1143 posts • joined Tuesday 16th June 2009 16:23 GMT
BT have definitely been 'forgetting' to tell people.
I discovered quite recently that I appear to be on an ARC, and I was definitely not told when I signed up, and have never been sent a reminder letter.
In fact, according to BT's claim above, I should have received the reminder letter last week.
Guess what - I didn't.
Gravity waves are expected to make thing slightly longer and shorter as the wave travels at the speed of light.
To see this, take two rulers and place them at 90 degrees to each other.
If a gravity wave comes along that is parallel to Ruler A, it will make A get shorter then longer while Ruler B will get longer then shorter.
So you should be able to see a gravity wave by continuously comparing the lengths of these two rulers.
Unfortunately these changes in length are predicted to be very, very small, so you need really, really long rulers to make the total length difference be a detectable fraction of the wavelength of light.
(This is a lies-to-children explanation. Everything I just said is more or less wrong, however it's sort of close.)
GEO600 is using rulers 600m long, and LIGO in the USA has rulers 4000m long.
In professional audio we call those 'China Watts'
They are often absolute maximum instantaneous power, which is a figure that tells you almost nothing at all about the amplifier.
In this case it looks like it's probably not full china wattage, but peak power.
Amplifiers should also never draw their max. rating because that would usually be clipping, thus trashing the whole system.
I am still amused by the fact that no hifi parts uses professional connectors, and few have any balanced connections.
They'd be wonderful if they were open
My local one is 2 miles away.
It should be great, except that it opens at 9am and closes at 5:30pm weekdays, 12:30pm Saturday.
When they fail to deliver, according to the card I have to wait until after 12:30pm the next day.
So I can't go on a weekday without missing work, and if they try to deliver on a Friday I can't pick it up the next day either.
All told, pretty useless.
Thankfully my work is happy for me to get packages delivered, it only costs me a pint for the warehouse team every few months!
Strike that - it's almost everyone under the age of 40 now.
House prices and the mortages to get them have got incredibly silly.
And they wonder why nobody is buying at the moment...
The rarely-used things move, almost nothing else.
Every manual car I've ever used had the major controls in exactly the same place:
Clutch pedal on the left, the brake in the middle and the go-faster on the right.
They all had a steering wheel exactly in front of me that I turned clockwise to go right and anti-clockwise to go left.
They all had an indicator stalk next to the wheel, that I flip clockwise for a right-indicator and anti for a left.
They all had a gearstick with 1st/2nd/3rd/4th in the same places.
They all had a handbrake lever beside the seat.
If UI differences weren't such a big deal, the car manufacturers wouldn't have standardised on a single simple UI...
The things that move are the rarely-used and minor functions, and even then there's almost always only two options for where they might be and they are never actively hidden. (You don't pop open a cupboard to see the headlight controls!)
Sure, cars might turn faster, brake faster, accelerate harder - but that's no different to your new computer being faster/bigger monitor than the previous.
To use the car comparison, the Ribbon moves the pedals, steering wheel, and gearstick around and then hides everything else from you.
There are exactly ZERO applications for this.
This is a stupid, ignorant and incredibly dangerous suggestion.
If the police want to close down a site, they should get a court order. End of story.
The only possible reason for not wanting to get a court order to close down a site, is that the applicant thinks that they probably won't get it.
If they don't think they would be able to get a court order, then they shouldn't be trying to take down the site in the first place.
Court orders do not take very long to get.
If this actually does happen, then the first couple might happen quietly but pretty soon a legitimate small business or organisation will be affected and they *will* go all the way to the EU if necessary.
I'm increasingly worried by the attitude of some police organisations who behave as if the law doesn't apply to them. That's the attitude that those rioters had - how about the police try setting a good example instead of a bad one?
Good point. Tree barked at!
Oddly, the draft recommendations "51980" don't make any reference to IP infringement, while the previous executive summaries did.
If your credit card details or any other 'juicy' data was on a website long enough for the police to notice, than they've been up long enough for everyone interested to find them as well.
This is really talking about situations where the police don't want to bother getting a court order - in other words, the occasions where they don't think they can get one.
So, that's when they don't have enough (or any) evidence and when they have no intention of actually trying to catch and prosecute someone but just want to 'disrupt' their activities.
The goal of the issues group was supposedly about sites selling fakes or non-extant product, eg tickets to Glastonbury or the Olympics.
There are already ways to do that, and those ways include methods of actually catching the people responsible.
