I started with MATE but it had a lot of rough edges, and unfortunately the devs kept talking about "innovation" which I don't want on my desktop... so I switched to XFCE. Cinnamon may o r may not be better.
You found a link, but you did not take the time to THINK about the IDEAS that I expressed. That link does NOT address what I said; it does the math for LANDING on/in the Sun, not for driving to the nearest slingshot and using that to alter course and crash into the Sun. So you replied without having even attempted to understand what I said. Tsk tsk.
Hint: Earth orbit is ~100km/s. Solar escape velocity when starting at Earth is ~50km/s. So it is twice as expensive to hit the Sun rather than Alpha Centauri.
LOLOLOL! No, really man. You DO need to check your math. Or just, do your math instead of guessing.
See where you say Earth's orbit is 100km/s? No. It is ~30 km/s. You probably got confused by somebody writing 100k km/h and remembered it is per second, or forgot to convert units. You got the ~50km/s because you remembered the ratio of energy from the classwork and made a crude guess that would be wrong in either case. The needed escape velocity is only 42km/s.
But worse, you're mistaking a standard physics course lesson with the theoretical limits of the problem space. Totally different. It is true it takes twice as much energy to do a direct delta V to the Sun as to make the cheapest escape. But you're confusing that with the cheapest way to get there. You can shave it down a lot just by realizing you don't have to hit the center, anything inside the radius works. But then you might realize that a direct path isn't the cheapest path. Starting from Earth's orbit, you only need to adjust your orbit so that you hit the Sun.
Furthermore, by your numbers anything in Earth's orbit would get flung out of the whole Solar System unless it was doing a constant burn. Not gonna happen. Because that would mean the Earth itself would not even be in orbit.
And even on a fairly direct route you only need to get to Venus, because you can gravity-brake there all the way down to the needed speed. And further, (since the escape velocity of the Solar System from Earth is thankfully higher than the speed of Earth's orbit) if you were going to leave the Solar System, and changed your mind, you could just use something like Jupiter to turn around and come back. With a long enough wait, you could even do a tiny burn near Earth to change velocity relative to Earth, and then use Earth on later passes to slingshot. The longer you're willing to wait, the less energy you'll need. Remember the goal is just to crash the waste into the Sun, the goal is NOT to land on the surface of the Sun.
The whole "diving into the Sun vs escaping" thing is just a thought experiment. The reality is that if you don't care about the arrival date or path traveled, then they both cost about the same amount; the cost of flying to the nearest slingshot. Given a choice between a random long flight through space, or a long flight into the Sun, the Sun remains a better choice.
Hey bigfoot bro, I have size 15's too, and I often am wearing work boots when I drive, and I've never had the problem either.
But I would say the fact he did "two-three" times, and didn't think much of it, implies not a design flaw, but a driver who sprawls out like he's being cool, or relaxing, instead of sitting up attentively and driving.
It is also evidence that he does it in other cars too. Those of us who have never done this would be shocked by it happening "two-three" times, and would even remember how many times.
I'm not sure why you're missing this, but putting it into gear is an active user input. And you don't have to floor the brake, any light pressure will overcome the idle speed.
I guess I drive different cars, because I wear a 15 and don't have any trouble at all. Maybe you're sprawled out laying down and have your foot sideways? Sit up and drive!
I've noticed a lot of people slouching down in the driver seat trying to hide their phone between their legs while they text, or play flappy bird, while they drive. Crazy.
What country are you from? I'm an American. I guess I'm just not educated enough to know, but what is a "Honey Booboo?" And why do you believe I have one? Survivor, I think is some cable TV show. I guess it is popular in your country? Or do you just consume a lot of media that talks about it?
Yeah, you have to be French to not screw it up. Americans would surely screw it up. We don't know anything about nuclear technology. Derp!
Back to reality... maybe we should consider the face value... the nuclear industry is opposing those steps, because they're invested in particular technologies and the new technologies would enrich different companies than the ones already entrenched. Ah, now we have a reasonable explanation! And surprise surprise, it is also the standard explanation that "everyone" already knew about.
A basic hand-held broad-frequency detection tool as used by private investigators and other security professionals to discover "bugs" would help. It took them 7 hours to turn it off. It was pinging once an hour. 2 hours you know it pings every hour. 3rd hour you know which part of the plane it is in. 4th hour you find the panel. 5th hour you narrow it to a set of devices. 6th hour you find the exact device. 7th hour you're looking at the schematics deciding which plug to pull.
That assumes basic security preparation, community-college electronics repair tech knowledge, and access to off-the-shelf hand scanners. So, one guy, perhaps one of the 2 Iranians on the flight with forged documents, having been a security tech for some Mullah from Beckybeckystanistan.
