The local electric utilities will buy the CF bulbs for you. One will hand them out if you visit their offices. Others offer mail in rebates. There's a limit of something like six per household so people don't turn around and sell them in neighboring communities for profit. I don't know how common this is but the local hardware stores advertise "free" CF lightbulbs all the time so they get their $10 on the deal.
No, but apparently it had one of those "Hello from planet Earth!" CDs. I'm not sure why.:^P
Agreed. I can imagine what the teacher said to the class as they were about to create the pictures and poems to put on the disk. "Now, class, we are going to make history here so do your best. I want NASA to have the best examples of your creativity for a CD to be destroyed as it enters the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds and is reduced to its component elements as it lands somewhere in the middle of the ocean."
It's more difficult to get a hardware NAT router/firewall for your connection.
I respectfully disagree. Difficult, no. Expensive, yes. Apple sells its Airport Extreme base station with builtin modem for $199. Many times more expensive than your $25 Belkin but it has many times more features. I imagine I'd find someone like Belkin, or Linksys, selling a product capable of sharing a modem connection for less if I cared to look. There is also the option of the firewall-on-a-floppy Linux distros or BSD derivatives to run on a doorstop Pentium. More difficult? Yes. Expensive? No.
But you can't stop with just dialup. You have to use MSDOS 2.0, and get yourself a good ansi term program to connect to a dialup that gives you telnet, ftp, nn, lynx, pine, etc. Use a 300 baud modem for maximum attack-throttling also.
Ah, that brings me back to the good old days. No pop-ups, no viruses, no trojan laden images... I guess there weren't any images. Not much for content, not that it mattered since I could type and read faster than the modem. No Slashdot. I guess it wasn't so great after all.
If you are broadcasting with enough energy to disrupt GPS (Galileo or NavStar) you are broadcasting enough energy to be a very nice target for anti-radio missiles
Very true... I suppose the proper countermove then would be to make lots of unmanned jamming devices and spread them around like land mines. Then it would take a lot of missles to get rid of all of them...
Or a few platoons with RDF equipment, shovels, and wire cutters.
- Higher accuracy for commercial subscribers than offered by GPS. - Non-military, muli-national control. No one country/entity can turn it off. - Availability on Arctic and Antarctic waters. While not useful to most, apparently including the US military, it is useful for shipping and search and rescue for many European countries. - Interoperability/compatibility with GPS. One can back up the other to offer higher availability and/or accuracy.
The only problem I can see is that they use the same frequencies. If some one jams one they are also jamming the other. Given the military capability of the countries funding both systems I can imagine such jamming will be very short lived.
they will probably just drive around with humvee's broadcasting noise onto the frequencies galileo uses. you can jam the us GPS in a pretty big area using a device that uses less power than a lightbulb.
If you are broadcasting with enough energy to disrupt GPS (Galileo or NavStar) you are broadcasting enough energy to be a very nice target for anti-radio missiles. They don't need GPS, just a reasonably accurate directional antenna. Just ask Saddam Heussein (SP?) how well GPS jamming worked for him.
I don't think a new keyboard layout is the solution. I think we need new keyboards. The problem I have is that the keys on all keyboards do not line up from top to bottom. The keys should not be in this 1/3 shift to the right arrangement they are now. That arrangement was a hack for the old mechanical keyboards that had levers that needed to go aside the key above it. Line the keys up from top to bottom, left to right, in a logical grid. That alone should speed up typing and reduce errors.
I know keyboards exist like what I have described, but that doesn't fix the keyboard supplied by my employer. It also is not a replacement for the keyboard in my laptop.
I don't think we will see Wine for OSX being bundled with machines from Apple any time soon. The primary reason is because it would be a support nightmare. People will be calling in asking why their obscure application is not working. X11 is not as much of a problem since the people using that are more tech oriented and are more likely to know what they are doing before even installing X11.
There are a number of legal and political hurdles as well. Microsoft might get the idea of causing Apple some headaches if this happened. Software developers might get confused about how serious Apple is in keeping it's own API and not becoming just another clone manufacturer.
Let's not forget that WINE still is not out of beta yet. WINE may get bundled with new Macs but it won't happen until there is more polish on the code. I would imagine that once Apple gets their Intel based computers out the door someone will get WINE running on day two.
