"Wow I guess you really have no real grasp. Let me put this simply. reliable, faster turnaround, reusable == cheaper."
Wow, I really do have a grasp. Thanks for restating the obvious.
"With a horizontal takeoff you must support the weight of the fuel on the landing gear which is a separate weight structure from the thrust bearing structure since one will be taking a horizontal load and one the vertical load."
I think this is a common problem for all aerodynamic vehicles, isn't it? We've done some good work in that area if I recall.
"Then add in the lifting surfaces that will be needed to left the weight of the massive fuel load which will then be nothing but dead weight when landing."
Are you describing the Shuttle again? Is that a good model for future spaceflight? Just asking. ps - 'dead weight' when landing decribes an entire vehicle, if you're pointing out that lifting surfaces are 'dead weight'. Like landing gear. What? So capsules are the most efficient vehicle, right? Are they the most useful? Is there a difference?
"Then the wing spar needed which will be another massive structure adding even more to the weight."
I'm guessing spars will be part of the lifting surface structure, but if there is an alternative, cut these.
"Which will add more to the weight of the landing gear which will mean more fuel which will mean more load on the spar, more wing area, and..... It only makes sense "
Yes, it does. I'm not as daft as you think I am, though I'm not writing the same stuff as you. this sometimes leads people to think someone 'doesn't get it'.
Now to find a CDMA solution. That, they may have to rely on the commercial manufacturers, but with a bit of work and some money, prisons could run their own cell networks and if nothing else listen in on the inmates' plans. Could be worse. Actually, it IS worse.
We can't seem to keep them out of the prisons, so just subvert them. I know this continues a war of escalation, but that's inevitable.
I'm not so much focused on 'cheap access to space', as in reliable, faster turnaround, reusable. I don't think we can do that with the current model of vertical lift, aka Shuttle/Thor-Delta-Ares-etc, but if a true Shuttle replacement could be launched more horizontally, this might solve the problem of big rockets pushing things straight up (at first). That demands big motors and big fuel burn rates.
I know, we need materials and propulsion advances. Similar problems in transportation, especially passenger cars, and we are playing with batteries as an interim step towards other energy sources. Not directly applicable to space travel, but similar fundamental problems - changing the paradigm.
It takes vision and committment. Both lacking in our nation and government.
Well, I hope not. Ares is a bust, but looking at the commercial projects gives me hope that we can get off the vertical lift scheme and build real space planes. It seems as if there is an economy to a lateral lift that would solve some problems, but not being an engineer means I can't work out the details.
My interpretation is that thor, Delta, Atlas, Saturn, Ares, they are all essentially vertical launchers. If I could wave a wand and throw money at it, I would like to see something like a real plane, but spaceworthy
The seeds of the US v USSR conflict were sown at the end of WWII, specifically in Berlin, with some of the war spoil controversies thrown in. Stalin was prepared to finish what Hitler started, but alas, that didn't work out. Or maybe it did.
He's right, you're wrong. Satellites are limited to the capacities of the launch vehicles available, and those vehicles were designed for the bombs. Or the bombs aer designed to the limitations of the vehicles. Same problem for satellites, though they didn't drive vehicle development until fairly recently. Even now, it's as much packaging as rocket that limits satellite design. The USAF seems pretty interested in the X-37 to deliver military satellites, and I wonder how big the
Delta/Thor rockets are still very popular for satellite launches, and are the result of the PGM-17 program, the USAF Intermediate-range missles. Replaced soon by Atlas rockets. We know these well as the launch vehicle for various space probes and Mercury capsules.
Personally, I would have never gotten on top of a Redstone for even a suborbital test, but then again, IANATP. Al Shepard deserves a cookie for that. Grissom, of course, blew the hatch and screwed the pooch, allegedly, though expecting that thing to float seems optimistic in hindsight.
They don't do that in Canada. Hey, they just recently stopped singing that God save the Queen. I think. We got past that a couple hundred years ago, though more violently than Canada did. Woops, I'll be darned, they ARE different from us...
