The net torque is zero - yes. The problem is that because the 'vacuum' chamber wasn't part of the measured system, you can exert torques against it without issue. Convection can do this and distort the measurement.
A major reason why this can't be true - or if it is it's bigger than any Nobel Prize-winners discovery in history, and maybe all of them: The reported thrust in the NASA paper is 0.4N/kW. Power = force * velocity. If you put this on a railway car going at 10m/s, then you get 0.4W*10m/s = 4W out for 1000W in. If the car is going at 100m/s, it's 40W. At 3000m/s, 1200W. You take 1000W of this to run the engine, and you now have 200W of free energy. This can be arbitrarily scaled up.
I read the actual abstract of the paper the article was based on. (the full text is not available) 'The tests were performed in a vacuum chamber, with the door closed, but at atmospheric pressure.' Internal convection can move gas just fine and create anomalous torques.
"Whether you think Microsoft's position is meritless or not, Samsung entered into a contract with them. They didn't ask a court for a legal opinion, they just stopped paying. You can't make unilateral decisions like that. "
Err - no. In very rare circumstances do you ask a court to rule on a contract before anything has happened. Their general response will be 'dismissed, you bear court costs, that's why you pay lawyers'. The courts are in general not interested in offering legal advice - that's what you get expensive lawyers for.
This is exactly how contract law normally works. X does something. Y thinks they breached their contract, and consults their lawyers who agree that X breached the contract and has no right to future payment. X says they diddn't, and their lawyers disagree. Y stops paying. X takes Y to court for non-payment.
Y cannot - at the first step - in most cases ask the court for an opinion.
You can't really comment without seeing in full, the original agreement, and preferably scrutinising it in detail, along with any precedent in the relevant courts.
There could have, for example, been agreements as to Microsoft not doing some things in the phone space - such as for example selling android phones - that it's reasonable to argue (from Samsungs perspective) Microsoft has breached, voiding the original deal.
In addition - fingerprinting the OS based on exactly how it probes for a USB device has been done, and is not particularly hard. This can narrow down by a lot which OS you may be connected to - and have a dozen potential exploits based on the signature outcome.
As I understand it - the aim is to make of the order of 10^9 - one billion - lithium cells a year. That's enough cells to go in 200K small electric cars, or about 60K of the high capacity Tesla 85kWh packs.
To a large extent, it's the small car vs large car problem. Drag depends mostly on the frontal area. Working out Cd*area for both cars. http://ecomodder.com/wiki/inde... looks reasonable. This gives Cd*area (ft^2) for the Leaf as 7, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... gives the Teslas as 6.1. (Cd*ft^2)
The Tesla is - despite being a lot heavier and longer - not bigger in frontal area than the Leaf. The Tesla is also marginally lower in absolute drag - making it 10% better in total drag or so.
This would lead to the conclusion that the 3.5* battery should give about 4* the range. But, weight does matter a bit - there is extra drag in the tyres, which knock it back to 3.5*
' when it will cost billions of dollars every time it flies, due to the high development costs, low flight rate, and standing army and facilities required to launch it.' This is as I understand it a vile calumny on the SLS program. Most realistic estimates say it's only going to cost one billion per launch, not several.
While perhaps to be taken with a pinch of salt - http://www.teslamotors.com/en_... - with the larger battery - at 65MPH claims to get 261 miles. To get a Tesla to 350 miles needs an extra 30kWh of battery - about 120kg at the same performance as the existing battery. This will easily fit in the trunk.
I'm unsure - but suspect that if they were there permanently - with the profile done right, stamped out of the steel - they may improve stiffness, and reduce weight. Stamping such a pattern would be 'interesting', and prone to lots of wear in the dies though. For composite, in principle, it could almost be free.
It's a virus, so has pretty good antibiotic resistance.
To follow on from the other comment. You're faced with people who you've never seen, look quite different than you, and turn up in suits that cover their entire body. This happens shortly after, or even before the community notices an issue - as they are surveying populations nearby. Then people start dying, and these people who don't speak your language want to take the bodies of your loved ones, and desecrate them.
Add to this that education in these places is basically non-existant in many cases. It's no wonder that people can come to the conclusion that the health workers are causing the disease.