Why do we need space for this? Realistically, fusion is being sought after by many organizations. The dilemma is that radioactive materials are so closely regulated and guarded, there isn't a lot of room for private individuals and companies to see better solutions.
Replied with:
1) Fusion doesn't require any radioactive materials. 2) Fusion engines are very efficient and would allow not just single stage to orbit vehicles, but single stage to Mars surface and back to Earth without refueling and taking only a couple of months for the round trip.
Fusion may not require radioactive material but it sure does make it easier. Tritium, or heavy hydrogen, is radioactive and is a common fuel for fusion. In fact it is a primary component to modern nuclear weapons. Fusion may not require radioactive material but our current techniques for sustained fusion does.
The large volumes of tritium required for a sustainable "cold start" of fusion would require a production of some kind. Unlike uranium that has a half life of billions of years tritium has a half life of 12. So a reactor of some kind is needed to neutron bombard hydrogen into its heavy isotopes. One way to do that is with a fission reactor, although that would not be required once fusion is perfected since fusion also produces free neutrons.
The fusion reaction would also render many otherwise stable elements into fissionable material. Thorium could be turned into useful uranium if exposed to the free neutrons from a fusion reactor. That uranium could also be turned into plutonium if exposed longer.
I agree that fusion and fission reactors are a requirement for practical space travel in the near future, but given the fear of those reactor fuels being turned into weapons prevents that from happening. Tritium would be a great fusion fuel but it also is what makes powerful weapons and makes Zeppelins burn. Uranium and plutonium can be perfect fuels for energy production but it is also associated with famous places like Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island.
Re:I like it, but I also have questions and doubts
on
NASA's New Shuttle
·
· Score: 1
The Space Shuttle weighs about 120 tons, which is oddly enough the approximate capacity of the new NASA heavy lift vehicle. It has a payload capacity of 29 tons, which is just over half of the new NASA crew lifter.
I can see some beneficial technologies coming out of the desire to return to the moon.
I don't know where the liquid hydrogen currently comes from for launching the Space Shuttle but if there is a desire to lift more cargo more often then reducing the cost of the production of liquid hydrogen may promote the transition to a hydrogen based economy. I realize that hydrogen is an energy storage technology, unlike petroleum which is an energy source. What may happen is that if hydrogen production is such that it can compete with other fuels for transportation. (Imagine a commercial airliner powered by hydrogen instead of petroleum fuels. It could happen.) Where would the energy for hydrogen production come from? I'm getting there.
NASA has been experimenting with nuclear reactors to power rockets and habitats. If this technology is developed to a point it is considered safe, economic, and otherwise practical enough for Earth-bound commercial power that could have huge implications in the cost and availability of electrical power. Nuclear power plant construction is at a near standstill because of concerns of safety. If NASA can prove a reactor safe enough to be put on a rocket that could change many people's minds, especially if combined with the increasing cost of petroleum fuels and decreasing cost of hydrogen production. If NASA is successful in constructing a nuclear rocket for interplanetary travel that would be a huge accomplishment in itself.
To me it looks like NASA is trying to rebuild an infrastructure that is being lost with the retiring of the Space Shuttle program. While replacing the Space Shuttle they are also improving capability and flexibility. I imagine the new heavy lift to orbit program will have the potential to improve the economy, not directly but indirectly by bringing new technologies to the market.
The thermals above forest fires are so severe that some crashes of conventional aircraft have been attributed to thermals snapping the wings off the planes! There's no way you could maneuver this thing through that kind of turbulence.
I won't even pretend that I understand all the physics of flight and forest fires but I'm pretty sure that heavier-than-air craft do currently fly over forest fires to put them out. In that case someone must consider flying over a forest fire safe and effective enough to be worth trying. Sure, you may lose a plane and pilot on occasion but stuff happens.
