In the short run, maybe so. In the long run, what's the value of deterring use of chemical weapons? How the value of US credibility when we make threats? That's surely worth something, particularly if the US wants to continue being the international police man. (Maybe the US isn't the best international police man, but we've done better than any other country that's held the post. Certainly better than Russia or China would do, if you value any type of freedom.)
Yes, thanks so much for creating the power vacuum that resulted in ISIS. Nice one.
Well, his point still stand. Take an history book and compare Iraq to the achievement of the previous strongest military power of the past.
Nazi Germany The Empire of Japan British Empire The First French Empire Ottoman Empire Roman Empire The Mongols The Huns The Persian Empire
Yeahhh..... I'm sure the homosapiens compared the calories betweens species before hunting.
More seriously though, I find that this studies goes wayyyy to far in it's analysis of the situation. In my mind, for the decision of the prey to hunt, the quantity of food per individual fall pretty low in the decision process.
What's the season? How easy it is to hunt and what are the odd of success? How much experience we have hunting that prey? How far from the colony the prey is? How dangerous it is to hunt that prey? Is there additional benefit to hunt that prey (are they challenging our territory? Can I impress the village if I hunt this?)
I mean, this is getting ridiculous. When there's not a mistake, it's simply incomplete. And for this news, it's both at the same time.
"Student Loan Debt Has Nearly Tripled".....compared to what? I have to read the Text to find that is was compared to 10 years ago....which is also wrong.
Start earning your salary and work those Headline...and please stop the sensationalist too...
You know, I agree that the quality of editing at/. is at an all-time low. Having said that, it's bad enough when people complain that TFS doesn't contain all the details to be found in TFA, but the headline?? Seriously? Read. The. Fucking. Article.
In the absence of more targeted grant or scholarship programs, more people are taking out student loans, and they are borrowing more. All that borrowing adds up to a total of $1.3 trillion, nearly triple what it was a decade ago.
I obviously doesn't expect to have every fucking detail explained in a few word headline.
But there's a ways to summarize the headline so that we have an idea of what is in TFA and, when we read it, we doesn't find out the article is completely different than the first idea that we had while reading the headline.
So, for the actual article, was "Student Loan Debt Has raised by 70% in 10 years" that hard?
I mean, this is getting ridiculous. When there's not a mistake, it's simply incomplete. And for this news, it's both at the same time.
"Student Loan Debt Has Nearly Tripled".....compared to what? I have to read the Text to find that is was compared to 10 years ago....which is also wrong.
Start earning your salary and work those Headline...and please stop the sensationalist too...
When you think you're having a bad day, imagine what daily life must've been like for our mammalian ancestors in this age of giant dinos.
Perhaps even more amazing, consider the catastrophic bad luck that befell the planet's dominant life form, and allowed our kind a window in which to proliferate.
Well I'd say it'll be comparable to, let's say, all of the animal kingdoms.
Disney's Bambi is nice and all, but in reality the life of like 99.99999% of all species is a constant struggle for survival.
Except maybe for the sloth and the honey badger, honey badger doesn't give a fuck.
Sounds like they could, but couldn't sell, then Costco stole and sold on massive scale while providing inventors with nothing. Did I miss anything here?
The inventors of what? The golf ball? Did Acushnet invent it? Seriously though, how can a golf ball have 11 patents on it?
I didn't look into detail those 11 patents, but it's not uncommon to have that many patents for simple item. So it could be :
The patent for the design The patent for the recipe of one resin inside the ball The patent on the manufacturing process to put that resin inside the ball The patent to make the mark outside of the ball The patent for the quality control of those mark etc. etc. etc.
The idea is that if you're stuck in a code, only by explaining line by line your reasoning to someone (or even a rubber duck), it'll help you to find the solution yourself.
But you know what's even more efficient? Talking to another person.
The number of time I got stuck for like half an hour, quickly poked a coworker to talk about it only to find the solution 5 min later.
The obvious one is to take off and land while turning, but this could be corrected with a few straight runway connected around the circle (Kinda like an "angled" sun shape). I'm actually surprised they didn't propose that instead. Of course, that also mean you'll need a lot more space.
Then there's the air traffic management, it's going to be a pain since all plane that either lift-off or land will use the "same" runway at the same time.
