It's worth recalling that even in the darkest days of the Cold War, the United States and its archrival at the time--the Soviet Union--embarked upon cooperative efforts in space, most famously with the joint Apollo-Soyuz docking mission in 1975
That was great and all, but 1975 hardly qualifies as the darkest days of the Cold War. The Cuban Missile Crisis was certainly darker, and was right at the start of the space race. Kennedy had set the goal of reaching the moon just a month earlier, and no one would claim there was any collaboration in space for the next decade. Lobbing humans into orbit and lobbing nukes aren't all that different, after all. There were other dark times during the 1980s, and I doubt anyone would claim that was a great time for space collaboration, either.
There is a lot more to energy than just petroleum. Petroleum, as an energy source, is used primarily as a transportation fuel and as a chemical feedstock for producing other things. But we consume a lot more energy than just the fuel that moves our cars, boats, and airplanes. We heat and light our buildings and homes, we run electrical machines great and small, we crunch numbers and watch TV, we grow and process crops and livestock to feed ourselves, and we produce a lot of stuff.
So I don't buy for a moment that peak oil will get us out of this mess. As petroleum wanes, we'll make it up using other sources, and coal and natural gas are still the cheapest and most abundant.
If it cannot be lifted, there is no way to apply the jolt needed to knock the mechanism open.
An alternate solution would be to have a mechanism with opposed actuators: one solenoid pointing up into the bolt, one pointing down, and both need to be activated to move the bolt. This would be (more or less) immune to jolts, because an acceleration that disengages one solenoid would further engage the other.
Even better: a mechanism that requires sequential activation - one solenoid release allows you to move the bolt partly, and then you need to release the second solenoid.
Best way to be gun safe is to have no gun in the first place.
That's like saying the best way not to die in a car accident is to bike to work.
Not quite. For your translation to be accurate, the GP would have had to have claimed that the best way to be gun safe is to only carry knives [substituting one weapon for another, as you translate one mode of transportation for another]. If you were accurately mocking the GP's statement, you would have said "That's like saying the best way not to die in a car accident is to have no car." Maybe then we could debate the merits of having no gun/car, and whether there are acceptable substitutes.
Less snark, more fidelity, but just as pointless to the discussion about faulty gun safes.
In other words - the structure telecom market in the U.K. is about as f#$@ed up and convoluted as it is in the United States. Or, for that matter, the structure of the U.K. itself.
In many places, the owner of the fibre (or coax, or twisted pair, whatever) isn't the same as the company that sells the service on it. Don't know if there are hard and fast rules about that in Britain. In the U.S., a lot varies by geography.
Virgin has refused to sign because it isn't tough enough. 'These principles remain open to misinterpretation and potential exploitation so, while we welcome efforts to reach a broad consensus to address potential future issues, we will be seeking greater certainty before we consider signing,'
Well, Virgin, which would you prefer: relatively lenient voluntary guidelines, whose spirit you would probably weasel out of anyway, or legislated regulation? Worried about misinterpretation and potential exploitation? Just wait until you have 1,000 fresh pages of bureaucratized rules to worry about, and a dozen very costly and lengthy court cases to determine what they all mean.
pound wise, pence foolish.
On the other hand, they can probably write the regulations themselves, and have overwhelming financial resources to influence the result of any court cases. Maybe they aren't so foolish after all.
So the number you're looking for is actually 2000 times the strength of what we can sustain
Phew! Thank goodness! When someone said that we had to create a field 10,000x than currently possible, I was really worried. But here you go and say it's only 2,000x - that's downright easy.
In doing this conversion, you will probably add significant weight to the vehicle. In order to make your powertrain conversion have a greater success, do everything you can to lighten the weight of the vehicle. I'm not talking about stupid things like removing the airbag to save a few pounds, but SUVs in particular are so overburdened with needless crap that you should be able to cut the curb weight by 100-200 pounds (before changing the powertrain) - at least several percent, or the equivalent of an extra passenger. If you can add a panel that covers the undercarraige, it will drastically improve the air resistance at highway speeds. Yes, it will reduce the ground clearance a bit, but most SUV owners don't actually need any more ground clearance than typical compact car. To that end, you might also consider lowering the suspension.