Getting the domain closed down won't help catch anybody.
"Hiding" the ribbon doesn't work either.
I currently use Office 2010, and I've tried both hiding and not hiding the ribbon.
In the Outlook 'main bit', hiding the ribbon works because I can put everything I use into the top-edge toolbar.
However, it's an abject failure everywhere else.
Why? - Once you need any command on the ribbon, it covers up a notable part of your document. Even if that top part of the document is where the caret lies.
Ergo, even when hidden, it *still* manages to annoy the user and waste space.
The fundamental problem appears to be that Microsoft think that their UI graphics are more important than the work the user is doing.
That's so stupid that I find it hard to believe, but as the alternative interpretation is that they are actually insane...
I've just tried to make my Windows 7 Explorer match that screenshot, and it won't.
On "Large", the silly icon is bigger than the one in their screenshot, and on "Medium" it's smaller.
The "Small" size is the default one.
I have 24 files visible when in the same location at the same window size using the default "Small" icon size.
If I'm in a 'normal' folder instead of a special one I can see 26-and-a-bit files.
And what's with the shitty antialiasing in the Windows 7 screenshot?
Exactly. You still struggle after 3+ years of using it almost every day?
By any stretch of the imagination, that's clearly an abject failure.
How long do *you* think it should take to learn where the features you want to use are?
Personally, the bit that drives me potty is the "Hide all the documents you're working with when you try to save one of them".
Sorry, but under what circumstances can that ever be a good idea?
@AC 13:04 - That's been pointed many, many times.
Since before the release of Office 2007. Yet Office 2010 forces the ribbon at the top.
I honestly think that the Office team simply went stark raving mad a few years ago, and it appears that unfortunately the insanity has spread. Shame, Windows 7 is actually pretty good.
More to the point, they *did* sort it out.
It's a shame it took a week, but that's not exactly unsurprising if you'd accidentally made the 'automated' methods of recovering your account unavailable.
You're responsible for keeping track of your username/password, in the same way that you're responsible for keeping track of the CD/DVD for a 'normal' game.
Steam already *is* that powerful.
The weird thing is the implication that the High Street retailers didn't see that coming.
Valve were rather large and well-known in the PC gaming sector even before they launched Steam, so it's not exactly surprising that they managed to leverage that to get so many third-party developers and publishers to jump on board.
Furthermore, while it does have DRM it's not massively in-your-face, like most of the other DRM schemes various publishers have tried. I'm not going to buy a game that treats me like a criminal in my own home.
However, I really don't like that I apparently can't gift my copy of a game to a friend once I've decided I don't want it anymore - maybe I didn't like it but a friend of mine might, or maybe I just finished the game and don't want to play it again.
That said, I'm not entirely confident that Steam will be around for longer than 10 more years or so.
However, I do think it'll probably be around for the useful life of my current PC.
@Some Beggar: No, I said I've never seen publicly published model results.
I asked if anyone can point me to something that shows the error bars/probability maps of the model predictions.
Instead, you used some rather abusive language to point me to a paper from 2000 that is some research that proves the point I made. For all you knew that could be the paper I was referring to.
Maybe I should rephrase the question:
I would like to see some *results* that have taken that and/or similar papers into account, and thus clearly show the error bars and probability map for their models' predictions.
Even after 2000, all the published works I've seen show a simple, clean 'this will happen' curve, with no indication of the likelihood of this particular curve.
The worst part is that these then get used to claim that humanity is fully responsible - despite no comparison whatsoever to a "without" or "reduced humanity" set of model results.
If you can point me towards something that does either, that would be most helpful.
Note that as a layman I don't actually have access to full academic papers as published in Nature, Tellus etc, and Google Scholar usually only finds the abstracts.
Of course, most of this is partially irrelevant due to many politicians using the AGW hypothesis to justify all kinds of crazy schemes would not actually reduce our environmental impact anyway.
@Nuke - Entirely plausible they spent the same - tariffs are not random numbers!
Almost all monthly mobile contracts are 'round numbers'*, and many operators will price-match to get your custom.
So you might switch from a £20 pcm tariff to another £20 pcm tariff - but this one includes a nicer phone/more minutes/texts/internet/understandable customer services or some other improvement.
To put it another way, you could pay the same for a better product.
However, I would have expected a decent survey to state the percentage that got a 'better deal at the same price' by switching, so still a FAIL!
