Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Why land on a boat? (Score 1) 71

by Rumata (#37395038) Attached to: Amazon's Bezos Seeks Spacecraft Patents

I have not been involved with the system lay-out, but I can see the allure. Landing at sea helps, because:
- The population density is lower, i.e. it's easier to show that your landing doesn't endanger the un-involved public.
- Your landing point is relatively free, so you can return from varied orbits without needing excessive cross-range.

Why would you want to land _on_ the support ship/barge as opposed next to it?
- Dunking stuff into sea-water is harsh on said stuff. It can be designed around, but it constrains choices of materials etc. While solving an already hard problem additional constraints of these sorts are best avoided.
- Ships can be built in ways to almost eliminate wave-action, which would impose more (and more varied) structural loads in a water landing.

Is all this worth the trade-off of having to pull of a precision landing every time, and having to maintain/operate/design an (expensive, possibly custom) support ship?

I don't know. Mr. Bezos might know more, but I doubt that he knows for sure either.

Cheers,
Michael

Comment: Re:You're doing it wrong! (Score 1) 578

by Rumata (#31343756) Attached to: Write Bits Directly Onto a Hard Drive Platter?

And if he's trying to see if he can read data patterns off platters by hand from a dismantled drive, and needs a known test pattern to calibrate his equipment with?

If that's the case he'll learn that reverse-engineering is hard. In this particular case nigh impossibly hard, if it needs to be done on modern hardware. As others have said easier on MFM drives.

Comment: Look at your graph more closely (Score 3, Insightful) 1190

by Rumata (#27375049) Attached to: The Global Warming Heretic

Look at the graphs, look at historical records in the rocks. Ask yourselves, did we cause global warming or are we merely part of it ? I think the graphs speak for themselves.

Yes it does speak for it self, possibly not in the way you think, though. The large scale graph shows that from -400000 to 0 carbon dioxide concentrations varied between ~190ppmv and ~300ppmv; changes occurred relatively slowly, the fastest up-ticks are on timescales of 1k-10k years (hard to be precise from this scale).
The new peak on the far right of this graph is unique in two ways:
-The absolute level is about 25% higher than any of the 4 previous peaks and about 40% higher than the average of the graph.
-The rate of change is completely unprecedented, about 90ppmv/200years, i.e. the vertical line inside the ellipse.

I am no expert in the matter, and I know that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. However, just judging from your graph, I see a unique feature in the data, nicely aliened with a drastic population increase of a certain two-legged critter (obviously not shown here) and a change of habits of said critter (massive burning of coal/oil).
So, unless you have a compelling alternate explanation I'll stick with man-made increase of CO2 levels.

Cheers,
Michael

Comment: Why is this bad? (Score 1) 358

by Rumata (#26925377) Attached to: Microsoft.com Makes IE8 Incompatibility List

The problem is that many sites will check if the browser is IE, and then do various workarounds. [...] if browser is IE, but version 7 then do the hack

This still means there is going to be a reasonably standard-compliant version (for IE8) which should work fine for opera, safari, firefox and friends. To me this seems to be a distinct improvement over the current state where there's sites which don't work for non-IE, period.

Cheers,
Michael

Do molecular biologists wear designer genes?

Working...