Unlike a conventional HTA craft this 'Walrus" has most of its lift provided by a passive means. If a plane or helicopter loses power it tumbles out of the sky. If a plane or helicopter loses a wing it tumbles out of the sky even faster. The Walrus has no wings to be torn off by a thermal. I'm sure a thermal might give it a rough ride, perhaps even take out an engine or set it afire. If it loses partial power it just has to dump its load and take to higher altitudes and limp home. If a four engine WWII bomber can limp across the English Channel on one engine I imagine this craft could easily be capable of performing a similar feat. The threat of catching fire could be lessened by allowing it to direct some of that water it is carrying onto itself, something I imagine would be impractical for conventional HTA craft. Since the craft is carrying helium a fire that should happen to burn through to the envelope would naturally be extinguished or diminished by the escaping gas. A fire in the cabin could be put out by venting the envelope gasses into the closed cabin, hopefully after the crew dons oxygen masks of course.
This craft is said to be able to cover 12000 miles in seven days, that works out to about 80 miles an hour, similar to the airspeed of a piston driven airplane or helicopter. If conventional craft can "outrun" a forest fire the Walrus should as well, especially if it chose to dump its cargo. What is the airspeed of an unladen swallow? Um, I mean Walrus?
Like I said I don't know it all but from where I'm standing I think using a craft similar to the Walrus would be useful in fighting fires. The only drawback I see is speed. An airplane capable of near Mach speed is quite common. Most commercial aircraft cruise at something like.8 mach (600 MPH). A small turboprop craft can go at least half that fast. The Walrus and similar craft can only go a fraction of that speed which might make it ill suited for first arrival on scene.
The proposed craft is heavier than air, not lighter than air like the blimps and hot air balloons you are used to. I would assume that the craft is neutrally buoyant, or even slightly lighter than air, when fully unloaded of cargo, fuel, and crew, which is a situation such a craft is not likely to find itself in given how much of an asset it is to whomever that owns it.
Load the thing up with crew, pumps, water tanks, and so much water that the ground cracks beneath it and it takes all its might to get off the ground and you have a mighty tool for fighting a fire. When it gets to the fire it can pump the water out at a tremendous rate and still be able to compensate for the loss in mass by throttling back the lift engines as it does. With electronic fly-by-wire controls common in commercial and military aircraft, flying within safety margins, and a trained crew I think I would be perfectly feasible and relatively safe (nothing is absolutely safe) to use such a craft to fight forest fires.
Thinking about this for a bit I think the forestry industry would love something like this. One big problem with cutting down trees is getting them out of the forest. The weight of trucks loaded with lumber is such that they normally wait until winter when the ground is frozen to move the lumber out. Environmental groups are not happy with the trails that are cut to allow the heavy equipment in and out of the harvest areas. With a heavy lift craft like this the work crews and equipment could be brought in by air, and the lumber brought out the same way. Have pumps and tanks on board for when a forest fire breaks out and the craft could put its lift capacity to suck water from whatever water source presents itself and drop it on the fire in a matter of hours.
Large cities might want to consider a similar craft for high rise fire fighting and evacuation.
For that matter, why not carry an F-22? This thing is supposed to lift 500 tons.
It's not like it hasn't been tried before. I remember seeing film where a propeller driven biplane was launched and retrieved from the bottom of an airship. I also saw concept drawings of an airstrip atop a Zeppelin type craft. This is not a new idea.
A fully loaded F-22 weighs about 40 tons, that means the craft could lift 12 planes.
When I lived in Texas I came across a group of electric vehicle enthusiasts. Check out the website for Austin Area Electric Auto Association. They give some pointers on conversions, give some suppliers of parts, and show off what people in the area have done.
Look into what Apple has to offer. Mac OS X Server looks very nice. It will run on anything from an old iMac to a Xserve G5. It features spam filtering, web mail, anti-virus, and encrypted connections.
I haven't used Apple's server products since the days of Mac OS 9. I'm just a fan of their products.
From what I understand the merger makes perfect sense because of the mismatched technologies. I heard that Nextel has to move out of its 800MHz spectrum to some where else, something like the FCC wanting to give the frequencies to public service two-way radio (police and fire). Nextel can't just go and buy all new equipment overnight so it put itself up for sale. Sprint is already using the 1900MHz PCS band for its phones so no worries about 800MHz towers. What is basically happening is that Sprint is buying the Nextel customer base. As Nextel customers upgrade phones they will be buying Sprint PCS versions to replace their old Nextel versions.
I don't think that the new phones would vary much from what Sprint is already offering. Sprint phones already have roaming capability on other (non-PCS) towers.
Slashdot Mirror
Does it run Windows? Who cares! Imagine a Beowulf cluster of Dells!
