job somewhere else. Furthermore, going to university is NOT about getting trained for a specific job. You are trained (hopefully) in scientific and critical thinking, working self-controlled, and be able to solve problems on your own. there is no big difference between the sciences and most arts. Only the method set is different. Most CS majors do not learn anything about interview techniques and how to process the data, while most art majors will have little insights in quantitative analysis methods. However, they are both capable to learn the other stuff in no time (iff they do not have an psychosocial issue with math).
The bigger the tensions in a country the more important that the infrastructure is up and running. If there is an power outage for a couple of days and your inner society tensions are not too big, life would get organized again. Most of the food I consume is produced locally. Real problems would be heating (in winter) and water supply. However, I assume that we could organize that in a couple of days based on existing catastrophe reaction plans. True health care especially hospitals will not work, however, this only affects a few people and is not threatening to society. The only determinable issue is tensions in different groups of people in town, as police will not be able to keep control in the same way.
First, Mr. Schulz is a threat because he is pro TTIP and TiSA. However, I doubt that the US government is opposed to both treaty negotiations. Second, her is not minister of the parliament, but President of the European Parliament (PEP;-) (and he did something nasty and undemocratic today). He is a Member of the European Parliament (MEP).
On my way to work, I come across two parking slots reserved for car sharing cars. As the cars stationed there change every day, I assume frequent utilization.
As my way to work is only 20 minutes by foot, you might conclude that this is already a frequent use of such service.
Your thinking only applies to the US. In most EU countries there are more people than land. And cars are already a problem in cities. However, this problem will not be healed by self-driving cars. In Japan, India, and China this is also not an option due to even bigger space constraints. It might work in Russia.
Many traffic jams are cause by dense traffic and variable speeds. Lets assume in a dense stream of cars one decelerates a little bit. Could be wind or a hilly road. Now if the next car is following too close it will have to decrease its speed as well. In many cases even more then the first. Such waves are then propagated through the stream of cars. If multiple of these waves combine then you have a traffic jam out of nowhere. You can fix that by either reducing the number of cars or reducing the average speed of all cars. But if you just replace the control unit (human vs. computer) this will not help. It will also not help in car platooning or other means of car to car communication.
The best way to reduce traffic are, reduce the distance between work, shops and home, which is actually happening in many European cities. People are moving back into towns. Also helpful is to replace cars by bikes, which gives you an extra point in fitness (however, this only work to a distance up to 10 km). And finally, increase public transport utilization to replace unnecessary car travels.
In decent countries they already have public transport. We have presently a problem with too much traffic. This will not decrease due to self-driven cars. So in future you can either site in a traffic jam and "work" or use public transport and be there in half the time. And you can still work. But the most interesting change in recent years is the increase in bike usage and the increase in closer to home work. Both reduces the amount of traffic significantly and without any extra technology.
I always wondered why the back seat is so important in the US. Do you not have rooms? When I was sixteen, I could have my girl-friend over for the night without any trouble from my or her parents. As long as we did not drink too much beer, there still could be some action... So it happened rarely.
Therefore, the requirement to insure your self-driving car will be the obligation of the owner of the car. So there is no change. In the beginning these cars will drive together with human controlled cars. So there will be accidents. And subsequently insurance claims. If these self-driven cars are indeed able to have less claims the price for the service will drop. However, this will not transform insurance industry. They still sell you insurance and the price includes the real cost of accidents + administrative cost + their profit. If the cost by accident is reduced the overall price is reduced, but certainly they will not reduce the last part of their price. So no real change for insurance.
If self-driven cars result in less cars, because everyone is borrowing them from their favourite car sharing organization, then the overall driven kilometres might not change much. Only the amount of parking lots can be decreased, but that is happening anyway, as we need more space for bikes, public transport, and people in the cities. As there is no reduction in kilometres the number of accidents will not decrease. Therefore, the business model of car insurance is still save.
The biggest impact of self-driven cars will be in the distribution of goods, if certain technologies are used to automatically and and unload transport devices. Long distance trucks will disappear and drives in taxi cabs and maybe the first leg of postal delivery will be swapped to self-driven vehicles. This will cost a lot of jobs.
The German term Gift is also derived from gift, but the meaning is quite the opposite. It means poison. So while you are right about the origin of the words, the meaning of words change. The terms theory and hypothesis have a distinct meaning in science and they differ from the original. However, it is still not far away. A hypothesis must be testable, however, it starts out being a speculation, but only if you can provide a way to test the hypothesis. Otherwise it is a untestable speculation and then you have to believe in it. That is more religion than science.
