Comment Cell Network (Score 1) 532
The only reasonable explaination I've heard for everyone having the cells off while in flight is load on the network below- 100+ phones changing towers at 500 mph can't be good for the network.
The only reasonable explaination I've heard for everyone having the cells off while in flight is load on the network below- 100+ phones changing towers at 500 mph can't be good for the network.
Hmmm, can't say that my first attempt to use Bing gave me any Lindsay L. results, but noscript did put up a cross site scripting hijack after I attempted to "disable" a helpful toolbar with my facebook info proudly displayed.
I'm positive I don't need any search provider tapping into my facebook info- and I certainly don't want to be reminded of it on the front page! That's like, TSA scary.
Ignoring the blatant invasion of my privacy for a moment, I'm happy to say my (small sample size, insert disclaimer here) test of Google vs Bing revealed that the "best all mountain skis" works differently in Google versus Bing. Google gave a list of places to buy "the best all mountain skis" as the top listings, whereas Bing gave a set of review sites telling me which ones were the best.
Not sure how to rate one result as better than the other, they're just different. Perhaps Google feels that their users know what they want, so they just point them at it. Perhaps Bing believes that their users want to learn what is the best choice for them. Hard to put a metric on that. I'd hazard an informed guess that both search providers weigh their results according to desires of their users, as measured by click through rates. Bing users might want more hand holding, whereas Google users might want less distractions before they learn the location of something.
All that being said, I'm still not using a search engine that displays my facebook account info. Yuck. I don't care if this is Facebook's fault, I don't want to see it on a random search page as part of the interface.
Terraforming is great, if you have someplace else to practice. Trying to terraform the earth with our current level of knowledge about the process and possible side effects is like doing experimental brain surgery on yourself. If we screw it up, we have no place else to go. Paraphrasing the Tick, I like the Earth, I keep all my stuff there. Let's practice terraforming on Mars, first, to get the bugs out. Until then, let's not make things worse here by accident.
My biggest gripe about this whole debate are the countless numbers of people who fail to think at all, and believe that we can ignore the mounting evidence that there even is an issue. Until they recognize the warning signs the scientists keep point out, we really can't have a debate about the issue and what to do about it. Humanocentric or not, the planet seems to be getting hotter. Perhaps all those scientists are reading things incorrectly, or drawing the wrong conclusions, but even with a chance that they are on to something ought to cause all of us to be very concerned. And not just about the gas mileage for SUV's.
Fail.
It is Never a good idea to buy anything new. The only reason to do it is to placate emotion. This applies to Furniture, cars, and for god's sake yes, electronics.
The iPhone 4 is awesome and I will likely have one someday. But problems like these, founded or not, are the kind of thing you sign up for if you want to be an early adopter. That, and spending way too much money.
Um, I was referring to Direct, the "SSTS without the space shuttle" design, not the Ares I "Stick". I was looking at the actual design for Direct's J-130 model right here. It's a stage 1.5 design with all engines ground lit and the boosters jettisoned during flight, just like the SSTS.
I do agree with your statement about the Ares I:
I worked on Ares and know what the design is. That thing was a gigantic piece of crap just waiting to fail. Badly. From the barely stable structural dynamics of a 400ft long pencil flying at mach 6, to the ugliest, most disaster prone separation sequence; that design was doomed to fail.
But that's not what I was talking about.
Also, the very first class you take in Aerospace Engineering teaches you exactly why SSTO (single stage to orbit) is not as cost-effective as multiple stages. So your argument that this design is better because it doesn't need a second stage is not a good one. The design might be simpler and easier to build, but it requires so much more fuel per launch that it isn't worth it.
As my argument about "single stage", I was referring to the fact that the design already gets 77mT to orbit with just a single (OK, 1.5 stage counting the SRB's) stage and that there was room for more growth, like a second stage, if you needed more lift and were willing to pay extra for it. Did I mention the option to use 5 segment SRB's? I could go on... It's just that the J-130 is the cheapest option for a new HLV, and it leverages all the work and research that went into the SSTS program, rather than throwing it away.