Furthermore, if you want a 3.5 km diameter circle, that mean that you'll need to put a lot of infrastructure "undergound". Highway, parking, car renting etc. That's a lot of digging and a lot of concrete.
Also, I have serious doubt it'll raise the traffic. a 747 need over 2 kilometer for landing and take-off. A 3.5 km diameter mean 11 km circumference. So if you're really efficient, you'll have to shut down like ¼ of the runway. In other word, you'll only be able to run 2 corridor of landing and 2 corridor for lift-off at all time at ~90 angle. And that mean you bring back the problem you have been trying to solve in the first place.
So yeah, a lot of new problems only to solve one that isn't that bad to begin with.
As for airplane, there's no electric equivalent to jet engine.
Most modern airliners use high-pass turbofans which produce considerably more fan thrust than jet thrust. The electric equivalent of this is the Electric Ducted Fan jet.
Well turbofan is a type of jet engine no?
And this "electric equivalent", I don't think it's even close to turbofan. What's their "Thrust-to-weight" ratio and their "Thrust specific fuel consumption"?
Of course, maybe I'm completely off and if something does exist please show me.
Is it (theoretically) possible for a battery to reach the same energy density as fossil fuel? Gasoline has an energy density of 46MJ/kg while a lithium based battery has an energy density of around 1MJ/kg.
This would mean that an electric car, boat or airplane would have the same potential range as their oil powered brethren.
How come this is modded up? This is so deeply flawed.
Gasoline engine are terribly inefficient (30-45%) compared to the electric (90-98%), meaning that you need far less energy density to reach the same range for it's weight. And let's not forget the braking. As for airplane, there's no electric equivalent to jet engine.
Energy density is a factor, but not the only one. Price, Safety, speed of charge, number of cycle are all important to consider too.
or to have some sort of cargo capture system (a net? a drone with grabber arms?). I favor the latter because I want the cargo capsules to be as simple and cheap as possible.
One problem with a net is, since you're in space, every time you'll catch a cargo, it'll transfer it's force to the station, meaning that it'll alter the station trajectory.
The good news is that I'm pretty confident that it's possible that the push is in the prograde. So if you need to push back the station a little, you could save fuel by hurling a cargo at him. Kinda neat.
Difference of opinions here I guess but the definition I offered clarifies that the object to be considered a planet in any sort of clustered central orbiting system, has to be the most prominent body in that orbit. That would make Pluto the planet, and Charon the moon. Charon is about half the size of Pluto, so there is a significant difference on the gravitational influence of each celestial body as well.
The Earths moon is roughly a quarter size of our planet and in many respects, we share similarities to the Pluto-Charon system. I would argue that the Earth-Moon system is also a binary system too. However, the most prominent body of influence should retain the most prominent hierarchical name. Hence, the Earth is a planet, Luna is a moon, Pluto is a planet, and Charon is a moon.
Yeah I understand what you mean. And I understand that Charon kinda feel like a moon. But what if both (Charon and Pluto) were about the same size? You'll say that the one slightly bigger is the planet and the one slightly smaller the moon?
In my mind, for a Moon to be considered a "Moon", it have to be greatly smaller than it's planet. That's why I love to use the centre of orbit (or Barycenter) as a reference. If a "planet" is massive enough so it's clearly the "Master" of it's own system, then the barycenter will be inside itself.
A planet is any object in orbit around a star, of sufficient mass to reach hydrostatic equilibrium, has not reached critical mass to achieve stellar fusion, and is the most prominent body in its orbit and neighborhood. That definition is going to add a few more planets but not many.
The suggested definition from TFA is just as terribly obtuse as the 2006 definition. Even worse is the suggestion to change the word 'planet' to become an all encompassing term that now also means most smaller bodies as well (but not all). It makes things unnecessarily confusing. This just seems tantamount to two-year-old logic where one word now means everything.
And look, my suggested definition expands.
A moon is any object in orbit around a planet, of sufficient mass to reach hydrostatic equilibrium, and is the most prominent body in its orbit and neighborhood.
A moonroid (haha maybe?) is any object in orbit around a planet, has not reached critical mass to achieve hydrostatic equilibrium, and is shares its orbit and neighborhood with other objects of similar mass.
An asteroid is any object in orbit around a star, has not reached critical mass to achieve hydrostatic equilibrium, and is shares its orbit and neighborhood with other objects of similar mass.