"There is no shortage of proposals for radically innovative space launch schemes that, if they worked, would get us across the valley to other hilltops considerably higher than the one we are standing on now—high enough to bring the cost and risk of space launch down to the point where fundamentally new things could begin happening in outer space. But we are not making any serious effort as a society to cross those valleys. It is not clear why."
It's somewhat clearer why, to me.
I want to buy a more fuel-efficient car, and keep my current, less-efficient car. My current car is useful for many things, but commuting to work could be done by another, more efficient one. Here, however, is the rub. Despite the improvement in fuel economy, it is still a net increase in cost to me for a fairly long time. Acquisition, insurance, and upkeep consume most of the fuel savings. Yes, it would be better for he environment also, but that doesn't immediately or directly impact my costs very much. So I put off buying that car.
Our current methods of delivering object into space work well enough, and the alternatives are both unproven and not sufficiently advantageous to warrant immediate adoption.
However, as we re-enter manned space exploration, we will be looking for heavy-lift options that don't actually exist today, and those present the opportunity to develop new methods. Avoiding the vertical portion of a rocket launch also avoids the need for massive thrust to overcome gravity that directly. Stephenson alludes to this, and 'space planes' are the current focus, along with some multi-mode concepts. NASA'a failing Ares program is a fair example of lock-in that Stephenson is writing about. Being more open to the development of ultra-high-speed vehicles and their engines might offer both better alternatives and true advances. But that takes ingenuity and a willingness to risk that NASA doesn't seem to possess right now. Bad climate to propose trillion-dollar space programs, though we've been willing to propose trillion-dollar stimulus packages for more mundane projects, such as propping up failed financial institutions.
Imagine the impact of a trillion-dollar space plane project. Would US students consider a career in engineering if they saw both the opportunity to be part of a cool new future, and the employment options as well? Would this give US aerospace companies something else to sell instead of weapons systems, and is that a good thing? Would it spur international competition, and is that good? Would it divert China's resources into something besides crushing the world's manufacturing competitors? Does that matter? Would a trillion dollars given to this project do more good than giving it to the bankers? Will the bankers also flourish in the glow of this project?
Intel so far has publically stated that this problem wasn't detected in their testing. I kinda believe that, and the root cause makes sense of that. The chip wasn't slipped in after the LAST round of tests, so the assumptions that Intel didn't test this design adequately will probably prove false. I haven't heard any credible report that Intel had any suspicion that this problem existed, or could, before shipment. Changed seppings may not have spotted it, for as you pint out, this needed extreme testing regimes to be revealed. Prototypes can't be relied upon as production examples for obvious reasons.
This would not be the first time Intel has had to retract a part because of materials problems. Just the first time in 2011.
And one item caught my attention. Intel seems to think that this would affect at least 25% of these parts over a three-year period, and lead to substantially shorter useful life for nearly all of them. In fact, I think they predicted that the vast majority of parts would show no failures for 1-2 years.
And another item. Anandtech reported that an Intel spokesman said that the fix was to remask and essentially diable the offending transistor. That doesn't square with what I know. But it is common in these cases for one team to blame another, so it coudl be a design team is being lamed by manufacturing for driving a device to failure, where design might be pointing out that the device wasn't manufactured to spec, and is failing because of that. Often, both teams get a trip to the woodshed, since resolving these problems has to be a team approach, and having teams covering their butts first can lead to delays and costs.
There are teams within Intel that can do their investigation without interference from the CYA gangs. Fortunately for us.
Actually, Intel got returns back from their customers (Dell, for one), and as soon as they analyzed the chipsets, they found the materials problem. The 'torture tests' were in response to the defective parts and the failure mode. That 'only' gets them to choosing the next step, is it hardware or firmware? Assuming,of course, that it is a defect, and not something else. My friend in driver development spends a fair amount of his time proving that the error is not his code. Less than a while ago, since he moved from Windows to Linux driver development. He's a lot less stressed for some reason.