*Some were round at 17.5% VAT and just increased by the difference in VAT, while others oddly did things like change £10 pcm to £12 pcm instead.
Actually, the moving system works very well.
It's just that some operators really don't want you to move so claim it's not possible until you ask for a PAC.
Under EU law, they cannot refuse a PAC request - much like your broadband provider cannot refuse a MAC request.
Thanks for that, however you might want to read some of the papers listed instead of throwing a hissy fit.
The top result is rather telling:
Sensitivity analysis of the climate of a chaotic system - DANIEL J. LEA et al. TELLUS A, Oct 2000
To put it succinctly, that paper is in fact saying that a fair bit of the climate science is bollocks, due to misunderstandings of chaotic systems.
Which is pretty much what I said above.
Love to, but the video won't play in IE6,7,8 or Firefox 5.
Rather odd that they should choose to prevent the vast majority of corporate clients from viewing the video, given that the vast majority of MSDN subscribers are corporates.
This is the most frightening part
"The potential political impact has had even the DG of CERN worried - hence his warning to the scientists to not go into the broader implications in their paper."
AGW has now become so entrenched into the current political system that even CERN are scared to publish anything that might possibly refute any part of it.
This is a very bad place for science to be, as it actively prevents any improvements in our understanding of the world.
It's rather similar to a few hundred years ago when certain people were hounded for going against the beliefs of the prevailing political system - and yet, it moves.
Re-read "g e"'s post, this time look at the full sentence.
The important bit was "who's funding & existence tends to rely on spouting it"
Aside from the poor grammar, the point is very important.
If your livelihood depends on you agreeing with a pre-determined result, then you are very likely to ignore any evidence to the contrary, or even fudge the data and/or methodology to give the pre-determined answer.
Such fudging could be deliberate or a subconscious bias, but that doesn't really matter - the result is the same.
To give a trivial example:
The ASA requires that all adverts have 'evidence' to back up the claims made in the advert.
If a cosmetics company asked you to test a new cosmetic face cream for them, are you more likely to get paid and/or re-hired later for saying "This face cream is great" or "This face cream is the same as all the other face creams"?
So, unsurprisingly all these face cream tests done to support the advertising campaigns always deliberately fudge the methodology to make an "It's great" result more likely - eg no comparisons to other products, vague and leading survey questions (Is your skin softer now?) etc.
- If you've ever taken part in a street survey of a product you'll easily spot the way the questions are phrased to give the answer they want.
Back to the original context:
The majority of research into Climate Change is being done by groups who are being paid by organisations with a clear vested interest in one particular result. (This bias does swing both ways)
I don't think anybody seriously thinks that the climate isn't changing - the historical record is very clear on that - the bit that is contentious is the idea that humanity is a significant factor in causing it.
Personally, I'm very much in the "Not Proven" camp for the hypothesis that human-action is significant.
None of the published model results are believable (for or against), if only for the simple fact that none of them have error bars.
The world climate is known to be a chaotic system - therefore, to make a useful prediction you need to vary all the starting conditions in both directions and re-run the model for the full range of likely starting conditions, and the same again for any inputs that might change during the run (human CO2 output for example).
(Measuring chaotic systems is more complicated than that, but you get the general idea)
If you don't do that, you'll get one *possible* outcome, but have no idea of how probable that outcome actually is.
Nobody seems to be doing that - or at least, nobody seems to be publishing results showing the range and probability map of predictions their models make.
If you know where one of those is, I'd be really interested to see it.
Trust me, you don't want a Windows Mobile device.
All the one I've ever seen hang at random intervals, have extreme lag when trying simple functions and actually properly *crash* often enough to be very annoying.
For example, my previous WM6.2 phone would take until the 4th or 5th ring before the phone actually started trying to indicate that a call was incoming. I missed a lot of calls due to that.
My current WM6.5 one is usually making a sound on the second ring, but often fails to accept an 'answer the call' action until another two rings after hitting the 'real' button, and rarely shows the touchscreen 'answer' button until the 3rd ring, sometimes even the fifth or sixth.
Both of these were vanilla manufacturer ROMs, with no downloaded apps, latest firmware.
They suffer variable large lag of 0.5 to 2sec for simple things like 'open onscreen keyboard'.
Why do you think Microsoft are so keen to try to rebrand their mobile OS? It's because all their previous attempts at a mobile phone OS have been almost unusable.
I've never seen any of those issues with the various Android devices that most of my colleagues now use as their primary phones.