Why would one not be logging everything?... Are they afreid of running out of papyrus on which to write the entries...
Older analog radar systems might indeed need lots of papyrus, or other paper, to print those logs... or a lot of reel to reel tapes. More likely you run the recording in a loop, and if a war starts, you start unwrapping new reels.
The US still flies the U2 all over the place, usually undetected. It is not immediately obvious that Indonesia has the necessary components for that. And using older Soviet tech, you'd have to invest a huge amount of electricity to try to scan the whole sky at high altitude. A country like Indonesia, even if they have that radar, are unlikely to be running it in high power mode outside of drills.
The idea that they spent a bunch of money on a fancy radar, and are just too embarrassed to purchase training, well... that is farcical.
The reason Saddam had a chemical weapons program is because he was gassing Iranians in the 80s. During the Gulf War he didn't use them, because he knew they would make Americans mad enough to destroy Baghdad. Everyone knew he didn't still have it, because he declared it all as part of the agreement to end the Gulf War. It was then all destroyed under US supervision. He did not pretend to still have it, in fact he kept pointing to the fact that the Americans had already watched it all be destroyed. Which was verified by the Iraq War when the "new" "weapons program" turned out to be an agricultural pesticide truck with standard chemicals.
No, they absolutely are NOT worried about "any foreign military power penetrating their airspace." That is a Major Power sort of concern. Their military airspace concern is that if they go to war with a neighbor, are they able to track enough of the attackers to mount a defense. Since they would likely have equivalent technology to their enemy, the less the enemy knows about their radar the better their air defenses will perform. They aren't going to be able to establish an American-style "air superiority." The enemy WILL penetrate their airspace, and bomb stuff too. Initial early detection of the first attack is not going to be significant.
One military strategy is to insist you have the best possible technology, and nobody can cross your border undetected.
Another is to pretend you're a bunch of bumbling backwards idiots, so that people won't know your capabilities. They'll have to guess, and so if they attack you have a better chance to track them.
I don't think we have any way to distinguish between the Indonesians being uncooperative, and being incapable. What we do know is that they haven't provided any useful radar data, and are unlikely to; and we also know that tells us nothing about their radar capabilities. The same can be said for Thailand in this case.
I was taught to answer those types of questions with, "well, the Martians might be massing for an invasion tomorrow. We can't disprove the possibility!"
I agree totally, but I think it is dubious to put the families and public through this much disinformation.
There is really no reason to think it crashed. That was a good first guess when it was just "missing," but since we know it was taken by the crew, that would seem to reset the whole idea. What new information is consistent with a crash? None.
They just keep parading this absurd "2500 nautical mile" BS. That is the range if they had loaded fuel for a flight to Beijing. But the plane has a range of over 7000 miles fully loaded. Nobody has produced anything that even claims to verify or offer proof that the aircraft was fueled the way the paperwork says. And you would need an airport free of corruption to even have a chance of proving it; if lots of fuel is regularly being stolen or otherwise misappropriated, there is simply no possible way to verify the fuel that was loaded.
And the whole idea, "well gee, they stole a vehicle, and it was supposed to only had a half tank of gas... it must have crashed because it didn't get to the destination!" That is a real Keystone Kops sort of scenario to be saying that. It is pretty obviously BS. The most likely reason to hijack it is to take hostages. The next most likely is to use the plane as a missile in the future. The next most likely is to sell it off. The whole "pilot suicide" thing seems pretty silly. You'd need a suicide pact between multiple crew members to pull that off, and the co-pilot was new. Much more likely is a religious, political, or criminal association between them. And in that scenario, a suicide pact would involve crashing into something, not just flying off over the ocean until the fuel runs out.
The whole misinformation scheme is dangerous; if they rescue the passengers, fine. Then they'll be beyond most criticism. But that is a long-shot. If the terrorists suddenly show up on TV killing hostages, all the misinformation will look really bad, and they'll get a huge propaganda coup. In other words... they better know where the plane is and have special forces on the ground, or they're just being idiots.
You do know that there are almost no homeless shelters with co-ed housing where it would even be possible for there to be competition between genders for beds for the night... right? I mean, are you lying, or just that stupid? You slept in the cold because you were homeless, not because some women received shelter.
Slashdot Mirror
A decade ago a lot of people had already had dual screens of unusual sizes for a decade.
I started with MATE but it had a lot of rough edges, and unfortunately the devs kept talking about "innovation" which I don't want on my desktop... so I switched to XFCE. Cinnamon may o r may not be better.
You found a link, but you did not take the time to THINK about the IDEAS that I expressed. That link does NOT address what I said; it does the math for LANDING on/in the Sun, not for driving to the nearest slingshot and using that to alter course and crash into the Sun. So you replied without having even attempted to understand what I said. Tsk tsk.