From the beginning was intended to refer to 'from the beginning of Intel's analysis'. I don't know what beginning you were referring to, but at least Intel had to have a failed part to do any analysis at all. Unless you expect them to be clairvoiant. My friend assures me he is not, he's just a scientist.
You will read of the details of this elsewhere, but I 'know a guy' at Intel, and this was slam-dunk gotta-fix-this for them, despite the cost. It was evident from the beginning that this had the makings of a legendary fail for them, and they bit off the $1B and just fixed it.
I'm hoping to get some tidbits on the actual cause, but for now it's pretty tight over there.
Not often that Intel makes these mistakes, and this is one they seem to be handling with integrity. Not like Nvidia.
The plaintiff makes essentially 4 claims for relief. They read like a tabloid expose, not what I'm used to from lawyers, stating fact and claims. "Rigged gas pump"? Number 3 in particular is a hoot:
"2. It gets worse. Not only does AT&T systematically overbill..."
Sorry, it gets 'worse'? Asking the court to consider any of your claims lesser than others doesn't seem like a recommended strategy. Making one claim 'worse' risks finding the others 'less worse'. Clearly, IANAL, but do I claim that when my car is forced off the road, it get worse when my coffee is spilled? Do I claim anything is 'worse'? Nope. It's ALL bad, and THEIR fault. Pay for it ALL, please, even the coffee. I don't want them settling the coffee dispute first just because it's 'worse'.
Sorry, this does look like amateur hour. He's got an interesting case and all, but it's written up like he was a heck of a hurry to get this filed, or was just so wee-wee'd up he couldn't have someone proof it and recommend some more eloquent and sane language. Even the gas pump analogy is a risk not to be taken in a complaint. At least one judge I've known would read that and snort. And give the plaintiff stink-eye. And she's a fair judge.
And he hired an 'independent consulting firm' to test data charges and metering? Not in that much of a hurry, unless he was beating a media deadline, and the media doesn't sleep any more. Weak.
Or am I just too used to attorneys waxing on ad infinitum?
ps- as a side note, I wonder what data billing would occur if you put your iPhone in a foil envelope for a few days. 'Phantom' data charges? My Android phone can't help it self from checking in despite no email or anything else. It's a feature to check for system updates. I do have settings to avoid data roaming and turn off sync, but I wonder if I can keep it from at least asking for a new version. I'm pretty cynical, and this suit looks like an opportunistic grab on the part of the plaintiff.
My experience with H1B workers is not the same. Many are shuttled from job to job, receiving diminishing salaries, some even have had their visa papers held by employers. This puts them at great peril, as they were told they need their papers with them at all times. This is true of not just Indian nationals, but the Asian workers as well.
And their salaries are not six-figures. They are paid even less than I am, and I took a 15% pay cut in 2009.
Well, I didn't buy the article's premise either, so I'm not losing anything. But how we define a tool would be instrumental in proving the premise. You're taking the side of the entire tool, not the concept. Works for me.
"As for tools used to make the pyramids, you need to prove that ALL of them are still in use, not simply the ones we know about. Again, we forget the tools we no longer make. The fact that we no longer know exactly what tools were used to make the pyramids is pretty solid proof that we have forgotten them"
I'm not sure I agree with your premise, but not knowing what was used then is not the same as the tools not being in use. We can surmise a lot from how pyramids would have been built, just from our own experience, and I;m windering if you think some tools are forgotten, as in what function or purpose is not met by tools we know of? Do we know enough about what was available to show that all the tools we know about are sufficient to build the great pyramids? I think so.
This is not a good example. Try dictating machines, such as belts and discs, and special cartridges. Some of those are probably both not used and not made any more. However, the principles of magnetic recording are still in use, even for audio. If the form factor is your issue, well, I thinkl that's maybe not applicable and not the point of the article.
"Read the entire comment. I was not talking about tools to record them, I am talking about tools to ERASE the old wax, so you can record a new one on top of the old one. Like I said earlier, generally you forget the name when you stop making the tool. The tools used to make the cylinders were called ediphones."