So they can create even more money out of nothing;-). Wonderful. The real problem is that someone must pay at some point in history all the outstanding interest. And that will make the majority poor. Actually, our economy is fucked up (sorry for the language) and we need another system (no not communism, (a) communism is also based on increasing productivity, resource consumption and consume by citizens, (b) there are more types of communism than communists, and (c) past incarnation have freedom issues) economically and of course some thing called democracy.
The EU is doing that to counteract the US doing it. Japan did it too, but it did not work that well, as all other countries are doing it also. Switzerland tried it, but they could not buy Euros that fast that the Franc did not increase in value. The next bursting bubble will result in a even bigger catastrophe than the last time. And the biggest losers of the last crisis where not located in the EU and the US, but in Africa. The next burst will increase the emigration movement from Africa towards the EU and ruin this continent even further. In addition the poor in the EU will lose their social benefits (which are necessary that they could live from their work).
If the FED buys bonds of the US. They give the US government money for bonds. If they do not sell the bonds, but stash them in their cellar, they actually created money out of nothing. The lend money to the government. However, if someone lends you money for nothing and never wants it back then this is logically a donation. And as the FED does not need to earn that money somewhere it created it out of nothing.
Actually, all money is created out of nothing. Money is historically derived from obligations. Banks can also create money out of nothing, as long as not everyone wants their money now. the principle is very simple. Someone saves some money and stores it in their bank account. Now the bank can lend that money to someone. However, the bank is not giving the money away, they just write it down in a book (actually nowadays in a database record). This "guaranties" you that you can spend that money. Law allows them to lend the same money 10 times to different people at the same time.
It is a way to take your money and give it the rich. And if the state is out of money they either "print" it (actually it is much cheaper to transfer a number from the FED to the bank accounts of the government), they raise taxes for you or they cut benefits for the poor. In most cases they take all threee actions.
While I would agree with some of their findings, that is mostly a coincidence. They used only 4 dimension to determine this. And they missed out social skills (beside negotiation), like compassion and moderation, which are required for instance in teachers of all kind, but also in professors and many other areas where people work together. Also robots have big trouble combining gross and fine motor skills, so all areas where both are required might not be automatized that soon.
Any competent software designer and developer should have known basic rules of embedded systems. One of them: Do not use dynamic memory (and files are just alike). If you need space all the space you need must be determined at compile or design time. BTW why store all this data in the device? This should have been (if at all) implemented as an round robbing database. Yes that overwrites old data, but who cares? If you need all the data you should have calculated the amount for the complete mission and reserved enough memory for that. And why did they use a CSV file? Are their physicists?
In embedded systems, you do not go for testing (alone), you verify the system. And you certainly do not use dynamic data management, neither in RAM nor in storage (which is often the same). So you do not append something to a file. You can overwrite something in a file, but not append. And why store that data on the device anyway. An incredible whackjob, an epic fail.
Slashdot Mirror
However, the real point of not having an RTG on board of the probe was. EAS does not have one. And they cannot buy one, because the US is not selling and the other states are not selling either. It is very simple: You cannot use what you do not have.
Yes a RTG would have worked without solar power. However, there are two main problems with an RTG. First, ESA does not have Plutonium-238. Therefore, they cannot built an RTG. NASA was short on supplies. Second, RTG units are heavy compared to solar cells. That would have increased lift-off mass which would have made the whole thing more expensive. And they had already money problems.
So yes, if NASA wouldn't have chickened out and would not have problems to get their hands on sufficient Plutonium for the RTG and they could acquire the funding, then they could have put an RTG in the probe. However, if one of the flipping landing mechanism would have worked as intended, it would have worked too. So all in all, we could have had more data from the mission in a number of hypothetical scenarios. But this is reality and so we have to work with that.
You will also not be able to make much money in any profession, when you are not good at it. In CS, I see people fail miserably. In Germany we have approx 45% drop-outs in CS, because of two groups. (A) People who play a lot with computers thinks they could study CS successful. And (B) people think economics + CS is a good combination to make a lot of money.
The truth is, yes you can, but there is a difference between you can and you will.
It is the same in economics, people study it because they think it is helpful to get a job, but every jerk who was not able to come up with something creative studies that subject. So in the end you might get a job after a couple of internships, but you will mostly end up in some dumb job. You will not end up in higher management.
It didn't use to be, but it's so freaking expensive to go to college these days (even a public university will cost you about $100k for a four-year degree) that you have to consider ROI.
In Germany, we have only minor study fees (approx 200-600 EUR per year). So you only need money for living. And there are subsidies for that as well. So I had approx. 20000 EUR to pay back after my studies (MSc. equiv.).