As I mentioned earlier, a WM user is effectively in the position of only knowing Windows 2.0, and seeing Ubuntu and Mac OSX working great for their friends, with Microsoft trying to suggest that maybe this 'Windows 7' thing is good.
Have you used WP7?
I only know two people who have tried WP7, both of them hated it and thought that the Android of the time was orders of magnitude better.
However I don't know which version of Android they were comparing to.
Personally, I've only used WM6.2 and 6.5.
However, both of these are so hideously, despicably awful that I would need some quite extraordinary evidence to believe that Microsoft can even come close to a workable mobile phone OS.
- An equivalent would be "Pretend I've only seen Windows 2.0, now convince me to buy Windows 7"
@CatFunt on CFLs
CFLs are noticeably dimmer well before the 8,000 hour life because that lifetime is quoted for "reduced to 50% output". (That also represents a massive drop in efficacy*)
They fail before that because the control gear in 99% of them is shit. I've never seen a dead CFL that failed due to the tube.
CFLs are a dead technology, currently held up by the poor understanding of politicians - it was only last year that the EU finally decided to base the rules on luminous efficacy instead of specific technologies. This suddenly made tungsten halogen popular.
So actually, tungsten is on the way back in! Most of my house is lit by tungsten halogen.
- Incidentally, good LED is available now, it's just far too expensive for domestic use. If you've got £500 to £1000 then you can get some really great fittings rated at ~70,000 hours to 70% output.
Of course, domestic consumers simply aren't going to pay that!
*This is not a typo.
SR-71 was going slightly faster
Vulture 2 will be starting from almost stationary relative to atmosphere in around 1% atmospheric pressure.
I rather doubt it'll hit Mach 3 - and even if it does, it will definitely not get anywhere near there before clearing the launch rail!
"Professional" only means you're getting paid to do it.
Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean you're any good at it - just that you were at least convincing enough at interview to get hired, and aren't bad enough to get fired.
The French must be OK at it, as 75% of their generation is nuclear.
I find it hard to believe that they have demand fluctuations tiny enough for 75% to be running at constant output, even allowing for their relatively large export market. That said, the remainder is mostly hydro which is extremely good at load-following.
On the 'no-subsidy' front - the people who want to build the new UK nukes don't think they need a subsidy to do so, and clearly believe that they'll make a useful profit from doing so. Otherwise, they wouldn't have bid for the contracts.
EDF have rather a lot of experience of building and running nuclear plants - they've built and run more than the UK ever has, so I would tend to trust their cost estimates. (Sure, in France they're subsidised, but they'll at least know what the totals were.)
So do EDF need their reality detectors adjusting? I'm just going by what they have signed up to do in the UK - zero subsidy to build four EPR reactors. However, I gather that the intended turn-on date of 2017 is still 'dependant on financing', which does not sound good right now.
That said, totally agree with you on the energy-security front. It's not in the generation companies interest to build much 'spare' capacity, they make more money if energy is scarce than if it is plentiful. Regulation of that market has been rather poor so far.
Finally - something most of the pro-Wind Greens don't appear to understand is that large-penetration of Wind is going to waste one heck of a lot of that irreplaceable gas, simply to avoid a black start situation, let alone rolling blackouts. We should also be expecting noticeable demand-management as well - more commonly known as rolling blackouts.
Add increased electric transport penetration (like we're supposed to be trying for), and our future energy security looks even bleaker.
So the thing is, if you're right then we are utterly screwed, so I'm really hoping that you're at least partially wrong and that nuclear power generation does play a big role in the near future.
For fun or profit is a significant difference
Doing stuff for fun is and should be much less regulated than doing stuff 'for hire or reward'.
Just like I can drive a mate to a party if I like, but I can't ask him to pay me to do it unless I get a taxi licence.
- In the case of model aircraft, there's an argument along the lines of "If the weather is a bit dodgy and you're doing it for fun, you'll probably wait for a nicer day. If you're being paid to do it, you're more likely to go ahead anyway."
Fortunately it's impossible to know whether anybody copied the contents*
Thus it becomes clear - if an eeevil person ever finds data that they want to steal, they should simply copy it and then hand it in to the police.
The ICO, the data holder and everyone else will then believe that no data was stolen at all and they can go ahead with their evil plans with no risk of discovery.
Because data can't be copied, right? Copying 26,000 electronic records from a USB stick would take several days to copy, like photocopying 26,000 paper records.