And the machines used to shave them were called 'shaving machines' We still have pictures, and some are still around. I'm wondering if anyone makes them. In 2004, the players were still being made, but i can't yet find any rferences to shavers, which would be the best way to prepare blank cylinders. Casting just doesn't give a smooth enough surface.
As for tools used to make the pyramids, you need to prove that ALL of them are still in use, not simply the ones we know about. Again, we forget the tools we no longer make. The fact that we no longer know exactly what tools were used to make the pyramids is pretty solid proof that we have forgotten them.
"After all, if an Indian abroad takes a job from somebody else he does so based on his talents" Let me fix that for you: "After all, if an Indian abroad takes a job from somebody else he does so based on his talents and, most importantly, the fact he/she will be a virtual slave on an H1B visa and put up with wages and conditions no American that could do the job would tolerate"
There are several groups gathering and transcribing these old wax cylinders to digital media. so they are indeed playing them to this day. I suspect at least one of these machines will record, and so it can still be done.
And many of the tools used to build the pyarmids are in regular use today. levers, incline planes, etc. We think of them as ramps and teeter-totters.
It would be something I might use to teach a kid handline fishing. Nylon can be rough on your hands, though cotton will also burn. And it's biodegradable, so when they hook a good-sized bass, if they let it go the line won't entangle generations of fish. Hopefully.
Slashdot Mirror
"Wow I guess you really have no real grasp.
Let me put this simply. reliable, faster turnaround, reusable == cheaper."
Wow, I really do have a grasp. Thanks for restating the obvious.
"With a horizontal takeoff you must support the weight of the fuel on the landing gear which is a separate weight structure from the thrust bearing structure since one will be taking a horizontal load and one the vertical load."
I think this is a common problem for all aerodynamic vehicles, isn't it? We've done some good work in that area if I recall.
"Then add in the lifting surfaces that will be needed to left the weight of the massive fuel load which will then be nothing but dead weight when landing."
Are you describing the Shuttle again? Is that a good model for future spaceflight? Just asking. ps - 'dead weight' when landing decribes an entire vehicle, if you're pointing out that lifting surfaces are 'dead weight'. Like landing gear. What? So capsules are the most efficient vehicle, right? Are they the most useful? Is there a difference?
"Then the wing spar needed which will be another massive structure adding even more to the weight."
I'm guessing spars will be part of the lifting surface structure, but if there is an alternative, cut these.
"Which will add more to the weight of the landing gear which will mean more fuel which will mean more load on the spar, more wing area, and.....
It only makes sense "
Yes, it does. I'm not as daft as you think I am, though I'm not writing the same stuff as you. this sometimes leads people to think someone 'doesn't get it'.
This cries out for prisons setting up open source GSM cells.
Now to find a CDMA solution. That, they may have to rely on the commercial manufacturers, but with a bit of work and some money, prisons could run their own cell networks and if nothing else listen in on the inmates' plans. Could be worse. Actually, it IS worse.
We can't seem to keep them out of the prisons, so just subvert them. I know this continues a war of escalation, but that's inevitable.
I'm not so much focused on 'cheap access to space', as in reliable, faster turnaround, reusable. I don't think we can do that with the current model of vertical lift, aka Shuttle/Thor-Delta-Ares-etc, but if a true Shuttle replacement could be launched more horizontally, this might solve the problem of big rockets pushing things straight up (at first). That demands big motors and big fuel burn rates.
I know, we need materials and propulsion advances. Similar problems in transportation, especially passenger cars, and we are playing with batteries as an interim step towards other energy sources. Not directly applicable to space travel, but similar fundamental problems - changing the paradigm.
It takes vision and committment. Both lacking in our nation and government.
Well, I hope not. Ares is a bust, but looking at the commercial projects gives me hope that we can get off the vertical lift scheme and build real space planes. It seems as if there is an economy to a lateral lift that would solve some problems, but not being an engineer means I can't work out the details.
