Yeah, and this has been the case since, oh, 2001? Well, at least it seems that's when it started to be enforced more strictly. I've heard rumblings that the administration was going to change it, but who knows how likely that is.
Hmmm... I wonder if we could correlate the US's drop in space proficiency with when ITAR for space components started?
I don't understand why they don't have a simple voting system. If a user does something bad or obscene, vote them down. Then match the poorly rated people with each other. Or just have an obscenity button and if a person triggers it multiple times they get kicked off.
No kidding. I'm running the same thing and it's been nothing but trouble. I did at least manage to get the proprietary drivers to work after upgrading the BIOS. That gets me DVD playback at high quality. But I haven't figured out the HDMI connection yet, and flash is horrible.
Yeah, I think water is a more dangerous proposition due to the possibility of ice chunks forming. I think just using N2 might work better than water because of that.
I meant just deorbiting via ablation as well- if you try to target and ablate every piece enough to deorbit it...well it will take a very long time and a lot of energy. I like the increased drag approach because it will affect everything, from paint chips to discarded boosters.
Your own maths are incorrect. At an altitude of 1000 km, in a torus 100 km in diameter, there is a total of about 1200 kg of gas. So to double the mass in that torus, all you'd need is a metric ton or so of water or some other material. Not 10^15 kg.
Orbit time decreases exponentially as altitude decreases, so just moving objects from 1000 km to 800 km would reduce the time in orbit by years if not decades.
Yeah, if you hit the bottom, you could cause a more elliptical orbit that would dip deeper into the atmosphere, resulting in larger drag. The question would be how efficient it is...
Well, no, you'd waste a lot more time and energy firing lasers to ablate tiny pieces of debris. Sending up a rocket with a couple tons of water would be relatively cheap. And the water would turn to vapor (if done right), so it would essentially just create a band of increased density that would increase the drag on all pieces of the debris at once, without causing additional debris. Over time, the water would deorbit as well due to gravity and return to Earth.
It depends on the method used to disperse it. If done right, it should be a fine enough mist to not form ice chunks, or they would be small enough to sublimate quickly.
Another possibility is to use liquid nitrogen instead of water.
Not as expensive as having all your spacecraft shredded by debris.
And nobody said it had to be pure, drinkable water. Besides, you could get it from someplace that has a lot of water (Great Lakes for example). You'd only need a couple tons probably, which isn't very much. A few swimming pools.
Zapping: This isn't what you think. The idea is to ablate one side of the debris so it de-orbits, rather than making it into smaller pieces.
Collecting: Probably not easy.
Adding atmosphere: interesting point about de-orbiting bad things, but the de-orbiting is going to happen anyway if these things are in a low enough orbit to be a debris problem. Adding density to space will just accelerate the deorbit.
I am just completely flabbergasted that this can occur. By this logic, China could sue every website that posts anti-government information and seize all of their domains. Including something like google. This is really blowing my mind- can someone smarter than me explain what the judge was smoking, and why this isn't actually going to happen?
This is going to be a non-issue. Or McCain's name will magically appear on the ballot but Obama's won't. Texas is strongly republican, so there's no way McCain won't be on the ticket. If Texas has this rule in place, I'm sure there's some other sub-rule or exception that allows for reserving the nominee's spot, or the 70-day rule only applies to non-Dem/GOP people. It doesn't make any sense to have such a rule when both parties nominate their candidates later in the year than that.
No, for something that small, I'm guessing 11" is correct under bright light. 11 feet is enormous- you can't see most full-size projectors under bright lights if the screen is that big.
But if you dim the lights, it sounds like you can see the image much better, so that you can go bigger.
Honestly though, he really should have had the balls to post his name in the first place. If he doesn't stand by his word as a scientist/engineer, why should anyone else pay attention to him? It doesn't matter if he works in the field, that has no bearing on it. If this were a peer-reviewed article he was critiquing (I'm assuming it's not), then he should have sent his reply to the journal, who might have posted it (assuming it has some scientific rigor to it).
I've had a Disc Doctor for a long time, and it works OK. It can't handle deep scratches, but neither can anything else. The same goes for scratches on the top side. I imagine if people had problems with the Disc Dr. it's because they are incapable of following directions correctly.
I'd say try it if the toothpaste doesn't work. For light scratches from normal use, it would probably work fine.
Oops, I actually followed the link to find out what an aperture card is and I see that I'm wrong- they are basically engineering drawings so they are images (with text annotations). But that doesn't explain why they are multi-page when a PDF page can be any size you want.
I assume that he means that it doesn't make sense for an image to be multi-page. In other words, it should be a single page and let the printer driver/program work out the paging. Of course, if they are scanning into PDF in the first place I would assume that they aren't images.
Hum, I suppose that's why I get three separate emails every month from two different banks informing that my statements are ready. Or other kinds of information. I get all kinds of email from my banks.
Well, the standalone calendar is called Sunbird, and as it meshes with Thunderbird, it's called Lightning. So I think that fits the odd name requirement.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, and this has been the case since, oh, 2001? Well, at least it seems that's when it started to be enforced more strictly. I've heard rumblings that the administration was going to change it, but who knows how likely that is.
Hmmm... I wonder if we could correlate the US's drop in space proficiency with when ITAR for space components started?