That's a good thing, in my opinion.
Per the official design from the Direct team (sorry for the pdf, that's what they have), it's 77,835kg to 30nmx100nm orbit for the regular NASA GR&A's. It's only down to 70mt if you arbitrarily factor in an additional 10% margin. Which doesn't account for their own internal 15% margin that isn't documented. I like engineers who give themselves leeway.
Short answer, yes, the 1.5 stage J-130 does 77mT to orbit per NASA rules.
This potential bill means congressional support behind a Direct version of a shuttle replacement or something close enough not to matter. Direct is a design to replace the space shuttle with a rocket that puts the cargo and capsule on top of the tank, and moves the shuttle engines on the bottom of the tank. Without having to lift the load of the space shuttle itself, the rocket gets 77mT of cargo to orbit.
Re-using all the major shuttle components provides the cheapest possible option for a Heavy Lift Vehicle, not to mention the quickest, as a Direct design could be flying by 2013. The current plan from the administration doesn't even decide on a HLV design until 2015, let alone start the process of building and testing it. This is not a barrel of pork. Yes, somebody will make some money, but this is the cheapest option at the moment to keep a US heavy lift capability in the near future, and it will be built here in the US.
Current US lift capability stops at only 25mT in the Shuttle cargo bay to Low Earth Orbit. By funding a Direct style vehicle, we get a minimum of 75 mT to orbit without a second stage. This a very good thing. With further development of a second stage, the payload capacity increases to 115mT+. Not only that, but by putting the payload on top of the vehicle, a direct style rocket can support a payload as wide as 12m across (shuttle can only do 5m). So we get the ability to send more per launch and save over the life of a large project. For example, five flights of Direct would have been sufficient to build the ISS, versus the 40 shuttle launches it actually took.
By re-using the same engines and boosters as the space shuttle, we save billions (maybe $10 billion over time) in research and launch facility changes necessary for other designs (Ares would have required 2 new pad designs and new crawlers at a $1 billion a pop). The cost per launch for Direct will be less expensive as well. For comparison, recovery of the shuttle SRB's, refurbishment of the shuttle and launch costs per launch have averaged out to about $1.3 billion per launch. A Direct will cost somewhere north of $200 million for the launch vehicle, plus operating costs, but won't include refurbishment or recovery operations. For the immediate future NASA says it will launch the last shuttle in 2011, and after we'll be paying the Russians $20-30 million per seat for rides in a Soyuz
We save time in that we can have an un-manned cargo version of the vehicle doing test flights by 2013, whereas the engine testing alone for a liquid-fueled booster would take 5 years by the current plan. as all the parts are already man-rated (save for the modified ET), we could be launching Orion capsules on a Direct as soon as the Orions finish development in 2015 or so.
If this passes, I'll be one very happy space fan.
I can't help but to think that this bug has more to do with dropped calls than the antenna- Screen doesn't go off, so your face hits "End"
I wonder if it took Apple's Three New Antenna Guys to find out that they fail at logarithms.
"How obvious—how necessary—was that mathematical ratio of its sides, the quadratic sequence 1:4:9! And how naive to have imagined that the series ended at this point, in only three dimensions!"
1:4:9 . . . or perhaps (1:2:3). It's the ratio the Monoliths are built to, and it's perfect.
Hmmm, didn't see that. Given that it takes the place of two full racks, maybe you're supposed to put it on a pedestal in place of them.
Something like this for easy access.
Or, maybe you could rotate it 90 degrees and mount it CPU-access-side up. At 10U that's only 15", so it should fit in a 19" rack.
Seriously, if you don't plan to do hot swap on the CPU boards, you'd be OK in a normal rack. I'm not sure I'd trust hot swap for CPU boards anyways.
Garbage In -- Gospel Out.