All you'll get from that subpoena is a squadron of Cylon Raiders!
The local electric utilities will buy the CF bulbs for you. One will hand them out if you visit their offices. Others offer mail in rebates. There's a limit of something like six per household so people don't turn around and sell them in neighboring communities for profit. I don't know how common this is but the local hardware stores advertise "free" CF lightbulbs all the time so they get their $10 on the deal.
No, but apparently it had one of those "Hello from planet Earth!" CDs. I'm not sure why. :^P
Agreed. I can imagine what the teacher said to the class as they were about to create the pictures and poems to put on the disk. "Now, class, we are going to make history here so do your best. I want NASA to have the best examples of your creativity for a CD to be destroyed as it enters the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds and is reduced to its component elements as it lands somewhere in the middle of the ocean."
It's more difficult to get a hardware NAT router/firewall for your connection.
I respectfully disagree. Difficult, no. Expensive, yes. Apple sells its Airport Extreme base station with builtin modem for $199. Many times more expensive than your $25 Belkin but it has many times more features. I imagine I'd find someone like Belkin, or Linksys, selling a product capable of sharing a modem connection for less if I cared to look. There is also the option of the firewall-on-a-floppy Linux distros or BSD derivatives to run on a doorstop Pentium. More difficult? Yes. Expensive? No.
But you can't stop with just dialup. You have to use MSDOS 2.0, and get yourself a good ansi term program to connect to a dialup that gives you telnet, ftp, nn, lynx, pine, etc. Use a 300 baud modem for maximum attack-throttling also.
Ah, that brings me back to the good old days. No pop-ups, no viruses, no trojan laden images... I guess there weren't any images. Not much for content, not that it mattered since I could type and read faster than the modem. No Slashdot. I guess it wasn't so great after all.
Or a few platoons with RDF equipment, shovels, and wire cutters.
Galileo offers:
- Higher accuracy for commercial subscribers than offered by GPS.
- Non-military, muli-national control. No one country/entity can turn it off.
- Availability on Arctic and Antarctic waters. While not useful to most, apparently including the US military, it is useful for shipping and search and rescue for many European countries.
- Interoperability/compatibility with GPS. One can back up the other to offer higher availability and/or accuracy.
The only problem I can see is that they use the same frequencies. If some one jams one they are also jamming the other. Given the military capability of the countries funding both systems I can imagine such jamming will be very short lived.
If you are broadcasting with enough energy to disrupt GPS (Galileo or NavStar) you are broadcasting enough energy to be a very nice target for anti-radio missiles. They don't need GPS, just a reasonably accurate directional antenna. Just ask Saddam Heussein (SP?) how well GPS jamming worked for him.
Problem is, they have not found any wolly mammoth sperm from which they could obtain the needed DNA.
Have they tried looking in the scrotum? Just a guess.
I don't think a new keyboard layout is the solution. I think we need new keyboards. The problem I have is that the keys on all keyboards do not line up from top to bottom. The keys should not be in this 1/3 shift to the right arrangement they are now. That arrangement was a hack for the old mechanical keyboards that had levers that needed to go aside the key above it. Line the keys up from top to bottom, left to right, in a logical grid. That alone should speed up typing and reduce errors.
I know keyboards exist like what I have described, but that doesn't fix the keyboard supplied by my employer. It also is not a replacement for the keyboard in my laptop.
I don't think we will see Wine for OSX being bundled with machines from Apple any time soon. The primary reason is because it would be a support nightmare. People will be calling in asking why their obscure application is not working. X11 is not as much of a problem since the people using that are more tech oriented and are more likely to know what they are doing before even installing X11.
There are a number of legal and political hurdles as well. Microsoft might get the idea of causing Apple some headaches if this happened. Software developers might get confused about how serious Apple is in keeping it's own API and not becoming just another clone manufacturer.
Let's not forget that WINE still is not out of beta yet. WINE may get bundled with new Macs but it won't happen until there is more polish on the code. I would imagine that once Apple gets their Intel based computers out the door someone will get WINE running on day two.
Hey slashdotter's, you might want to visit that web site a few times, and make sure you always have a fresh page by hitting SHIFT-F5!
Num lock? What good does that do?