And again - who is the contractor? Why is the directly responsible company allowed secrecy, while the merely indirectly responsible organisations are not?
*There's an 'un' missing somewhere. Ten points to whoever spots it.
There haven't been any unplanned long nuke shutdowns in the UK
There have been several *planned* shutdowns of that length - year or so notice.
Some of those did last longer than originally planned - however, that's still a *planned* shutdown, just with a couple of week's notice instead of a year or so.
So, we swap a few weeks notice for a couple of hours? Good plan.
The French have some pretty good load-following designs. Nowhere near as great as gas, to be fair, but similar to coal.
My main bugbear is that we're rushing towards disaster, supposedly on a Green agenda - and the disaster isn't even Green anyway!
Nah, that would require too much intelligence.
More seriously, the text of many 'duplicates' will be different - it's not like bug reports where the all the various ways of phrasing an issue will refer to the same fault.
Someone might be 'for' one wording, but not agree with a slightly different wording - so anyone who had signed the 'rejected' duplicate should be told which one was retained and asked if they would like to sign that instead.
Precision should be extremely important in lawmaking, it's a great shame the last lot preferred to write vague and all-encompassing laws.
(On the downside, it does give them a very sneaky way to effectively delete anything they don't like - have a patsy make a load of duplicates, then remove all the ones with lots of signatures and leave an 'empty' one.)
- There's an idea. How about using Mantis or Bugzilla for Government?
"Bug report: Professional politicians are dangerous to life, liberty and the economy, suggest hanging them all" "Rejected: Berne Convention"
Scale, my dear boy, scale
We are not talking about 'a few' GW here - we're talking about a regular, unplanned loss greater than *any loss that has ever happened*.
With the predicted wind penetration by 2020, we should *expect* to lose 15GW several times a year.
When Sizewell B and Longannet 1 (coal) shut down, we lost ~1.5GW - a tenth of what we *will* lose regularly with the huge wind penetration.
National Grid did indeed screw it up - and yet you trust them to handle ten times the loss regularly?
Incidentally, Sizewell B was back up the next day - it failed ~11:30 27th May 2008, back up 28th May. Try getting some information before making foolish kneejerk statements.
You know what's even more funny?
The same corporations who are building the wind farms are the ones who are building and running the gas plants that take up the slack when we have the wrong kind of wind.
They get to take us for a ride in every direction - huge subsidies for wind electricity, payments for *not* running their wind, increased prices for their gas, and payments to keep their gas warm and ready to sync.
What fun, eh?
Unlike you, I actually read the National Grid's report.
"Operating the Electricity Transmission Networks in 2020 - Update June 2011"
I suggest you read it. It is most enlightening (pun intended)
I would say that it's quite likely that they know far more about generation and how the Grid works than you do.
They think that having the 2020 target of 30GW of installed capacity of wind will result in several events each year where 15GW is lost in two hours. When that happens, if we don't have the warm spares, then we get a very large blackout.
15GW is a hell of a lot of power to lose in two hours. That's half our current coal plants, or all our current nukes and wind dying simultaneously.
They also think that they'll have to pay the wind plants to stay off a lot of the time - they are actually already doing this to avoid breaking the distribution.
Now, in their estimation, they reckon it'll cost around £286 million just to manage wind variability, and somewhere between £565 and 945 million for the operating reserve requirement.
That's on top of the cost of the wind plants themselves.
Finally, they know that this will require "demand management", using smart meters and other similar devices.
Translated into English, that means they are already planning on rolling blackouts. "Gone Green" appears to mean "Sometimes, Gone Dark"
As to your anti-nuke stance - hate to tell you this, but since the dawn of civilian nuclear power there have been exactly four nasty accidents in the world, only one of which actually killed anybody *at all*.
Physics fail there
Gravity alone cannot cause objects to rotate*, because it acts on the centre of gravity - thus there is no moment.
From the point of view of the accelerometer, it will see the rocket thrust, then zero once that burns out.
It'll stay at zero until atmospheric resistance starts to become noticeable (going fast enough in dense enough air), at which point it'll read the atmospheric drag acceleration only. That's not necessarily in the direction of 'up/down' though!
Gyros are the only way to get an orientation.
*I'm excluding very high spacial curvature here, we're not near an object that massive!
Thrust bearings aren't that good.
So it'll end up spinning the whole craft pretty quickly, unless the 'gyro' stabilisation component is mechanically driven by the craft. Built-in reaction wheels might be a better bet.