That's about the size of my summer shoes. I don't buy it.
Hint: Earth orbit is ~100km/s. Solar escape velocity when starting at Earth is ~50km/s. So it is twice as expensive to hit the Sun rather than Alpha Centauri.
LOLOLOL! No, really man. You DO need to check your math. Or just, do your math instead of guessing.
See where you say Earth's orbit is 100km/s? No. It is ~30 km/s. You probably got confused by somebody writing 100k km/h and remembered it is per second, or forgot to convert units. You got the ~50km/s because you remembered the ratio of energy from the classwork and made a crude guess that would be wrong in either case. The needed escape velocity is only 42km/s.
But worse, you're mistaking a standard physics course lesson with the theoretical limits of the problem space. Totally different. It is true it takes twice as much energy to do a direct delta V to the Sun as to make the cheapest escape. But you're confusing that with the cheapest way to get there. You can shave it down a lot just by realizing you don't have to hit the center, anything inside the radius works. But then you might realize that a direct path isn't the cheapest path. Starting from Earth's orbit, you only need to adjust your orbit so that you hit the Sun.
Furthermore, by your numbers anything in Earth's orbit would get flung out of the whole Solar System unless it was doing a constant burn. Not gonna happen. Because that would mean the Earth itself would not even be in orbit.
And even on a fairly direct route you only need to get to Venus, because you can gravity-brake there all the way down to the needed speed. And further, (since the escape velocity of the Solar System from Earth is thankfully higher than the speed of Earth's orbit) if you were going to leave the Solar System, and changed your mind, you could just use something like Jupiter to turn around and come back. With a long enough wait, you could even do a tiny burn near Earth to change velocity relative to Earth, and then use Earth on later passes to slingshot. The longer you're willing to wait, the less energy you'll need. Remember the goal is just to crash the waste into the Sun, the goal is NOT to land on the surface of the Sun.
The whole "diving into the Sun vs escaping" thing is just a thought experiment. The reality is that if you don't care about the arrival date or path traveled, then they both cost about the same amount; the cost of flying to the nearest slingshot. Given a choice between a random long flight through space, or a long flight into the Sun, the Sun remains a better choice.
Hey bigfoot bro, I have size 15's too, and I often am wearing work boots when I drive, and I've never had the problem either.
But I would say the fact he did "two-three" times, and didn't think much of it, implies not a design flaw, but a driver who sprawls out like he's being cool, or relaxing, instead of sitting up attentively and driving.
It is also evidence that he does it in other cars too. Those of us who have never done this would be shocked by it happening "two-three" times, and would even remember how many times.
Hey dumbass:
1: I don't like Tesla. They're overpriced, flashy, and catch fire a lot.
Especially if be "a lot" you mean, less than other cars, but more than once!
I'm not sure why you're missing this, but putting it into gear is an active user input. And you don't have to floor the brake, any light pressure will overcome the idle speed.
I guess I drive different cars, because I wear a 15 and don't have any trouble at all. Maybe you're sprawled out laying down and have your foot sideways? Sit up and drive!
I've noticed a lot of people slouching down in the driver seat trying to hide their phone between their legs while they text, or play flappy bird, while they drive. Crazy.
What country are you from? I'm an American. I guess I'm just not educated enough to know, but what is a "Honey Booboo?" And why do you believe I have one? Survivor, I think is some cable TV show. I guess it is popular in your country? Or do you just consume a lot of media that talks about it?
Yeah, you have to be French to not screw it up. Americans would surely screw it up. We don't know anything about nuclear technology. Derp!
Back to reality... maybe we should consider the face value... the nuclear industry is opposing those steps, because they're invested in particular technologies and the new technologies would enrich different companies than the ones already entrenched. Ah, now we have a reasonable explanation! And surprise surprise, it is also the standard explanation that "everyone" already knew about.
You might want to double-check your math... lol
Chose a subduction zone
That is the infeed for volcanoes. We need a giant catapult to launch it into the Sun without fear of exploding rockets.
1.21 gigawatts! 1.21 gigawatts. Great Scott!
A basic hand-held broad-frequency detection tool as used by private investigators and other security professionals to discover "bugs" would help. It took them 7 hours to turn it off. It was pinging once an hour. 2 hours you know it pings every hour. 3rd hour you know which part of the plane it is in. 4th hour you find the panel. 5th hour you narrow it to a set of devices. 6th hour you find the exact device. 7th hour you're looking at the schematics deciding which plug to pull.
That assumes basic security preparation, community-college electronics repair tech knowledge, and access to off-the-shelf hand scanners. So, one guy, perhaps one of the 2 Iranians on the flight with forged documents, having been a security tech for some Mullah from Beckybeckystanistan.