Why do we need space for this? Realistically, fusion is being sought after by many organizations. The dilemma is that radioactive materials are so closely regulated and guarded, there isn't a lot of room for private individuals and companies to see better solutions.
Replied with:
1) Fusion doesn't require any radioactive materials. 2) Fusion engines are very efficient and would allow not just single stage to orbit vehicles, but single stage to Mars surface and back to Earth without refueling and taking only a couple of months for the round trip.
Fusion may not require radioactive material but it sure does make it easier. Tritium, or heavy hydrogen, is radioactive and is a common fuel for fusion. In fact it is a primary component to modern nuclear weapons. Fusion may not require radioactive material but our current techniques for sustained fusion does.
The large volumes of tritium required for a sustainable "cold start" of fusion would require a production of some kind. Unlike uranium that has a half life of billions of years tritium has a half life of 12. So a reactor of some kind is needed to neutron bombard hydrogen into its heavy isotopes. One way to do that is with a fission reactor, although that would not be required once fusion is perfected since fusion also produces free neutrons.
The fusion reaction would also render many otherwise stable elements into fissionable material. Thorium could be turned into useful uranium if exposed to the free neutrons from a fusion reactor. That uranium could also be turned into plutonium if exposed longer.
I agree that fusion and fission reactors are a requirement for practical space travel in the near future, but given the fear of those reactor fuels being turned into weapons prevents that from happening. Tritium would be a great fusion fuel but it also is what makes powerful weapons and makes Zeppelins burn. Uranium and plutonium can be perfect fuels for energy production but it is also associated with famous places like Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island.
The Space Shuttle weighs about 120 tons, which is oddly enough the approximate capacity of the new NASA heavy lift vehicle. It has a payload capacity of 29 tons, which is just over half of the new NASA crew lifter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_shuttle
I can see some beneficial technologies coming out of the desire to return to the moon.
I don't know where the liquid hydrogen currently comes from for launching the Space Shuttle but if there is a desire to lift more cargo more often then reducing the cost of the production of liquid hydrogen may promote the transition to a hydrogen based economy. I realize that hydrogen is an energy storage technology, unlike petroleum which is an energy source. What may happen is that if hydrogen production is such that it can compete with other fuels for transportation. (Imagine a commercial airliner powered by hydrogen instead of petroleum fuels. It could happen.) Where would the energy for hydrogen production come from? I'm getting there.
NASA has been experimenting with nuclear reactors to power rockets and habitats. If this technology is developed to a point it is considered safe, economic, and otherwise practical enough for Earth-bound commercial power that could have huge implications in the cost and availability of electrical power. Nuclear power plant construction is at a near standstill because of concerns of safety. If NASA can prove a reactor safe enough to be put on a rocket that could change many people's minds, especially if combined with the increasing cost of petroleum fuels and decreasing cost of hydrogen production. If NASA is successful in constructing a nuclear rocket for interplanetary travel that would be a huge accomplishment in itself.
To me it looks like NASA is trying to rebuild an infrastructure that is being lost with the retiring of the Space Shuttle program. While replacing the Space Shuttle they are also improving capability and flexibility. I imagine the new heavy lift to orbit program will have the potential to improve the economy, not directly but indirectly by bringing new technologies to the market.
I welcome our new space faring overlords.
The thermals above forest fires are so severe that some crashes of conventional aircraft have been attributed to thermals snapping the wings off the planes! There's no way you could maneuver this thing through that kind of turbulence.
.8 mach (600 MPH). A small turboprop craft can go at least half that fast. The Walrus and similar craft can only go a fraction of that speed which might make it ill suited for first arrival on scene.
I won't even pretend that I understand all the physics of flight and forest fires but I'm pretty sure that heavier-than-air craft do currently fly over forest fires to put them out. In that case someone must consider flying over a forest fire safe and effective enough to be worth trying. Sure, you may lose a plane and pilot on occasion but stuff happens.
