I think that paid off though. After the trauma of losing the love of her life, AFTER trying to walk away from the Doctor for him, losing that tether to humanity she allows herself to do a full 180. She emulates the Doctor, tries to be as..chaotic...as he is but without the safety net of regeneration and being a fully squishy human. It seems manic but it's actually depression. Instead of "death by cop" it's "death by showing what really happens if you try to be as cavalier in the face of death as the Dr." Yet, it, keeps, working. There's a reason chaotic-weird works for the Dr.--bluffs often do. Right up till the moment she's too clever by half.

Pretty much any DoD "system acquisition" ever? Name me one weapons system in the history of the Pentagon where the defense contractor didn't get their foot in the door by low-balling the bid, only to have cost overruns that greatly exceeded the second lowest bid by the end. (The excuse, which is *partly* valid, is the government changed its mind on the scope mid-contract, but that's also a great way to never be held accountable for running up the price either.)

Found a better version https://www.informationisbeaut...

Rightwing wingnuts are ruining lots of slashdot threads of late. I've given up on reading comments most days. Even here, scanning down-thread I'm seeing specious straw-men arguments and then claims of 'censorship' and 'though-police' for being down-voted. No, you just keep committing rhetorical fallacies and arguing in bad faith. For instance wrongfully claiming that libs were saying it would "end humanity" (false, straw man) so anything less than that shows it's just a bad cold (false dilemma fallacy).

I wonder if there is a solid business plan in making an engine designed to be easily torn-down completely back to its bare components each time. But also design so that a minimum number of those parts experience wear and tear over a single launch. Such that a vast majority of the parts are expected to pass inspection. Then reassemble them. A happy medium between MTBF of the whole assembly being > 20 launches, and rebuilding and screening each new part each time. Obviously the cost/complexity/reliability of the assembly would need to be orders of magnitude less than the complexity/cost of the reliable components--but with the safety of full screening of good parts each time.

It's not NASA's fault Congress demands that the funding be spread among as many districts as possible, and as many campaign-contributing contractors as possible to approve stuff like this. (Then don't outright "demand" it but they will be much quicker to approve such projects and the administrators get the message loud and clear.) Congress then has the gall to turn around and ask why its so inefficient. "I'm shocked, shocked I say..." type posturing in committee hearings. Look in the dang mirror (or at your predecessors for the green congrescritters). Watch how they demand the military build airplanes it doesn't want then hem and haw about the deficit.

But the solution to the tragedy of the commons is not to allocate time to everyone equally even if they have no sheep to graze and force people to stand in the field during their time period. This is the kind of overreach that gives conservatives ammunition. If the market isn't pricing some external thing in properly then you put a price on it. You don't force behavior onto people--it's hubris to think you know what's optimal for everyone. You expose them to the economic cost of their behavior and let them decide what's best given that cost.

Take this teleworking for example. What if for one company telework is a no-brainer they'd like to do anyway, and in fact could do double it. But a second company it's completely unworkable. They will be completely unproductive at home. If instead of mandating behavior you put a price on it--and let people trade it openly. If it is extremely advantageous economically for you to work in an office every day your company is free to buy credits from the company who teleworks six days and sells you three days of credits. (In the commons, you don't force a sheepless peasant to stand in the commons twiddling his thumbs, you let him sell his share of the use of the commons to someone else who can use it more.)

Of course at the meta level this is still inefficient because there's other sources of greenhouse gasses. So trying to force them by regulating just telework on its own in a vacuum is still a stupid idea. This is why general carbon credits are the way to go, because you don't have some omniscient (supposedly but not really) government bureaucracy deciding how "best" to allocate the limited emissions. The government is great at (with science's help) deciding how MUCH aggregate emissions is acceptable to society--that's the core thing the free market sucks at. But then, once external costs are internalized in the market, the credits can be freely traded and the market figures out the most efficient methods of reaching that limit. Free market is a powerful, but amoral tool. Good policy points it in the right direction rather than try to replace it.

We’re talking about the bad M Night live action AtlA, not the unrelated Cameron Dances With Blue People movie.

https://youtu.be/2r71I8lvTIA https://youtu.be/6jvpOpDraZU Bad casting, bad acting, bad dialog, tons of explaining rather than showing, bad cgi, bad fight choreography, basically muddling everything cool with the show. They made bending look lame.

Whatever you do do not watch the M Night movie afterwards. It’s like Dead Like Me with Mandy, and Dead Like Me the followup movie without him. OTOH, Dragon Price has many shared Writers/etc. and is also excellent.

Or she may be getting "I hope [your own choice to not wear a mask causes] you [to] get Covid" and she's claiming that those wishes against her wellbeing are 'threats' in bad faith. Still not the nicest thing to say to anyone, but hardly a threat. Perhaps a "curse", but telling someone you hope they some day slip on a banana peel, fall into a sewer, and die, is not a death threat.

My guess is that it's an interaction between the fixed geometry of the booster's "shell" and the changing geometry of the combustion as the fuel is consumed--as this changes various resonances and pressure changes can come and go. For instance https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.j... mentions a 15MHz oscillation between +/- 3% of thrust during parts of the burn.

Another old paper from 1967 https://www.jhuapl.edu/Content... particularly Figure 3.

Except as others have pointed out, using MAC is a great gift to databrokers looking for unique identifiers exposed all the way to the far endpoint. Users or ISPs should actively use changing, no-associated addresses to mitigate this. And by default too. None of this "if the user cared they'd go to the extra effort to do it themselves" being an IPv6 guru and caring about privacy are not equivalent.

I forgot, is it 4in6 or 6in4 that is SO hard to do correctly, so easy for network admins to get wrong, and if you do it's a gaping security hole that the official recommendation is "do not use this part of the standard at all"? Or maybe it was 6to4 or 6over4? Because those are all different things, because reasons. IPv6 was designed by committee and was trying to be everything to everybody with everyone's pet CS PhD thesis thrown in for ego reasons it seems, because you can always throw everything and the kitchen sink into a protocol to shut committee members up and get the thing done--just don't hope for the full standard to ever get 100% implemented by vendors. " 6over4 is of limited practical use, and is not supported by the most common operating systems" then why even make it part of the damn spec!?

Update: looks like it was 6to4. "Due to the high levels of misconfigured hosts and poor performance observed, an advisory about how 6to4 should be deployed was published in August 2011.[2] Due to unsolvable operational problems using the 6to4 anycast prefix, that part of the standard was deprecated in 2015.[3]" Way to go standards' authors a spec with "unsolvable problems" that was allowed to become a standard!

Yes. they give your diaphragm a paralytic and the machine does all the breathing for you. lots of care has to be taken to make sure the humidity and pressure and temperature are properly aligned: you want the relative humidity at the temperature of the gas as it reaches the deep lung to be near 100%, but that's not the same as 100% as it enters the tube towards the mask. it isn't trivial. too wet and fluid can build up but too dry and it can damage the lungs or not get ideal O2 transfer.