Why would one not be logging everything?... Are they afreid of running out of papyrus on which to write the entries...
Older analog radar systems might indeed need lots of papyrus, or other paper, to print those logs... or a lot of reel to reel tapes. More likely you run the recording in a loop, and if a war starts, you start unwrapping new reels.
Their military is to deal with internal threats.
Then why would they need any radar at all?
Because friendly fire isn't friendly.
The US still flies the U2 all over the place, usually undetected. It is not immediately obvious that Indonesia has the necessary components for that. And using older Soviet tech, you'd have to invest a huge amount of electricity to try to scan the whole sky at high altitude. A country like Indonesia, even if they have that radar, are unlikely to be running it in high power mode outside of drills.
The idea that they spent a bunch of money on a fancy radar, and are just too embarrassed to purchase training, well... that is farcical.
The reason Saddam had a chemical weapons program is because he was gassing Iranians in the 80s. During the Gulf War he didn't use them, because he knew they would make Americans mad enough to destroy Baghdad. Everyone knew he didn't still have it, because he declared it all as part of the agreement to end the Gulf War. It was then all destroyed under US supervision. He did not pretend to still have it, in fact he kept pointing to the fact that the Americans had already watched it all be destroyed. Which was verified by the Iraq War when the "new" "weapons program" turned out to be an agricultural pesticide truck with standard chemicals.
No, they absolutely are NOT worried about "any foreign military power penetrating their airspace." That is a Major Power sort of concern. Their military airspace concern is that if they go to war with a neighbor, are they able to track enough of the attackers to mount a defense. Since they would likely have equivalent technology to their enemy, the less the enemy knows about their radar the better their air defenses will perform. They aren't going to be able to establish an American-style "air superiority." The enemy WILL penetrate their airspace, and bomb stuff too. Initial early detection of the first attack is not going to be significant.
You seem unable to distinguish between leaving a place, and arriving at a place.
I suspect there is no cure.
The fact that Indonesia didn't see them pass right through the monitored airspace is fact enough.
The Indonesian radar also didn't see them land in California, so my guess is they're stuck in Lodi.
One military strategy is to insist you have the best possible technology, and nobody can cross your border undetected.
Another is to pretend you're a bunch of bumbling backwards idiots, so that people won't know your capabilities. They'll have to guess, and so if they attack you have a better chance to track them.
I don't think we have any way to distinguish between the Indonesians being uncooperative, and being incapable. What we do know is that they haven't provided any useful radar data, and are unlikely to; and we also know that tells us nothing about their radar capabilities. The same can be said for Thailand in this case.
I was taught to answer those types of questions with, "well, the Martians might be massing for an invasion tomorrow. We can't disprove the possibility!"
I agree totally, but I think it is dubious to put the families and public through this much disinformation.
There is really no reason to think it crashed. That was a good first guess when it was just "missing," but since we know it was taken by the crew, that would seem to reset the whole idea. What new information is consistent with a crash? None.
They just keep parading this absurd "2500 nautical mile" BS. That is the range if they had loaded fuel for a flight to Beijing. But the plane has a range of over 7000 miles fully loaded. Nobody has produced anything that even claims to verify or offer proof that the aircraft was fueled the way the paperwork says. And you would need an airport free of corruption to even have a chance of proving it; if lots of fuel is regularly being stolen or otherwise misappropriated, there is simply no possible way to verify the fuel that was loaded.
And the whole idea, "well gee, they stole a vehicle, and it was supposed to only had a half tank of gas... it must have crashed because it didn't get to the destination!" That is a real Keystone Kops sort of scenario to be saying that. It is pretty obviously BS. The most likely reason to hijack it is to take hostages. The next most likely is to use the plane as a missile in the future. The next most likely is to sell it off. The whole "pilot suicide" thing seems pretty silly. You'd need a suicide pact between multiple crew members to pull that off, and the co-pilot was new. Much more likely is a religious, political, or criminal association between them. And in that scenario, a suicide pact would involve crashing into something, not just flying off over the ocean until the fuel runs out.
The whole misinformation scheme is dangerous; if they rescue the passengers, fine. Then they'll be beyond most criticism. But that is a long-shot. If the terrorists suddenly show up on TV killing hostages, all the misinformation will look really bad, and they'll get a huge propaganda coup. In other words... they better know where the plane is and have special forces on the ground, or they're just being idiots.
You do know that there are almost no homeless shelters with co-ed housing where it would even be possible for there to be competition between genders for beds for the night... right? I mean, are you lying, or just that stupid? You slept in the cold because you were homeless, not because some women received shelter.