I don't understand why they don't have a simple voting system. If a user does something bad or obscene, vote them down. Then match the poorly rated people with each other. Or just have an obscenity button and if a person triggers it multiple times they get kicked off.
No kidding. I'm running the same thing and it's been nothing but trouble. I did at least manage to get the proprietary drivers to work after upgrading the BIOS. That gets me DVD playback at high quality. But I haven't figured out the HDMI connection yet, and flash is horrible.
60% seems awfully high for a program I've never heard of. Not that I've been laptop shopping lately, but still.
I suspect we are in need of at least two "Whoooosh!"'s here.
Humor is so hard to detect in text...
Yeah, I think water is a more dangerous proposition due to the possibility of ice chunks forming. I think just using N2 might work better than water because of that.
I meant just deorbiting via ablation as well- if you try to target and ablate every piece enough to deorbit it...well it will take a very long time and a lot of energy. I like the increased drag approach because it will affect everything, from paint chips to discarded boosters.
Your own maths are incorrect. At an altitude of 1000 km, in a torus 100 km in diameter, there is a total of about 1200 kg of gas. So to double the mass in that torus, all you'd need is a metric ton or so of water or some other material. Not 10^15 kg.
Orbit time decreases exponentially as altitude decreases, so just moving objects from 1000 km to 800 km would reduce the time in orbit by years if not decades.
Yeah, if you hit the bottom, you could cause a more elliptical orbit that would dip deeper into the atmosphere, resulting in larger drag. The question would be how efficient it is...
Well, no, you'd waste a lot more time and energy firing lasers to ablate tiny pieces of debris. Sending up a rocket with a couple tons of water would be relatively cheap. And the water would turn to vapor (if done right), so it would essentially just create a band of increased density that would increase the drag on all pieces of the debris at once, without causing additional debris. Over time, the water would deorbit as well due to gravity and return to Earth.
It depends on the method used to disperse it. If done right, it should be a fine enough mist to not form ice chunks, or they would be small enough to sublimate quickly.
Another possibility is to use liquid nitrogen instead of water.
Not as expensive as having all your spacecraft shredded by debris.
And nobody said it had to be pure, drinkable water. Besides, you could get it from someplace that has a lot of water (Great Lakes for example). You'd only need a couple tons probably, which isn't very much. A few swimming pools.
Zapping: This isn't what you think. The idea is to ablate one side of the debris so it de-orbits, rather than making it into smaller pieces.
Collecting: Probably not easy.
Adding atmosphere: interesting point about de-orbiting bad things, but the de-orbiting is going to happen anyway if these things are in a low enough orbit to be a debris problem. Adding density to space will just accelerate the deorbit.
Wow, it takes a special kind of laziness to not even read the summary! You must be a grad student or something. Or a really good programmer.
I am just completely flabbergasted that this can occur. By this logic, China could sue every website that posts anti-government information and seize all of their domains. Including something like google. This is really blowing my mind- can someone smarter than me explain what the judge was smoking, and why this isn't actually going to happen?
This is going to be a non-issue. Or McCain's name will magically appear on the ballot but Obama's won't. Texas is strongly republican, so there's no way McCain won't be on the ticket. If Texas has this rule in place, I'm sure there's some other sub-rule or exception that allows for reserving the nominee's spot, or the 70-day rule only applies to non-Dem/GOP people. It doesn't make any sense to have such a rule when both parties nominate their candidates later in the year than that.
No, for something that small, I'm guessing 11" is correct under bright light. 11 feet is enormous- you can't see most full-size projectors under bright lights if the screen is that big.
But if you dim the lights, it sounds like you can see the image much better, so that you can go bigger.
Honestly though, he really should have had the balls to post his name in the first place. If he doesn't stand by his word as a scientist/engineer, why should anyone else pay attention to him? It doesn't matter if he works in the field, that has no bearing on it. If this were a peer-reviewed article he was critiquing (I'm assuming it's not), then he should have sent his reply to the journal, who might have posted it (assuming it has some scientific rigor to it).
Nice try on the anonymity, but there's your name on the Related Stories list with the original Firehose posting...
I've had a Disc Doctor for a long time, and it works OK. It can't handle deep scratches, but neither can anything else. The same goes for scratches on the top side. I imagine if people had problems with the Disc Dr. it's because they are incapable of following directions correctly.
I'd say try it if the toothpaste doesn't work. For light scratches from normal use, it would probably work fine.
As a poster below notes, Canonical will ship you a CD for free, I assume in a pressed format.
I wonder if that was the keyboard in Wanted...
Oops, I actually followed the link to find out what an aperture card is and I see that I'm wrong- they are basically engineering drawings so they are images (with text annotations). But that doesn't explain why they are multi-page when a PDF page can be any size you want.
I assume that he means that it doesn't make sense for an image to be multi-page. In other words, it should be a single page and let the printer driver/program work out the paging. Of course, if they are scanning into PDF in the first place I would assume that they aren't images.
Hum, I suppose that's why I get three separate emails every month from two different banks informing that my statements are ready. Or other kinds of information. I get all kinds of email from my banks.
Well, the standalone calendar is called Sunbird, and as it meshes with Thunderbird, it's called Lightning. So I think that fits the odd name requirement.