Everything in the generator hall was fine AFAIK except outside power was down and backup generators were trashed by the tsunami. And that was is, there were no better protected generators, no generators that could run from the heat of the reactor, and no plan to fly in working generators. Derp.
I wonder how this little beastie connects to the internet. Through the HDMI enabled monitor, or through the keyboard and mouse!?! I guess you'd connect it to a USB hub.
Even if you have a sharp 12-24 megapixel image, it can always use some sharpening when it's downsized for the web. If you don't sharpen after downsizing, photographs still look great but not as crisp as they could.
(And yes, if you sharpen the full size image and then downsize, the downsizing obliterates the sharpening done at full size.)
I didn't read this before my original post, but the GSAT-5P wiki article and linked reference say that the strap-ons stopped responding to commands, and the vehicle was destroyed by range safety. I suspect we're being given an oversimplified version of things there, unless self-destruct is a two stage thing. I think either it lost it's top, then was self-destructed ~10 secs later, or it wasn't self destructed at all and just progressively failed because of aero loads after loss of control of the strap-ons.
I'm not an expert with inside knowledge, I'm just reading the reports and trying to interpret.
Here's a deshaked version of the failure (done by me from ). You can see the vehicle rolls towards the camera, with some yaw to the left, then stage 3 falls off. Then through to stage 1+2 destruction.
The orange cloud at 0:45 should be the hypergolics in the strap-on boosters, I believe that's what caused the orange cloud in the Challenger disaster.
According to the wiki article on the GSLV's predecessor the first stage injects chemicals (aqueous strontium perchlorate solution) into the nozzle to control yaw. I wonder if this has been problematic in the past?
I am going to see if Matt can get me the original files in higher resolution to upload.
Or he was, you know, joking. Like he said. Just sayin'.
Whoops, you busted me not RTFA. I thought it was Dan Lyons and not his alter ego. Actually I thought Fake Steve Jobs was retired after we found out who was behind it. Oh well, consider me a troll.
If they change the terms of the contract then those contracts are no longer valid, allowing customers to cancel them prematurely.
Given that those contracts are used to subsidize the cost of the phones, I don't think it's going to happen.
Not really, there is always force majeur. They could use this "digital flashmob" to change their plans permanently, and carriers and ISP's in the US have been wanting to introduce bandwidth caps for a while now...
Either Dan Lyons is a complete fool, or is a man on the inside trying to change the attitude to bandwidth permanently. So who is Newsweek owned by?
I strongly suspect this is a stunt for the corporations, not to humiliate them.
The observation is in support of the upcoming JWST which will observe exclusively in infrared, but the newly installed WFC3 does seem to provide some extra resolution over the 2004 visible observations with WFC2.
All the mainstream media has picked up on this, but strangely not even a tweet from NASA or any of its centers. (There's been one tweet in the last 12 hours, I wonder if they're reviewing their tweeting policy. Maybe they finally decided their tweetups were dumb. No text releases either, maybe too close to the holidays.)
Good luck in comparing observations, this new release covers a region about 70% x 70% of the original, aligned with the top left corner (the North corner)."
Link to Original Source