Especially given the centuries long history of exploitation. Fake vaccination programs by the CIA to fine OBL haven't helped either.
'some middle manager will whine endlessly about this sort of experimentation.'
And will be sacked by the board. Around 60% of the total cost of the rocket is the first stage. The aim is to have this reusable in a few hours turnaround time. If this works, savings per launch are tens of millions of dollars, even if it only works half the time. If the second stage can be made reusable as well, going from $60M price to launch 10 tons to LEO to half of that _and_ making more profit per launch is quite possible.
Sometimes. A USB3 port, if you plug a USB3 hub into it, and 2 USB2 devices into it will go just as fast, and no faster than a USB2 hub. Because that's what it is. There are no transaction translators at all. There are none even specced in the spec as optional, for high-end vendors to aspire to.
'Network effects are powerful. And the internet was the biggest network out there.'
I'm talking of pre 1992 or so, when it became possible to connect commercially to the internet - and shortly after. Before this time was a window, when this wasn't quite true. In terms of connected users, prodigy, compuserv, et al had more active accounts (AIUI) than the limited educational/military internet.
They failed, and became irrelevant as the internet grew rapidly past their number of users.
If they had arranged internetworking between them - in some form, so people could email and chat - the network effect may have been on the other foot.
Starting out with 'would have lost out to the internet' is the wrong way to think about this - because initially they were competing with something that was very, very much smaller and more limited compared to what the internet was even in 1995.
AOL/compuserv/prodigy were ISPs. But, before this, they were their own thing that were not connected to the internet. They added limited access to the internet, and then eventually became 'pure play' internet providers, with their own content being stubs.
There were features like messaging, various online services _before_ they connected to the internet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
No, it really wasn't. The internet was invented to be an interesting communication protocol. Later on, commercial entities and the general public got connected to it. For a _long_ time, it was.edu (as latter became) only.
Imagining that the internet was destined to win, and there were no alternatives is revisionist history.
The internet very nearly didn't win, avoiding being relegated to a communications experiment that died likely sometime around 2000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... - as an example of a competing service that lasted a long time, in the face of growing internet. Aol, compuserv, and all of the other services didn't quite get joined up fast enough to make the internet irrelevant.
It was quite possible that this could have happened. They decided that it was in their commercial interests to isolate their services, so that you couldn't email people on different networks. This (amongst other similar issues) ended up killing them as other than ISPs when the internet took over this function.
If, for example, AOL, compuserv, Prodigy et al had gotten together and made it possible to email other services members, a prime reason for the explosion of the internet would have gone away.
Similarly, minitel could be a model of what the 'internet' might have looked like if the internet had not won. It would be very, very different.
This is not required. https://security.web.cern.ch/s... is relevant. This actually investigates the physics behind overwriting - in short - once is quite enough today.
There are concerns about reallocated space on hard disks - but 99.99% of the data has gone away, and recovering the rest is at best expensive.
As far as I can tell, 'national security' is not defined in the legislation (I only looked at the primary legislation, and not at much secondary).
This means it can take pretty much any form that is reasonable in English - not only the most extreme form. It specifically does not say (for example) 'affect national security causing death, or damage exceeding one million pounds'.
It's pretty inarguable that police infrastructure can be national security, and websites in principle could be an important part of that, so counted. If I was the lawyer in question, I'd be raising that a website which likely has hundreds of hits during the time in question, not tens of millions may be part of national security, but this amounts to a 'de-minimus' part that is effectively zero.
The problem here is more the bad law, than the bad judge I suspect. We do not know if the proper counterargument was made by the defence in court.
Slashdot Mirror
The net torque is zero - yes.
The problem is that because the 'vacuum' chamber wasn't part of the measured system, you can exert torques against it without issue. Convection can do this and distort the measurement.
A major reason why this can't be true - or if it is it's bigger than any Nobel Prize-winners discovery in history, and maybe all of them:
The reported thrust in the NASA paper is 0.4N/kW.
Power = force * velocity.
If you put this on a railway car going at 10m/s, then you get 0.4W*10m/s = 4W out for 1000W in.