Unlike a conventional HTA craft this 'Walrus" has most of its lift provided by a passive means. If a plane or helicopter loses power it tumbles out of the sky. If a plane or helicopter loses a wing it tumbles out of the sky even faster. The Walrus has no wings to be torn off by a thermal. I'm sure a thermal might give it a rough ride, perhaps even take out an engine or set it afire. If it loses partial power it just has to dump its load and take to higher altitudes and limp home. If a four engine WWII bomber can limp across the English Channel on one engine I imagine this craft could easily be capable of performing a similar feat. The threat of catching fire could be lessened by allowing it to direct some of that water it is carrying onto itself, something I imagine would be impractical for conventional HTA craft. Since the craft is carrying helium a fire that should happen to burn through to the envelope would naturally be extinguished or diminished by the escaping gas. A fire in the cabin could be put out by venting the envelope gasses into the closed cabin, hopefully after the crew dons oxygen masks of course.
This craft is said to be able to cover 12000 miles in seven days, that works out to about 80 miles an hour, similar to the airspeed of a piston driven airplane or helicopter. If conventional craft can "outrun" a forest fire the Walrus should as well, especially if it chose to dump its cargo. What is the airspeed of an unladen swallow? Um, I mean Walrus?
Like I said I don't know it all but from where I'm standing I think using a craft similar to the Walrus would be useful in fighting fires. The only drawback I see is speed. An airplane capable of near Mach speed is quite common. Most commercial aircraft cruise at something like
The proposed craft is heavier than air, not lighter than air like the blimps and hot air balloons you are used to. I would assume that the craft is neutrally buoyant, or even slightly lighter than air, when fully unloaded of cargo, fuel, and crew, which is a situation such a craft is not likely to find itself in given how much of an asset it is to whomever that owns it.
Load the thing up with crew, pumps, water tanks, and so much water that the ground cracks beneath it and it takes all its might to get off the ground and you have a mighty tool for fighting a fire. When it gets to the fire it can pump the water out at a tremendous rate and still be able to compensate for the loss in mass by throttling back the lift engines as it does. With electronic fly-by-wire controls common in commercial and military aircraft, flying within safety margins, and a trained crew I think I would be perfectly feasible and relatively safe (nothing is absolutely safe) to use such a craft to fight forest fires.
Thinking about this for a bit I think the forestry industry would love something like this. One big problem with cutting down trees is getting them out of the forest. The weight of trucks loaded with lumber is such that they normally wait until winter when the ground is frozen to move the lumber out. Environmental groups are not happy with the trails that are cut to allow the heavy equipment in and out of the harvest areas. With a heavy lift craft like this the work crews and equipment could be brought in by air, and the lumber brought out the same way. Have pumps and tanks on board for when a forest fire breaks out and the craft could put its lift capacity to suck water from whatever water source presents itself and drop it on the fire in a matter of hours.
Large cities might want to consider a similar craft for high rise fire fighting and evacuation.
For that matter, why not carry an F-22? This thing is supposed to lift 500 tons.
It's not like it hasn't been tried before. I remember seeing film where a propeller driven biplane was launched and retrieved from the bottom of an airship. I also saw concept drawings of an airstrip atop a Zeppelin type craft. This is not a new idea.
A fully loaded F-22 weighs about 40 tons, that means the craft could lift 12 planes.
When I lived in Texas I came across a group of electric vehicle enthusiasts. Check out the website for Austin Area Electric Auto Association. They give some pointers on conversions, give some suppliers of parts, and show off what people in the area have done.
Yeah, right after the four assed monkey is perfected.
Sci-Fi Channel did it... or at least something close. The Last Man On Planet Earth
Working iPod Halloween Costume
Oh... you mean the judge wasn't wearing the suit? My bad.
Look into what Apple has to offer. Mac OS X Server looks very nice. It will run on anything from an old iMac to a Xserve G5. It features spam filtering, web mail, anti-virus, and encrypted connections.
I haven't used Apple's server products since the days of Mac OS 9. I'm just a fan of their products.
From what I understand the merger makes perfect sense because of the mismatched technologies. I heard that Nextel has to move out of its 800MHz spectrum to some where else, something like the FCC wanting to give the frequencies to public service two-way radio (police and fire). Nextel can't just go and buy all new equipment overnight so it put itself up for sale. Sprint is already using the 1900MHz PCS band for its phones so no worries about 800MHz towers. What is basically happening is that Sprint is buying the Nextel customer base. As Nextel customers upgrade phones they will be buying Sprint PCS versions to replace their old Nextel versions.
I don't think that the new phones would vary much from what Sprint is already offering. Sprint phones already have roaming capability on other (non-PCS) towers.