Then again, neither can the engineers.
My interpretation is that thor, Delta, Atlas, Saturn, Ares, they are all essentially vertical launchers. If I could wave a wand and throw money at it, I would like to see something like a real plane, but spaceworthy
The seeds of the US v USSR conflict were sown at the end of WWII, specifically in Berlin, with some of the war spoil controversies thrown in. Stalin was prepared to finish what Hitler started, but alas, that didn't work out. Or maybe it did.
The ISS is a satellite, but launched in pieces that fit on rockets or in the Shuttle.
Nice try, though. Somehow, limitations of launchers still prevails. Until we develop better space construction techniques, we're stuck.
He's right, you're wrong. Satellites are limited to the capacities of the launch vehicles available, and those vehicles were designed for the bombs. Or the bombs aer designed to the limitations of the vehicles. Same problem for satellites, though they didn't drive vehicle development until fairly recently. Even now, it's as much packaging as rocket that limits satellite design. The USAF seems pretty interested in the X-37 to deliver military satellites, and I wonder how big the
Delta/Thor rockets are still very popular for satellite launches, and are the result of the PGM-17 program, the USAF Intermediate-range missles. Replaced soon by Atlas rockets. We know these well as the launch vehicle for various space probes and Mercury capsules.
Personally, I would have never gotten on top of a Redstone for even a suborbital test, but then again, IANATP. Al Shepard deserves a cookie for that. Grissom, of course, blew the hatch and screwed the pooch, allegedly, though expecting that thing to float seems optimistic in hindsight.
Lemme put it this way. He did edify and inform you enough to come to that conclusion.
He's brighter than you thought, maybe?
They don't do that in Canada. Hey, they just recently stopped singing that God save the Queen. I think. We got past that a couple hundred years ago, though more violently than Canada did. Woops, I'll be darned, they ARE different from us...
Stepheson makes this point late in the article:
"There is no shortage of proposals for radically innovative space launch schemes that, if they worked, would get us across the valley to other hilltops considerably higher than the one we are standing on now—high enough to bring the cost and risk of space launch down to the point where fundamentally new things could begin happening in outer space. But we are not making any serious effort as a society to cross those valleys. It is not clear why."
It's somewhat clearer why, to me.
I want to buy a more fuel-efficient car, and keep my current, less-efficient car. My current car is useful for many things, but commuting to work could be done by another, more efficient one. Here, however, is the rub. Despite the improvement in fuel economy, it is still a net increase in cost to me for a fairly long time. Acquisition, insurance, and upkeep consume most of the fuel savings. Yes, it would be better for he environment also, but that doesn't immediately or directly impact my costs very much. So I put off buying that car.
Our current methods of delivering object into space work well enough, and the alternatives are both unproven and not sufficiently advantageous to warrant immediate adoption.
However, as we re-enter manned space exploration, we will be looking for heavy-lift options that don't actually exist today, and those present the opportunity to develop new methods. Avoiding the vertical portion of a rocket launch also avoids the need for massive thrust to overcome gravity that directly. Stephenson alludes to this, and 'space planes' are the current focus, along with some multi-mode concepts. NASA'a failing Ares program is a fair example of lock-in that Stephenson is writing about. Being more open to the development of ultra-high-speed vehicles and their engines might offer both better alternatives and true advances. But that takes ingenuity and a willingness to risk that NASA doesn't seem to possess right now. Bad climate to propose trillion-dollar space programs, though we've been willing to propose trillion-dollar stimulus packages for more mundane projects, such as propping up failed financial institutions.
Imagine the impact of a trillion-dollar space plane project. Would US students consider a career in engineering if they saw both the opportunity to be part of a cool new future, and the employment options as well? Would this give US aerospace companies something else to sell instead of weapons systems, and is that a good thing? Would it spur international competition, and is that good? Would it divert China's resources into something besides crushing the world's manufacturing competitors? Does that matter? Would a trillion dollars given to this project do more good than giving it to the bankers? Will the bankers also flourish in the glow of this project?