And so on. The hydrostatic equilibrium is critical to defining celestial bodies but it shouldn't be the only requirement to define a planet.
Hmm mostly how I see it but it fail to address binary system like Pluto–Charon.
In my mind, Charon shouldn't be considered a satellite to Pluto since the centre of orbit is outside of Pluto. Neither are "Moon", both are "Planet".
As for how to separate asteroid to "Planet", hydrostatic equilibrium is a clear win. But in my mind planet shoudl be separated in 3 group :
- Asteroid : No hydrostatic equilibrium (No rounded shape) - Dwarf Planet : No Atmosphere (rounded shape) - Planet : Atmosphere - Gas Giant : Atmosphere thicker than solid core
As for satellite, exactly the same definition as planet except replace "Planet" by "Moon". So "Dwarf Moon", "Moon" and something along the line of "Gas Giant Moon".
But in the end, it's all relate to this : The earth is a globe, and there's no way to represent is on a 2D map without : 1-Tearing the map appart 2-Stretching the map
I'm actually impressed that the missile is sensitive enough to get triggered by hitting a drone. I would have thought the drone would just bounce right off.
I don't think modern ballistic missile got a hammer detonator at the end. I'm pretty sure there's a bunch of tech to make it automatically explode when it reach it's target.
It takes about 2,500 gallons of water to produce just a pound of beef
Am I the only reminded of Azimov's The Martian Way? I mean the part, where an Earth's politician is explaining to electorate, how much water (used as reaction mass) it takes for a spaceship to get into space. The book's main characters observe, that most of the water so used falls right back onto the planet. But at least, in that novel some amount of water, however minuscule compared to Earth's vast oceans, does leave...
Well, in case of meat production — or indeed any other Earth-bound activity — no water is lost. Zero. Nada. So, what is the quoted statement supposed to mean?
Exactly.
I remember a dispute when a passerby yelled at my neighbour because he was "wasting" water on his lawn (I live in Canada so no shortage of water here). I've walked to him and ask him where did he thought the water was coming from. After he told be the water came from the ground, it was funny to see his face when I then asked : "But isn't he sending the water back to the reservoir?".
Using "2,500 gallons of water" is false science and I'm starting to be pissed of to all that pseudo-science. If you're an environmentalist and you want to do some real science, It's not 2,500 gallons of water that want to know, you want to know the quantity of pollution created for each pound of meat. That mean :
- The energy needed to clean/pump this water + the carbon footprint of that energy. - The energy needed for all the process of the meat (The cow itself, the grain of it's food, the meat processing) + the carbon footprint of that energy. - The quantity of waste/pollution created by the cow itself (Methane/piss/shit) and the whole infrastructure. - The quantity pollution/energy to build the whole infrastructure, each one divided by each pound of meat created during it's lifetime.
Ever gone skeet shooting? Not as easy as it looks.
Well if there's one guy shooting, then sure. But what if dozens guys shoot 100-200 round per minutes, that should do it.
On top of that bullets have a higher chance of killing someone on the ground vs a missile used as an intercept device. Someone can still be killed in either case though,
Well, we're talking about a War environment. I'm surprised there's any consideration about this.
one of the reasons that lasers to shoot them down are being pushed. The other is lasers would be far cheaper and have a higher hit:miss ratio.
Unless there's a laser with every squad, I doubt it'll be a solution (but then again, is there a patriot missile with every squad?).
Slashdot Mirror
In the short run, maybe so. In the long run, what's the value of deterring use of chemical weapons? How the value of US credibility when we make threats? That's surely worth something, particularly if the US wants to continue being the international police man. (Maybe the US isn't the best international police man, but we've done better than any other country that's held the post. Certainly better than Russia or China would do, if you value any type of freedom.)
Yes, thanks so much for creating the power vacuum that resulted in ISIS. Nice one.
Well, his point still stand. Take an history book and compare Iraq to the achievement of the previous strongest military power of the past.
Nazi Germany
The Empire of Japan
British Empire
The First French Empire
Ottoman Empire
Roman Empire
The Mongols
The Huns
The Persian Empire
Yeahhh..... I'm sure the homosapiens compared the calories betweens species before hunting.