My niece studied "European Studies" (politics, economics, and law) in Maastricht (NL) and Tallinn (Estonia), while having a bigger bill in terms of college fees, she still got a paid job at an NGO after one year with 34k€ before tax.
In Germany, an university graduate is normally in a paid job after 6-12 month. CS and engineers require less time. And the arts normally need more time up to 24 month for a job with a descent salary.
They are the key ingredient in any good job. Only menial jobs are micromanaged and only if the person performing it is a retard or the boss is a retard of the other kind. ;-)
In CS and engineering you need people with problem solving skills. If you micro manage them, they cannot solve the problems because you interfere with their work. In the end you have to solve it. However, then you do not need those people. In 2008 I attended a conference in Germany and the CTO of Munich Re held a key note. He said that they need people who can think on their own. Therefore, they are only employing MSc. because the chance that they are able to do so is much higher. Maybe this is different in the US. I don't know. But how could you ever be innovative if people do not use their problem solving skills?
Well this is different here. Beside the university education system, we have an apprenticeship style education combined with school, called "Duale Ausbildung" (engl, literally "dual education") where 2/3 of the people get their education for carpenters, mechanics, secretaries, etc.
You do not study a job at university, you study skills and acquire knowledge, which can in most cases be used in different jobs. If you pick the topic solely on companies need today, you might face unemployment in the envisioned jobs, because the situation changed. If you want to be good in your field, you need to not only like it, but also be willing to invest yourself in it. Otherwise, you might be better of outside university.
Philosophers can work in any number of jobs, including McJobs, taxi driving, etc., but also in consulting companies, and any other place where the ability to handle language and to think intensively about problems, they can be useful.
If you study something you do not like, you are most likely not very good at it. So you won't get a lot of money. Maybe you get even laid off and have to find a job somewhere else. Furthermore, going to university is NOT about getting trained for a specific job. You are trained (hopefully) in scientific and critical thinking, working self-controlled, and be able to solve problems on your own. there is no big difference between the sciences and most arts. Only the method set is different. Most CS majors do not learn anything about interview techniques and how to process the data, while most art majors will have little insights in quantitative analysis methods. However, they are both capable to learn the other stuff in no time (iff they do not have an psychosocial issue with math).
The end of the world is normally proclaimed by pseudo religious jerks who believe in an age of the universe of 6000 years.
The bigger the tensions in a country the more important that the infrastructure is up and running. If there is an power outage for a couple of days and your inner society tensions are not too big, life would get organized again. Most of the food I consume is produced locally. Real problems would be heating (in winter) and water supply. However, I assume that we could organize that in a couple of days based on existing catastrophe reaction plans. True health care especially hospitals will not work, however, this only affects a few people and is not threatening to society. The only determinable issue is tensions in different groups of people in town, as police will not be able to keep control in the same way.
First, Mr. Schulz is a threat because he is pro TTIP and TiSA. However, I doubt that the US government is opposed to both treaty negotiations. Second, her is not minister of the parliament, but President of the European Parliament (PEP ;-) (and he did something nasty and undemocratic today). He is a Member of the European Parliament (MEP).
On my way to work, I come across two parking slots reserved for car sharing cars. As the cars stationed there change every day, I assume frequent utilization.
As my way to work is only 20 minutes by foot, you might conclude that this is already a frequent use of such service.
Your thinking only applies to the US. In most EU countries there are more people than land. And cars are already a problem in cities. However, this problem will not be healed by self-driving cars. In Japan, India, and China this is also not an option due to even bigger space constraints. It might work in Russia.
Many traffic jams are cause by dense traffic and variable speeds. Lets assume in a dense stream of cars one decelerates a little bit. Could be wind or a hilly road. Now if the next car is following too close it will have to decrease its speed as well. In many cases even more then the first. Such waves are then propagated through the stream of cars. If multiple of these waves combine then you have a traffic jam out of nowhere. You can fix that by either reducing the number of cars or reducing the average speed of all cars. But if you just replace the control unit (human vs. computer) this will not help. It will also not help in car platooning or other means of car to car communication.
The best way to reduce traffic are, reduce the distance between work, shops and home, which is actually happening in many European cities. People are moving back into towns. Also helpful is to replace cars by bikes, which gives you an extra point in fitness (however, this only work to a distance up to 10 km). And finally, increase public transport utilization to replace unnecessary car travels.
In decent countries they already have public transport. We have presently a problem with too much traffic. This will not decrease due to self-driven cars. So in future you can either site in a traffic jam and "work" or use public transport and be there in half the time. And you can still work. But the most interesting change in recent years is the increase in bike usage and the increase in closer to home work. Both reduces the amount of traffic significantly and without any extra technology.