I suspect that it was very seldom flown to New York City, however. Many millions of people would have had the opportunity to see such a flight for the first time.
And honestly, your smug dismissal of this event as being "as geektastic as a furniture shipment" marks you as being as wannabe-cool and faux-jaded as the hipster who won't listen to any band he's already heard of, because "they're so last week".
Sounds like New York City is just the place for him, then!
Off the cuff, 500 TW divided by 1.58 MJ implies the beam lasted only a few nanoseconds. So, "To put those numbers into perspective", 500 TW is more than one thousand times the power that the entire United States uses for a few nanoseconds."
Sigh...
You are conflating power with energy. Don't feel bad: the press gets it wrong more than half the time.
Energy is a bulk quantity: a total amount. Power is a rate: how energy over how much time. Because this is/., I'll use a car analogy: energy is analogous to how large the gas tank is (gallons, liters, etc.), power is how quickly that gas gets consumed (g/sec, mL/sec, L/100km, mpg). The average power consumption of the U.S. is a few hundred gigawatts...period. There is no gigawatts per second, or any other monstrous measure that pretends to be power, because the "per second" is already built into the Watt unit.
Correcting your statement: 1.85 MJ is more than one thousand times the energy that the entire United States uses in a few nanoseconds The original statement comparing 500 TW to the (average) power consumption of the U.S. was correct.
Banks rushing headlong into some whiz-bang, poorly understood, but technology-based solution (product) for a problem that doesn't exist, but surely will make them a lot of money, without first fully considering or mitigating the obvious potential risks. Film at 11.
Is this not the history of the banking sector for at least a generation?
I tried to design a system like that once, but during the development I had a dream where I was dressed in a Sun God robe surrounded by naked women chanting and throwing pickles at me. That brought and end to it all.
Are you kidding? That kind of dream would only motivate me to finish sooner.
This is what research looks like. You don't start out testing a ready-to-deploy espionage platform. You take an idea, enhance it a bit, test it to see if your change works, enhance it more, see if your changes improved it, etc. Nobody's laughing at this stage, but I bet they were cheering
Nuh-uh! I've seen James Bond. I'm sure Q will walk in any moment now with a perfect, bug-free device that will provide the perfect plot element at just the right time.
The rise of 2-3 degrees is an increase in the average. However, that makes what used to be extreme events - like strings of 100+ F days - much more common.
Take a bell curve representing the spread of average daily temperatures for a location, now shift the mean by 2-3 degrees. The extreme events that were way out at the tail, with a probability of 1/100, suddenly become a lot more probable.
Building on your analogy: this probably means that it was built to last, and is hard to overturn. In other words, we've doomed to be fed news stories by ignoramuses.
The godless communists, (as is often the case with these cold-war-era things) had an even larger, also not terribly well conceived; but much less euphemistically named project: "Nuclear Explosions for the National Economy".
You mean the part where if the speaker weighs as much as a duck, she must be a witch? What does that have to do with grammar.
[For those who can't tell that I'm joking: the duck test is "if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is." Very true for users of poor grammar. The duck test I am referencing comes from Monty Python.]
A tsunami this size. You should bear in mind that:
plate tectonics was a new science when these where built; no one accounted for Japan dropping a meter in such a rush, and the size of the tsunami
This cannot be used as an excuse. Risk management and mitigation is not something done once during the design and construction of a facility. Rather, it is a continuous process that needs periodic review and updating in light of new information. There's plenty on record that TEPCO and government regulators didn't take such new information into account - which makes the claim of negligence valid...and prosecutable.
And even if the geologic mechanisms behind it were not well understood at the time the reactor was designed, constructed, and commissioned, there was still ample evidence from the historical record of large earthquakes and tsunamis up and down the coast.
I don't usually post grammar-nazi stuff, but this error is particularly awful.
A whole comprises its parts, as in "My computer comprises a microprocessor, memory, a monitor, and input devices."
A whole is composed of its parts, as in "My computer is composed of a microprocessor...."