Building the craft really strong isn't hard - carbon fibre monocoque is easy to crazily overbuild. The 150g class ROV combat vehicle that I built with carbon fibre has been thrown across the room several times during 'battles' and it was completely unharmed.
Better to build it in one or two pieces though, rather than trying to join lots of parts later - the joints are usually much weaker.
At the kind of launch height and speed we're talking about, control surfaces do little
It's going to be horizontally stationary relative to the air, and moving relatively slowly vertically.
So pretty much all control at launch will need be done by thrust vectoring.
I doubt you can even expect aerodynamic drag to be able to stabilise the craft. That said, the platform looked pretty stable at drop last time so a launch rail might actually be worthwhile.
Either way, multi-stage means you'll need the ability to direct the burn. Two axis servo control is simple and easy, and high-torque servos are pretty cheap. Maybe wiggle 'em around on the way up to ensure they don't freeze up.
To control it, you're going to need some solid-state gyros. Accelerometers are only really going to be able to give you the burn acceleration, which is less useful - though interesting, and will help to know whether it's worth trying to correct a poor orientation.
- Once the engines burn out, there's no point in trying to correct a tumble with them - keep the battery power for the elevons later. The accelerometer would also tell the craft when it's experiencing enough aerodynamic drag to try the elevons.
You can get a triaxial gyro and accelerometer in the same SMT package these days, an "Inertial Measurement Unit". They weigh 5g or so!
!? El REg is paid for by advertisers.
They're not public service, they are under no obligation to give any kind of balanced view.
That said, this research is probably bogus for the same reason the EMF research reported today is bogus.
However, anti-addick, you are either an idiot or genuinely want to wear a hair shirt.
Wind farms simply *cannot* provide enough reliable electricity for you to continue living your lifestyle. Source: National Grid study of wind farm penetration.
Do you accept that you can't have the heating, lighting, ventilation, computing, transport and food that you currently enjoy on demand because of the rolling blackouts that will become both *necessary* and *commonplace* if wind really does reach the current target penetration?
I don't. I do not want to be spending such ridiculous amounts of my tax money supporting something that can only cause me pain - both financial due to the extremely high cost and personal due to the blackouts. (Note that blackouts can and do kill people.)
Wind farms are simply not fit for being used as a significant generating source, and it doesn't matter how good we get at making them, they still won't be. To avoid rolling blackouts, we have to have at least 5 days of backup power available because the entire country and all our neighbours can be in the doldrums for that long.
National Grid say that the target wind penetration can lose 15GW of generation in a couple of hours. At the moment such a loss is *impossible* - even disconnecting Drax (4GW) wouldn't do that!
They also think that the only way to maintain current service levels with such a lot of wind is to have gas plants running 'hot' 24 hours a day, ready to sync at a few minutes notice.
That's a lot of wasted CO2 - burning loads of hydrocarbon to keep the backup plants hot, just to cover for when the wind gets too strong or too weak.
If you genuinely want to be Green, then you should be *against* wind.
It can't provide our current demand without burning *more* hydrocarbon than at present.
Now, if we want to move to electric vehicles (any kind) instead of burning hydrocarbons in our cars, trains, buses, lorries etc , we're going to need *more* electricity than we currently have.
So, how do you plan on doing that?
Nuclear power is the only currently feasible way of generating enough sustainable low-to-zero carbon power. The French know this, and we actually buy a lot from them.
Sure, in the future we might find more compact and efficient ways to store large amounts of electricity, and other ways to generate large amounts of environmentally-friendly electricity predictably and on demand.
I still think the thrust vectors from all engines should be parallel and close together
With the thrust vectors as drawn, it'll be impossible to recover from an engine failure - you'd have to aim the remaining engines through the craft to get back to straight, and that is probably not good.
Having the engines parallel and very close to each other means that engine failure or imbalance won't have a such huge effect as the vector sum would still very similar to the design angle.
Helium is dead easy to buy and transport.
Hydrogen less so - if nothing else, the insurance people don't appear to like it when you carry significant quantities of compressed flammable gases around.
It's generally considered a bad thing if your hire car catches fire or explodes.
I didn't do enough research - too used to big installs.
Yes, you are right. There are indeed many places with the substation mounted on the transmission pole. However, you should note that the 230VAC lines to the premises are underground in almost all cases - thus any lightning strike to them will safely dissipate in the mass of Earth.