More seriously though, I find that this studies goes wayyyy to far in it's analysis of the situation. In my mind, for the decision of the prey to hunt, the quantity of food per individual fall pretty low in the decision process.
What's the season? How easy it is to hunt and what are the odd of success? How much experience we have hunting that prey? How far from the colony the prey is? How dangerous it is to hunt that prey? Is there additional benefit to hunt that prey (are they challenging our territory? Can I impress the village if I hunt this?)
I mean, this is getting ridiculous. When there's not a mistake, it's simply incomplete. And for this news, it's both at the same time.
"Student Loan Debt Has Nearly Tripled".....compared to what? I have to read the Text to find that is was compared to 10 years ago....which is also wrong.
Start earning your salary and work those Headline...and please stop the sensationalist too...
You know, I agree that the quality of editing at /. is at an all-time low. Having said that, it's bad enough when people complain that TFS doesn't contain all the details to be found in TFA, but the headline?? Seriously? Read. The. Fucking. Article.
In the absence of more targeted grant or scholarship programs, more people are taking out student loans, and they are borrowing more. All that borrowing adds up to a total of $1.3 trillion, nearly triple what it was a decade ago.
I obviously doesn't expect to have every fucking detail explained in a few word headline.
But there's a ways to summarize the headline so that we have an idea of what is in TFA and, when we read it, we doesn't find out the article is completely different than the first idea that we had while reading the headline.
So, for the actual article, was "Student Loan Debt Has raised by 70% in 10 years" that hard?
I mean, this is getting ridiculous. When there's not a mistake, it's simply incomplete. And for this news, it's both at the same time.
"Student Loan Debt Has Nearly Tripled".....compared to what? I have to read the Text to find that is was compared to 10 years ago....which is also wrong.
Start earning your salary and work those Headline...and please stop the sensationalist too...
I wonder what warp speed they can achieve
Funny,
Seriously though, is "warping" correct english? Because I don't get it.
My pleasure!
When you think you're having a bad day, imagine what daily life must've been like for our mammalian ancestors in this age of giant dinos.
Perhaps even more amazing, consider the catastrophic bad luck that befell the planet's dominant life form, and allowed our kind a window in which to proliferate.
Well I'd say it'll be comparable to, let's say, all of the animal kingdoms.
Disney's Bambi is nice and all, but in reality the life of like 99.99999% of all species is a constant struggle for survival.
Except maybe for the sloth and the honey badger, honey badger doesn't give a fuck.
Saying the UK has no control over the EU is like saying the West Midlands or Greater Manchester have no control over the UK.
They do?
Do you know what cut even more job than robot? Chinese!
I'm a robot engineer and, the way I see it, we're stealing those job back from the Chinese.
An US worker, no matter how efficient he his, will never compare to a Chinese worker at 1/10 the wage.
But a worker with 2 robot in the other hand...
And the faster we do this the better because guess what? Chinese are starting to use robot now too.
Sounds like they could, but couldn't sell, then Costco stole and sold on massive scale while providing inventors with nothing. Did I miss anything here?
The inventors of what? The golf ball? Did Acushnet invent it? Seriously though, how can a golf ball have 11 patents on it?
I didn't look into detail those 11 patents, but it's not uncommon to have that many patents for simple item. So it could be :
The patent for the design
The patent for the recipe of one resin inside the ball
The patent on the manufacturing process to put that resin inside the ball
The patent to make the mark outside of the ball
The patent for the quality control of those mark
etc. etc. etc.
Well, the headline escalated quickly from "People aren't necessarily more creative in groups than alone" to "Brainstorming Doesn't Work".
Ever heard of Duck Debugging? : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The idea is that if you're stuck in a code, only by explaining line by line your reasoning to someone (or even a rubber duck), it'll help you to find the solution yourself.
But you know what's even more efficient? Talking to another person.
The number of time I got stuck for like half an hour, quickly poked a coworker to talk about it only to find the solution 5 min later.
Expert to Expert brainstorming work. It's useless corporate meeting that doesn't : https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Yeah that's exactly what I was searching for, I find this design a lot more efficient
Oh boys, where to begin.
The obvious one is to take off and land while turning, but this could be corrected with a few straight runway connected around the circle (Kinda like an "angled" sun shape). I'm actually surprised they didn't propose that instead. Of course, that also mean you'll need a lot more space.