There simply is no such thing as "comprised by," even though many people seem to think so. Reading the summary, one gets the impression that they chopped off Carl Sagan's arm and pressed it into a record.
The correct usage would be to say that "the disc was composed by a man named Carl Sagan." [As though readers at/. don't know who Carl Sagan is, or that he was a man.] But considering that he didn't actually write or narrate the content, "composed by", too, is incorrect. If this were a book, one could say that he served as editor. But when it comes to music "editor" often means the guy at the mixing console, which Sagan definitely was not. The most correct thing would be to say that Sagan curated the disc.
The English language, like computer languages, is a terrible and wonderful thing, but only if you use it correctly.
Slashdot Mirror
That was great and all, but 1975 hardly qualifies as the darkest days of the Cold War. The Cuban Missile Crisis was certainly darker, and was right at the start of the space race. Kennedy had set the goal of reaching the moon just a month earlier, and no one would claim there was any collaboration in space for the next decade. Lobbing humans into orbit and lobbing nukes aren't all that different, after all. There were other dark times during the 1980s, and I doubt anyone would claim that was a great time for space collaboration, either.
There is a lot more to energy than just petroleum. Petroleum, as an energy source, is used primarily as a transportation fuel and as a chemical feedstock for producing other things. But we consume a lot more energy than just the fuel that moves our cars, boats, and airplanes. We heat and light our buildings and homes, we run electrical machines great and small, we crunch numbers and watch TV, we grow and process crops and livestock to feed ourselves, and we produce a lot of stuff.
All of these things require energy, a lot of which comes from fossile-but-not-petroleum fuels: coal and natural gas. For the U.S., here is the breakdown of where we get and where we use energy.
So I don't buy for a moment that peak oil will get us out of this mess. As petroleum wanes, we'll make it up using other sources, and coal and natural gas are still the cheapest and most abundant.
An alternate solution would be to have a mechanism with opposed actuators: one solenoid pointing up into the bolt, one pointing down, and both need to be activated to move the bolt. This would be (more or less) immune to jolts, because an acceleration that disengages one solenoid would further engage the other.
Even better: a mechanism that requires sequential activation - one solenoid release allows you to move the bolt partly, and then you need to release the second solenoid.
Not quite. For your translation to be accurate, the GP would have had to have claimed that the best way to be gun safe is to only carry knives [substituting one weapon for another, as you translate one mode of transportation for another]. If you were accurately mocking the GP's statement, you would have said "That's like saying the best way not to die in a car accident is to have no car." Maybe then we could debate the merits of having no gun/car, and whether there are acceptable substitutes.
Less snark, more fidelity, but just as pointless to the discussion about faulty gun safes.
Dude, are you 12 years old or something? Just call them breasts and have done with it. Or are you afraid that using that word might give you cooties?
In other words - the structure telecom market in the U.K. is about as f#$@ed up and convoluted as it is in the United States. Or, for that matter, the structure of the U.K. itself.
In many places, the owner of the fibre (or coax, or twisted pair, whatever) isn't the same as the company that sells the service on it. Don't know if there are hard and fast rules about that in Britain. In the U.S., a lot varies by geography.
Well, Virgin, which would you prefer: relatively lenient voluntary guidelines, whose spirit you would probably weasel out of anyway, or legislated regulation? Worried about misinterpretation and potential exploitation? Just wait until you have 1,000 fresh pages of bureaucratized rules to worry about, and a dozen very costly and lengthy court cases to determine what they all mean.
pound wise, pence foolish.
On the other hand, they can probably write the regulations themselves, and have overwhelming financial resources to influence the result of any court cases. Maybe they aren't so foolish after all.
Phew! Thank goodness! When someone said that we had to create a field 10,000x than currently possible, I was really worried. But here you go and say it's only 2,000x - that's downright easy.