Intel so far has publically stated that this problem wasn't detected in their testing. I kinda believe that, and the root cause makes sense of that. The chip wasn't slipped in after the LAST round of tests, so the assumptions that Intel didn't test this design adequately will probably prove false. I haven't heard any credible report that Intel had any suspicion that this problem existed, or could, before shipment. Changed seppings may not have spotted it, for as you pint out, this needed extreme testing regimes to be revealed. Prototypes can't be relied upon as production examples for obvious reasons.
This would not be the first time Intel has had to retract a part because of materials problems. Just the first time in 2011.
And one item caught my attention. Intel seems to think that this would affect at least 25% of these parts over a three-year period, and lead to substantially shorter useful life for nearly all of them. In fact, I think they predicted that the vast majority of parts would show no failures for 1-2 years.
And another item. Anandtech reported that an Intel spokesman said that the fix was to remask and essentially diable the offending transistor. That doesn't square with what I know. But it is common in these cases for one team to blame another, so it coudl be a design team is being lamed by manufacturing for driving a device to failure, where design might be pointing out that the device wasn't manufactured to spec, and is failing because of that. Often, both teams get a trip to the woodshed, since resolving these problems has to be a team approach, and having teams covering their butts first can lead to delays and costs.
There are teams within Intel that can do their investigation without interference from the CYA gangs. Fortunately for us.
Actually, Intel got returns back from their customers (Dell, for one), and as soon as they analyzed the chipsets, they found the materials problem. The 'torture tests' were in response to the defective parts and the failure mode. That 'only' gets them to choosing the next step, is it hardware or firmware? Assuming,of course, that it is a defect, and not something else. My friend in driver development spends a fair amount of his time proving that the error is not his code. Less than a while ago, since he moved from Windows to Linux driver development. He's a lot less stressed for some reason.
From the beginning was intended to refer to 'from the beginning of Intel's analysis'. I don't know what beginning you were referring to, but at least Intel had to have a failed part to do any analysis at all. Unless you expect them to be clairvoiant. My friend assures me he is not, he's just a scientist.
I saw the Anandtech article, and others.
You will read of the details of this elsewhere, but I 'know a guy' at Intel, and this was slam-dunk gotta-fix-this for them, despite the cost. It was evident from the beginning that this had the makings of a legendary fail for them, and they bit off the $1B and just fixed it.
I'm hoping to get some tidbits on the actual cause, but for now it's pretty tight over there.
Not often that Intel makes these mistakes, and this is one they seem to be handling with integrity. Not like Nvidia.
And that's not a compliment to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff makes essentially 4 claims for relief. They read like a tabloid expose, not what I'm used to from lawyers, stating fact and claims. "Rigged gas pump"? Number 3 in particular is a hoot:
"2. It gets worse. Not only does AT&T systematically overbill..."
Sorry, it gets 'worse'? Asking the court to consider any of your claims lesser than others doesn't seem like a recommended strategy. Making one claim 'worse' risks finding the others 'less worse'. Clearly, IANAL, but do I claim that when my car is forced off the road, it get worse when my coffee is spilled? Do I claim anything is 'worse'? Nope. It's ALL bad, and THEIR fault. Pay for it ALL, please, even the coffee. I don't want them settling the coffee dispute first just because it's 'worse'.
Sorry, this does look like amateur hour. He's got an interesting case and all, but it's written up like he was a heck of a hurry to get this filed, or was just so wee-wee'd up he couldn't have someone proof it and recommend some more eloquent and sane language. Even the gas pump analogy is a risk not to be taken in a complaint. At least one judge I've known would read that and snort. And give the plaintiff stink-eye. And she's a fair judge.
And he hired an 'independent consulting firm' to test data charges and metering? Not in that much of a hurry, unless he was beating a media deadline, and the media doesn't sleep any more. Weak.