Then there's the air traffic management, it's going to be a pain since all plane that either lift-off or land will use the "same" runway at the same time.
Furthermore, if you want a 3.5 km diameter circle, that mean that you'll need to put a lot of infrastructure "undergound". Highway, parking, car renting etc. That's a lot of digging and a lot of concrete.
Also, I have serious doubt it'll raise the traffic. a 747 need over 2 kilometer for landing and take-off. A 3.5 km diameter mean 11 km circumference. So if you're really efficient, you'll have to shut down like ¼ of the runway. In other word, you'll only be able to run 2 corridor of landing and 2 corridor for lift-off at all time at ~90 angle. And that mean you bring back the problem you have been trying to solve in the first place.
So yeah, a lot of new problems only to solve one that isn't that bad to begin with.
Most modern airliners use high-pass turbofans which produce considerably more fan thrust than jet thrust. The electric equivalent of this is the Electric Ducted Fan jet.
Well turbofan is a type of jet engine no?
And this "electric equivalent", I don't think it's even close to turbofan. What's their "Thrust-to-weight" ratio and their "Thrust specific fuel consumption"?
Of course, maybe I'm completely off and if something does exist please show me.
John,
Is it (theoretically) possible for a battery to reach the same energy density as fossil fuel? Gasoline has an energy density of 46MJ/kg while a lithium based battery has an energy density of around 1MJ/kg.
This would mean that an electric car, boat or airplane would have the same potential range as their oil powered brethren.
How come this is modded up? This is so deeply flawed.
Gasoline engine are terribly inefficient (30-45%) compared to the electric (90-98%), meaning that you need far less energy density to reach the same range for it's weight. And let's not forget the braking. As for airplane, there's no electric equivalent to jet engine.
Energy density is a factor, but not the only one. Price, Safety, speed of charge, number of cycle are all important to consider too.
or to have some sort of cargo capture system (a net? a drone with grabber arms?). I favor the latter because I want the cargo capsules to be as simple and cheap as possible.
One problem with a net is, since you're in space, every time you'll catch a cargo, it'll transfer it's force to the station, meaning that it'll alter the station trajectory.
The good news is that I'm pretty confident that it's possible that the push is in the prograde. So if you need to push back the station a little, you could save fuel by hurling a cargo at him. Kinda neat.
Damn, that's some Alien finishing move sh*t right there!
Make the death star look kinda cute.
Difference of opinions here I guess but the definition I offered clarifies that the object to be considered a planet in any sort of clustered central orbiting system, has to be the most prominent body in that orbit. That would make Pluto the planet, and Charon the moon. Charon is about half the size of Pluto, so there is a significant difference on the gravitational influence of each celestial body as well.
The Earths moon is roughly a quarter size of our planet and in many respects, we share similarities to the Pluto-Charon system. I would argue that the Earth-Moon system is also a binary system too. However, the most prominent body of influence should retain the most prominent hierarchical name. Hence, the Earth is a planet, Luna is a moon, Pluto is a planet, and Charon is a moon.
Yeah I understand what you mean. And I understand that Charon kinda feel like a moon. But what if both (Charon and Pluto) were about the same size? You'll say that the one slightly bigger is the planet and the one slightly smaller the moon?
In my mind, for a Moon to be considered a "Moon", it have to be greatly smaller than it's planet. That's why I love to use the centre of orbit (or Barycenter) as a reference. If a "planet" is massive enough so it's clearly the "Master" of it's own system, then the barycenter will be inside itself.
A planet is any object in orbit around a star, of sufficient mass to reach hydrostatic equilibrium, has not reached critical mass to achieve stellar fusion, and is the most prominent body in its orbit and neighborhood. That definition is going to add a few more planets but not many.
The suggested definition from TFA is just as terribly obtuse as the 2006 definition. Even worse is the suggestion to change the word 'planet' to become an all encompassing term that now also means most smaller bodies as well (but not all). It makes things unnecessarily confusing. This just seems tantamount to two-year-old logic where one word now means everything.
And look, my suggested definition expands.
A moon is any object in orbit around a planet, of sufficient mass to reach hydrostatic equilibrium, and is the most prominent body in its orbit and neighborhood.