In the US, the pole-mounted transformers are per-building and often have 'in the air' low-voltage lines to the house - thus a strike goes straight into the building.
Wrong. Read the judgement - Try Page 8.
"On the merits, we reverse the district court’s decision that Myriad’s composition claims to “isolated” DNA molecules cover patent-ineligible products of nature under § 101 since the molecules as claimed do not exist in nature."
How clear would you like?
That is a direct and clear judgement that the DNA fragment ITSELF may be patented, supposedly because the specific fragment isn't completely isolated in a living animal.
And that is the most heinously stupid judgement possible - it is exactly equivalent to saying that one can patent a piece of seal fur that doesn't include the flippers is patentable because all living seals have flippers.
Nobody is objecting to the idea of being able to patent a specific process whereby such a DNA fragment may be isolated.
@Symon - You're American, right?
Pole-mounted transformers are an almost exclusively North American concept, and have a lot of downsides - such as the one you mentioned.
(US electrics are weird as hell, BTW - all kinds of really crazy ideas. I can't quite decide whether it's "Wild Leg" or wirenuts that takes the biscuit though!)
In the UK, we have substations at ground level and the final 230VAC low voltage is buried underground for almost every installation.
In the case of telephony, one of the functions of the Master Socket is to eat unexpected high voltage transients, such as lightning strikes. You're unlikely to have the phone explode, though the master socket might rupture.
Aside from that, lightning is actually pretty rare in the UK, so protection that's worthwhile in an area where thunderstorms are common probably isn't worth bothering with in most of the UK.
Back to the original point:
Ethernet is electrically isolated (except for PoE). So unless your line to the antenna is PoE, you're going to be fine. A lightning strike would destroy the switch port, and possibly the whole switch, but other than that you'll be fine.
Not to mention that in the UK, Protective Earth (PE, Ground) connections are really rather good. Domestic electrical installations really do have several earth spikes *as standard*, and the PE from a standard BS1363 socket back to spikes *as installed* really can sink well over 6kA for a short time - often as high as 10 or 20kA.
Single-engined tractor config would be more reliable.
Trying to ignite two or more engines simultaneously is asking for trouble - if one engine fails to ignite, ignites later or burns out earlier than the other then the craft is forced into a pretty disastrous spin.
A single-engined tractor means that the craft needs to be a slightly odd shape, however that didn't trouble the X-Prize winners.
Aside from that, two 'cockpits' looks pretty cool - one for the Playmonaut and batteries (ballast), the other for the camera and electronics.
Incidentally, don't go with SLS nylon. It's really quite heavy and fragile compared to carbon fibre matting.
You work with carbon fibre matting much the same way as fibreglass, it's really easy to form and extremely strong. Obviously you need to use the right resin, but that's a simple detail.
More like cellulose directly into diesel
It's already been done, they were supposed to be starting industrial trials last year IIRC.
I haven't heard much since though, which either means it's quietly ramping up for a big release soon-ish, or it's currently stalled due to unexpected problems in scaling the system up to industrial quantities.
Erm, Steam, iPlayer, ITV Player, 4OD et al?
It doesn't take any questionable content for you to wind up downloading 500GB in a month.
I already stream iPlayer on my TV set-top box as well as my computers, and I expect I'll soon be doing the same with ITV Player, 4OD and other catch-up services. as they roll out.
A lot of new TVs have some/all of these services built-in already - how many TVs in the average home?
It's worse than that - the car does know the date.
The car actually knows the same amount of information that the mobile phone does, because in this situation the car *is* a mobile phone.
So it knows the exact date and time and its approximate location from the local cell. It probably knows quite a bit more than that as well - I don't know exactly what's in the cellular network handshake.
Real-time clocks are also dirt cheap, and GPS receivers are very cheap as well - you only need one satellite to know the time within a couple of seconds, get a position fix and you know the time with the accuracy of a pretty good atomic clock.
Aside from all that, it could simply be done the same way the remote key fobs work with the auto-resynced pseudorandom number generators.
I'm actually rather shocked that it doesn't appear to be.
Absolutely correct decision from the ICO
It's got nothing to do with them.
The only people who could have an interest in this are:
- The Police if illegal methods are suspected as being used, which appears not to be the case.
- The Conservative Party as he may be risking losing a Conservative seat by being an idiot.
- The Labour Party as John Mann MP is also risking losing a Labour seat by being an idiot.