I always wondered why the back seat is so important in the US. Do you not have rooms? When I was sixteen, I could have my girl-friend over for the night without any trouble from my or her parents. As long as we did not drink too much beer, there still could be some action... So it happened rarely.
Therefore, the requirement to insure your self-driving car will be the obligation of the owner of the car. So there is no change. In the beginning these cars will drive together with human controlled cars. So there will be accidents. And subsequently insurance claims. If these self-driven cars are indeed able to have less claims the price for the service will drop. However, this will not transform insurance industry. They still sell you insurance and the price includes the real cost of accidents + administrative cost + their profit. If the cost by accident is reduced the overall price is reduced, but certainly they will not reduce the last part of their price.
So no real change for insurance.
If self-driven cars result in less cars, because everyone is borrowing them from their favourite car sharing organization, then the overall driven kilometres might not change much. Only the amount of parking lots can be decreased, but that is happening anyway, as we need more space for bikes, public transport, and people in the cities. As there is no reduction in kilometres the number of accidents will not decrease. Therefore, the business model of car insurance is still save.
The biggest impact of self-driven cars will be in the distribution of goods, if certain technologies are used to automatically and and unload transport devices. Long distance trucks will disappear and drives in taxi cabs and maybe the first leg of postal delivery will be swapped to self-driven vehicles. This will cost a lot of jobs.
The German term Gift is also derived from gift, but the meaning is quite the opposite. It means poison. So while you are right about the origin of the words, the meaning of words change. The terms theory and hypothesis have a distinct meaning in science and they differ from the original. However, it is still not far away. A hypothesis must be testable, however, it starts out being a speculation, but only if you can provide a way to test the hypothesis. Otherwise it is a untestable speculation and then you have to believe in it. That is more religion than science.
So they can create even more money out of nothing ;-). Wonderful. The real problem is that someone must pay at some point in history all the outstanding interest. And that will make the majority poor. Actually, our economy is fucked up (sorry for the language) and we need another system (no not communism, (a) communism is also based on increasing productivity, resource consumption and consume by citizens, (b) there are more types of communism than communists, and (c) past incarnation have freedom issues) economically and of course some thing called democracy.
The EU is doing that to counteract the US doing it. Japan did it too, but it did not work that well, as all other countries are doing it also. Switzerland tried it, but they could not buy Euros that fast that the Franc did not increase in value. The next bursting bubble will result in a even bigger catastrophe than the last time. And the biggest losers of the last crisis where not located in the EU and the US, but in Africa. The next burst will increase the emigration movement from Africa towards the EU and ruin this continent even further. In addition the poor in the EU will lose their social benefits (which are necessary that they could live from their work).
If the FED buys bonds of the US. They give the US government money for bonds. If they do not sell the bonds, but stash them in their cellar, they actually created money out of nothing. The lend money to the government. However, if someone lends you money for nothing and never wants it back then this is logically a donation. And as the FED does not need to earn that money somewhere it created it out of nothing.
Actually, all money is created out of nothing. Money is historically derived from obligations. Banks can also create money out of nothing, as long as not everyone wants their money now. the principle is very simple. Someone saves some money and stores it in their bank account. Now the bank can lend that money to someone. However, the bank is not giving the money away, they just write it down in a book (actually nowadays in a database record). This "guaranties" you that you can spend that money. Law allows them to lend the same money 10 times to different people at the same time.
It is a way to take your money and give it the rich. And if the state is out of money they either "print" it (actually it is much cheaper to transfer a number from the FED to the bank accounts of the government), they raise taxes for you or they cut benefits for the poor. In most cases they take all threee actions.
While I would agree with some of their findings, that is mostly a coincidence. They used only 4 dimension to determine this. And they missed out social skills (beside negotiation), like compassion and moderation, which are required for instance in teachers of all kind, but also in professors and many other areas where people work together. Also robots have big trouble combining gross and fine motor skills, so all areas where both are required might not be automatized that soon.
Well then. Happy waiting.
Any competent software designer and developer should have known basic rules of embedded systems. One of them: Do not use dynamic memory (and files are just alike). If you need space all the space you need must be determined at compile or design time. BTW why store all this data in the device? This should have been (if at all) implemented as an round robbing database. Yes that overwrites old data, but who cares? If you need all the data you should have calculated the amount for the complete mission and reserved enough memory for that. And why did they use a CSV file? Are their physicists?
In embedded systems, you do not go for testing (alone), you verify the system. And you certainly do not use dynamic data management, neither in RAM nor in storage (which is often the same). So you do not append something to a file. You can overwrite something in a file, but not append. And why store that data on the device anyway. An incredible whackjob, an epic fail.