A moonroid (haha maybe?) is any object in orbit around a planet, has not reached critical mass to achieve hydrostatic equilibrium, and is shares its orbit and neighborhood with other objects of similar mass.
An asteroid is any object in orbit around a star, has not reached critical mass to achieve hydrostatic equilibrium, and is shares its orbit and neighborhood with other objects of similar mass.
And so on. The hydrostatic equilibrium is critical to defining celestial bodies but it shouldn't be the only requirement to define a planet.
Hmm mostly how I see it but it fail to address binary system like Pluto–Charon.
In my mind, Charon shouldn't be considered a satellite to Pluto since the centre of orbit is outside of Pluto. Neither are "Moon", both are "Planet".
As for how to separate asteroid to "Planet", hydrostatic equilibrium is a clear win. But in my mind planet shoudl be separated in 3 group :
- Asteroid : No hydrostatic equilibrium (No rounded shape)
- Dwarf Planet : No Atmosphere (rounded shape)
- Planet : Atmosphere
- Gas Giant : Atmosphere thicker than solid core
As for satellite, exactly the same definition as planet except replace "Planet" by "Moon". So "Dwarf Moon", "Moon" and something along the line of "Gas Giant Moon".
https://xkcd.com/977/
Nice find!
But in the end, it's all relate to this : The earth is a globe, and there's no way to represent is on a 2D map without :
1-Tearing the map appart
2-Stretching the map
Personally, I prefer the 3rd option : "Put more globe in your school" like this one : http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fEqw...
Now that is awesome.
I'm actually impressed that the missile is sensitive enough to get triggered by hitting a drone. I would have thought the drone would just bounce right off.
I don't think modern ballistic missile got a hammer detonator at the end. I'm pretty sure there's a bunch of tech to make it automatically explode when it reach it's target.
Am I the only reminded of Azimov's The Martian Way? I mean the part, where an Earth's politician is explaining to electorate, how much water (used as reaction mass) it takes for a spaceship to get into space. The book's main characters observe, that most of the water so used falls right back onto the planet. But at least, in that novel some amount of water, however minuscule compared to Earth's vast oceans, does leave...
Well, in case of meat production — or indeed any other Earth-bound activity — no water is lost. Zero. Nada. So, what is the quoted statement supposed to mean?
Exactly.
I remember a dispute when a passerby yelled at my neighbour because he was "wasting" water on his lawn (I live in Canada so no shortage of water here). I've walked to him and ask him where did he thought the water was coming from. After he told be the water came from the ground, it was funny to see his face when I then asked : "But isn't he sending the water back to the reservoir?".
Using "2,500 gallons of water" is false science and I'm starting to be pissed of to all that pseudo-science. If you're an environmentalist and you want to do some real science, It's not 2,500 gallons of water that want to know, you want to know the quantity of pollution created for each pound of meat. That mean :
- The energy needed to clean/pump this water + the carbon footprint of that energy.
- The energy needed for all the process of the meat (The cow itself, the grain of it's food, the meat processing) + the carbon footprint of that energy.
- The quantity of waste/pollution created by the cow itself (Methane/piss/shit) and the whole infrastructure.
- The quantity pollution/energy to build the whole infrastructure, each one divided by each pound of meat created during it's lifetime.
I may be forgetting a thing or two.
I mean, we're talking consumer drone so we're talking what? ~500 feet (~150m) and 100 mph? (~160kph)
Why don't they simply shoot at it with their rifle?
Who said it was flying that low?
They said it was a 200$ drone so I've done a quick search of the range and speed of drone at that price range. But yeah I may be completely wrong.
Ever gone skeet shooting? Not as easy as it looks.
Well if there's one guy shooting, then sure. But what if dozens guys shoot 100-200 round per minutes, that should do it.
On top of that bullets have a higher chance of killing someone on the ground vs a missile used as an intercept device. Someone can still be killed in either case though,
Well, we're talking about a War environment. I'm surprised there's any consideration about this.
one of the reasons that lasers to shoot them down are being pushed. The other is lasers would be far cheaper and have a higher hit:miss ratio.
Unless there's a laser with every squad, I doubt it'll be a solution (but then again, is there a patriot missile with every squad?).
I mean, we're talking consumer drone so we're talking what? ~500 feet (~150m) and 100 mph? (~160kph)
Why don't they simply shoot at it with their rifle?