If the car is going at 100m/s, it's 40W.
At 3000m/s, 1200W.
You take 1000W of this to run the engine, and you now have 200W of free energy.
This can be arbitrarily scaled up.
Is it mechanically awkward - sure.
I read the actual abstract of the paper the article was based on. (the full text is not available)
'The tests were performed in a vacuum chamber, with the door closed, but at atmospheric pressure.'
Internal convection can move gas just fine and create anomalous torques.
"Whether you think Microsoft's position is meritless or not, Samsung entered into a contract with them. They didn't ask a court for a legal opinion, they just stopped paying. You can't make unilateral decisions like that. "
Err - no.
In very rare circumstances do you ask a court to rule on a contract before anything has happened.
Their general response will be 'dismissed, you bear court costs, that's why you pay lawyers'.
The courts are in general not interested in offering legal advice - that's what you get expensive lawyers for.
This is exactly how contract law normally works.
X does something.
Y thinks they breached their contract, and consults their lawyers who agree that X breached the contract and has no right to future payment.
X says they diddn't, and their lawyers disagree.
Y stops paying.
X takes Y to court for non-payment.
Y cannot - at the first step - in most cases ask the court for an opinion.
You can't really comment without seeing in full, the original agreement, and preferably scrutinising it in detail, along with any precedent in the relevant courts.
There could have, for example, been agreements as to Microsoft not doing some things in the phone space - such as for example selling android phones - that it's reasonable to argue (from Samsungs perspective) Microsoft has breached, voiding the original deal.
Nor were convection effects considered.
You don't need much airflow to generate 50 micronewtons.
In addition - fingerprinting the OS based on exactly how it probes for a USB device has been done, and is not particularly hard.
This can narrow down by a lot which OS you may be connected to - and have a dozen potential exploits based on the signature outcome.
As I understand it - the aim is to make of the order of 10^9 - one billion - lithium cells a year.
That's enough cells to go in 200K small electric cars, or about 60K of the high capacity Tesla 85kWh packs.
To a large extent, it's the small car vs large car problem.
Drag depends mostly on the frontal area.
Working out Cd*area for both cars.
http://ecomodder.com/wiki/inde... looks reasonable.
This gives Cd*area (ft^2) for the Leaf as 7,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... gives the Teslas as 6.1.
(Cd*ft^2)
The Tesla is - despite being a lot heavier and longer - not bigger in frontal area than the Leaf.
The Tesla is also marginally lower in absolute drag - making it 10% better in total drag or so.
This would lead to the conclusion that the 3.5* battery should give about 4* the range.
But, weight does matter a bit - there is extra drag in the tyres, which knock it back to 3.5*
' when it will cost billions of dollars every time it flies, due to the high development costs, low flight rate, and standing army and facilities required to launch it.'
This is as I understand it a vile calumny on the SLS program.
Most realistic estimates say it's only going to cost one billion per launch, not several.
Utter bullshit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... - and several other sources I find say Australia is paying $(us).30/kWh or so.
That's one and a half kWh.
Or, 80 times more efficient than the Tesla. (which has an 80kWh battery pack, and doesn't quite make the range at 66mph)
If it's a skinny tyred wholly aerodynamic very small bicycle I might believe that - otherwise - LOL.
While perhaps to be taken with a pinch of salt - http://www.teslamotors.com/en_... - with the larger battery - at 65MPH claims to get 261 miles.
To get a Tesla to 350 miles needs an extra 30kWh of battery - about 120kg at the same performance as the existing battery.
This will easily fit in the trunk.
I'm unsure - but suspect that if they were there permanently - with the profile done right, stamped out of the steel - they may improve stiffness, and reduce weight.
Stamping such a pattern would be 'interesting', and prone to lots of wear in the dies though.
For composite, in principle, it could almost be free.
It's a virus, so has pretty good antibiotic resistance.
To follow on from the other comment.
You're faced with people who you've never seen, look quite different than you, and turn up in suits that cover their entire body.
This happens shortly after, or even before the community notices an issue - as they are surveying populations nearby.
Then people start dying, and these people who don't speak your language want to take the bodies of your loved ones, and desecrate them.