Or am I just too used to attorneys waxing on ad infinitum?
ps- as a side note, I wonder what data billing would occur if you put your iPhone in a foil envelope for a few days. 'Phantom' data charges? My Android phone can't help it self from checking in despite no email or anything else. It's a feature to check for system updates. I do have settings to avoid data roaming and turn off sync, but I wonder if I can keep it from at least asking for a new version. I'm pretty cynical, and this suit looks like an opportunistic grab on the part of the plaintiff.
Ack. It's already a long day.
My experience with H1B workers is not the same. Many are shuttled from job to job, receiving diminishing salaries, some even have had their visa papers held by employers. This puts them at great peril, as they were told they need their papers with them at all times. This is true of not just Indian nationals, but the Asian workers as well.
And their salaries are not six-figures. They are paid even less than I am, and I took a 15% pay cut in 2009.
There is not a single experience for H1B workers.
Well, I didn't buy the article's premise either, so I'm not losing anything. But how we define a tool would be instrumental in proving the premise. You're taking the side of the entire tool, not the concept. Works for me.
Oh, and I forgot...
"As for tools used to make the pyramids, you need to prove that ALL of them are still in use, not simply the ones we know about. Again, we forget the tools we no longer make. The fact that we no longer know exactly what tools were used to make the pyramids is pretty solid proof that we have forgotten them"
I'm not sure I agree with your premise, but not knowing what was used then is not the same as the tools not being in use. We can surmise a lot from how pyramids would have been built, just from our own experience, and I;m windering if you think some tools are forgotten, as in what function or purpose is not met by tools we know of? Do we know enough about what was available to show that all the tools we know about are sufficient to build the great pyramids? I think so.
This is not a good example. Try dictating machines, such as belts and discs, and special cartridges. Some of those are probably both not used and not made any more. However, the principles of magnetic recording are still in use, even for audio. If the form factor is your issue, well, I thinkl that's maybe not applicable and not the point of the article.
"Read the entire comment. I was not talking about tools to record them, I am talking about tools to ERASE the old wax, so you can record a new one on top of the old one. Like I said earlier, generally you forget the name when you stop making the tool. The tools used to make the cylinders were called ediphones."
And the machines used to shave them were called 'shaving machines' We still have pictures, and some are still around. I'm wondering if anyone makes them. In 2004, the players were still being made, but i can't yet find any rferences to shavers, which would be the best way to prepare blank cylinders. Casting just doesn't give a smooth enough surface.
As for tools used to make the pyramids, you need to prove that ALL of them are still in use, not simply the ones we know about. Again, we forget the tools we no longer make. The fact that we no longer know exactly what tools were used to make the pyramids is pretty solid proof that we have forgotten them.
"After all, if an Indian abroad takes a job from somebody else he does so based on his talents" Let me fix that for you: "After all, if an Indian abroad takes a job from somebody else he does so based on his talents and, most importantly, the fact he/she will be a virtual slave on an H1B visa and put up with wages and conditions no American that could do the job would tolerate"
Might as well get it right.
It's not about blowing stuff up, stupid. It's more important than that. It's jobs.
And I'm pretty sure I used the proper forms, so blowing an artery is your issue. Go police someone else.
There are several groups gathering and transcribing these old wax cylinders to digital media. so they are indeed playing them to this day. I suspect at least one of these machines will record, and so it can still be done.
And many of the tools used to build the pyarmids are in regular use today. levers, incline planes, etc. We think of them as ramps and teeter-totters.
The point of the NPR article (which I listened to this morning) was hese tools were still being produced and used, even if only by hobbyists etc.
Papyrus qualifies. Still being made and used.
Nice try.
It would be something I might use to teach a kid handline fishing. Nylon can be rough on your hands, though cotton will also burn. And it's biodegradable, so when they hook a good-sized bass, if they let it go the line won't entangle generations of fish. Hopefully.
Perhaps only every month or so. Our second oldest incoming pool will sometimes negotiate K56Flex connections, if something about the X2 fails.
It's multi-protocol. Even remembers Multitech's bastard Unix method, which shall be forever unnamed.