In doing this conversion, you will probably add significant weight to the vehicle. In order to make your powertrain conversion have a greater success, do everything you can to lighten the weight of the vehicle. I'm not talking about stupid things like removing the airbag to save a few pounds, but SUVs in particular are so overburdened with needless crap that you should be able to cut the curb weight by 100-200 pounds (before changing the powertrain) - at least several percent, or the equivalent of an extra passenger. If you can add a panel that covers the undercarraige, it will drastically improve the air resistance at highway speeds. Yes, it will reduce the ground clearance a bit, but most SUV owners don't actually need any more ground clearance than typical compact car. To that end, you might also consider lowering the suspension.
Sounds like New York City is just the place for him, then!
Sigh...
/., I'll use a car analogy: energy is analogous to how large the gas tank is (gallons, liters, etc.), power is how quickly that gas gets consumed (g/sec, mL/sec, L/100km, mpg). The average power consumption of the U.S. is a few hundred gigawatts...period. There is no gigawatts per second, or any other monstrous measure that pretends to be power, because the "per second" is already built into the Watt unit.
You are conflating power with energy. Don't feel bad: the press gets it wrong more than half the time.
Energy is a bulk quantity: a total amount. Power is a rate: how energy over how much time. Because this is
Correcting your statement: 1.85 MJ is more than one thousand times the energy that the entire United States uses in a few nanoseconds The original statement comparing 500 TW to the (average) power consumption of the U.S. was correct.
Banks rushing headlong into some whiz-bang, poorly understood, but technology-based solution (product) for a problem that doesn't exist, but surely will make them a lot of money, without first fully considering or mitigating the obvious potential risks. Film at 11.
Is this not the history of the banking sector for at least a generation?
Are you kidding? That kind of dream would only motivate me to finish sooner.
Nuh-uh! I've seen James Bond. I'm sure Q will walk in any moment now with a perfect, bug-free device that will provide the perfect plot element at just the right time.
The rise of 2-3 degrees is an increase in the average. However, that makes what used to be extreme events - like strings of 100+ F days - much more common.
Take a bell curve representing the spread of average daily temperatures for a location, now shift the mean by 2-3 degrees. The extreme events that were way out at the tail, with a probability of 1/100, suddenly become a lot more probable.
It was in the Opinion section, written by a prolific satirist. Can't take a joke, can you?
Building on your analogy: this probably means that it was built to last, and is hard to overturn. In other words, we've doomed to be fed news stories by ignoramuses.
I count as "crazy" any story that referred to the Higgs boson as the "God Particle."
Thanks, Newt. Are you still running for president?
Is that like the broken window fallacy, writ extremely large?
No, making a spelling error while professing to use decent grammar is not an example of irony.
You mean the part where if the speaker weighs as much as a duck, she must be a witch? What does that have to do with grammar.
[For those who can't tell that I'm joking: the duck test is "if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is." Very true for users of poor grammar. The duck test I am referencing comes from Monty Python.]
This cannot be used as an excuse. Risk management and mitigation is not something done once during the design and construction of a facility. Rather, it is a continuous process that needs periodic review and updating in light of new information. There's plenty on record that TEPCO and government regulators didn't take such new information into account - which makes the claim of negligence valid...and prosecutable.
And even if the geologic mechanisms behind it were not well understood at the time the reactor was designed, constructed, and commissioned, there was still ample evidence from the historical record of large earthquakes and tsunamis up and down the coast.
I don't usually post grammar-nazi stuff, but this error is particularly awful.
/. don't know who Carl Sagan is, or that he was a man.] But considering that he didn't actually write or narrate the content, "composed by", too, is incorrect. If this were a book, one could say that he served as editor. But when it comes to music "editor" often means the guy at the mixing console, which Sagan definitely was not. The most correct thing would be to say that Sagan curated the disc.
A whole comprises its parts, as in "My computer comprises a microprocessor, memory, a monitor, and input devices."
A whole is composed of its parts, as in "My computer is composed of a microprocessor...."
There simply is no such thing as "comprised by," even though many people seem to think so. Reading the summary, one gets the impression that they chopped off Carl Sagan's arm and pressed it into a record.
The correct usage would be to say that "the disc was composed by a man named Carl Sagan." [As though readers at
The English language, like computer languages, is a terrible and wonderful thing, but only if you use it correctly.