Add to this that education in these places is basically non-existant in many cases.
It's no wonder that people can come to the conclusion that the health workers are causing the disease.
Especially given the centuries long history of exploitation. Fake vaccination programs by the CIA to fine OBL haven't helped either.
'some middle manager will whine endlessly about this sort of experimentation.'
And will be sacked by the board.
Around 60% of the total cost of the rocket is the first stage.
The aim is to have this reusable in a few hours turnaround time.
If this works, savings per launch are tens of millions of dollars, even if it only works half the time.
If the second stage can be made reusable as well, going from $60M price to launch 10 tons to LEO to half of that _and_ making more profit per launch is quite possible.
http://hardware.slashdot.org/s...
Sometimes.
A USB3 port, if you plug a USB3 hub into it, and 2 USB2 devices into it will go just as fast, and no faster than a USB2 hub.
Because that's what it is.
There are no transaction translators at all.
There are none even specced in the spec as optional, for high-end vendors to aspire to.
The internet was not (in 92) - for obvious reasons - about web pages.
Lynx was released mid 92, mosaic 93.
'Network effects are powerful. And the internet was the biggest network out there.'
I'm talking of pre 1992 or so, when it became possible to connect commercially to the internet - and shortly after.
Before this time was a window, when this wasn't quite true.
In terms of connected users, prodigy, compuserv, et al had more active accounts (AIUI) than the limited educational/military internet.
They failed, and became irrelevant as the internet grew rapidly past their number of users.
If they had arranged internetworking between them - in some form, so people could email and chat - the network effect may have been on the other foot.
Starting out with 'would have lost out to the internet' is the wrong way to think about this - because initially they were competing with something that was very, very much smaller and more limited compared to what the internet was even in 1995.
AOL/compuserv/prodigy were ISPs.
But, before this, they were their own thing that were not connected to the internet.
They added limited access to the internet, and then eventually became 'pure play' internet providers, with their own content being stubs.
There were features like messaging, various online services _before_ they connected to the internet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
No, it really wasn't. .edu (as latter became) only.
The internet was invented to be an interesting communication protocol.
Later on, commercial entities and the general public got connected to it.
For a _long_ time, it was
Imagining that the internet was destined to win, and there were no alternatives is revisionist history.
The internet very nearly didn't win, avoiding being relegated to a communications experiment that died likely sometime around 2000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... - as an example of a competing service that lasted a long time, in the face of growing internet.
Aol, compuserv, and all of the other services didn't quite get joined up fast enough to make the internet irrelevant.
It was quite possible that this could have happened.
They decided that it was in their commercial interests to isolate their services, so that you couldn't email people on different networks.
This (amongst other similar issues) ended up killing them as other than ISPs when the internet took over this function.
If, for example, AOL, compuserv, Prodigy et al had gotten together and made it possible to email other services members, a prime reason for the explosion of the internet would have gone away.
Similarly, minitel could be a model of what the 'internet' might have looked like if the internet had not won.
It would be very, very different.
Network effects are _powerful_.
To quote wikipedia.
'Eben Christopher Upton is a Technical Director and ASIC architect for Broadcom.'
No mystery there then.
This is not required.
https://security.web.cern.ch/s... is relevant.
This actually investigates the physics behind overwriting - in short - once is quite enough today.
There are concerns about reallocated space on hard disks - but 99.99% of the data has gone
away, and recovering the rest is at best expensive.
Other sources have it as 'increase'.
So, does 'crease' actually exist in this sense?
As far as I can tell, 'national security' is not defined in the legislation (I only looked at the primary legislation, and not at much secondary).
This means it can take pretty much any form that is reasonable in English - not only the most extreme form.
It specifically does not say (for example) 'affect national security causing death, or damage exceeding one million pounds'.
It's pretty inarguable that police infrastructure can be national security, and websites in principle could be an important part of that, so counted.
If I was the lawyer in question, I'd be raising that a website which likely has hundreds of hits during the time in question, not tens of millions may be part of national security, but this amounts to a 'de-minimus' part that is effectively zero.
The problem here is more the bad law, than the bad judge I suspect. We do not know if the proper counterargument was made by the defence in court.