Re: Was the picture necessary?
Brighton has a beach, although not a sandy one
Plenty of sand at the sea line when the tide is out.
372 posts • joined 28 Sep 2011
Brighton has a beach, although not a sandy one
Plenty of sand at the sea line when the tide is out.
I'm sorry, I've been hitting the Lagavulin Brain Bleach in a probably vain attempt to dispel the mental images I conjured up.
For James I suspect "Smart TV" means wearing a nice tweed twinset with pearls.
You cannot have both Flash & good hygiene as the first hygienic act is to delete everything from Adobe.
Prosecutors always massively overestimate the haul of any crime, these poor lambs might have only have a million or 2 each when they get out in around 18 months.
"Religion is not "bunkus", it is a necessary tool in the construction of a society that is not based on you-got-what-I-want-give-it-or-I-kill-you."
Religion is bunk, but that's not to say it doesn't have a useful function in developing a society when there are many unanswered questions.
Religion is no longer necessary as we now have answers to most of the questions religion used to provide (incorrect) answers to.
That's not to say all the answers we have now are all correct but they are more correct than those supplied by religion and they allow for development while those in religion are static and dogmatic.
Make the banks financially liable for any fraudulent transactions and the loopholes and vulnerabilities in the banking system would get closed pretty much overnight. As long as the banks are earning money from this sort of fraud (transfer fees) it'll never stop.
if the human is being squashed into her seat by 3 g's of acceleration
Where do you get 3G from? 0 to 60 in 2,8 seconds gives acceleration of 0.97682986G (This is the average over the 2.8 seconds, obviously the peak will be a bit higher)
I'm reasonably certain people can sustain a force of about 1G for quite a long time.
The distance covered in the 2.8 seconds is 37.55 metres.
a = (v - u)/t
a = acceleration (ms-2)
v = final speed (m/s)
u = initial speed (m/s)
t = time taken (sec)
1G = 9.80665 ms-2
That's not quite right. The ISS is in a roughly circular orbit, but an object in a highly elliptical orbit...
Absolutely correct, however that is a remote possibility while object impacting from the front with a high closing velocity are far more likely to present a problem. Given the low orbit the ISS occupies and the location of most orbital crud (higher than the ISS) by far the safest place to put the escape capsule is at the back of the craft, having at the back also means that pushing it away from the ISS would slow it down a bit so it could make an easier return to the Earth.
Basically the ISS could be hit from any direction
Not from behind, any (unpowered) object in the same orbit will be moving at the same speed, if it's at a different speed it'll either gain or lose altitude until it's in a stable orbit, in extreme cases it'll escape or decay and burn up.
Does space have a one way system
The ISS is not stationary, any object in the same orbit going in the same direction will be going at roughly the same speed and thus presents a low risk, objects going in the opposite direction will have a colossal closing speed but will impact at the "front" of the station so the back can be protected (a bit). Objects in non-equatorial orbits may cross the ISS orbit at an angle but there are fewer of these and have a far lower probability of impact.
Is the Soyuz debris proof or just a smaller target?
Presumably the capsule is at the back of the ISS so any debris would have to pass through the entire station before impacting the Soyuz capsule.
"Interplanetary", not "interstellar".
You won't be saying that as you get dragged screaming towards CERN one day!
Not going to happen, cannot happen even if they make a hundred black holes every hour until the end of time. These microscopic black holes (should they exist) are inherently unstable and would decay almost instantly.
The real data shows, very clearly, either a zero impact or a rise in violent crime in a given area when strict gun control measures are put in place. In the UK, for instance, violent crime rose for 10 years straight before plateauing when they took your guns away.
But out of context. When do you think gun control was introduced into the UK? I suspect you are thinking of the changes enacted after the Dunblane shootings, however guns have been controlled here for a lot longer than that.
Context: The UK has a tiny number of violent crimes compared to the US (even allowing for 5x the population) a small change in a small number is not very much, any change to the quantity in the US is far more significant.
To argue that gun control has no effect of gun related crime is absurd.
The best solution in the US where guns are far too entrenched probably is to restrict access to ammunition, bullets not used in gun clubs or ranges should cost about $100 each, for personal defence $100 is a bargain but for other uses the cost is restrictive. Legitimate hunters could buy replacement ammo cheaper by turning in the empty shells. All guns should be kept in a locked gun safe, even the NRA agree with that one, or at least used to.
Until you learn a little about the issue and realize that controlling guns doesn't have much of a statistical impact on violent crimes.
I suppose this is true if you believe the magic imaginary statistics* peddled by the NRA, real evidence backed statistics suggests otherwise.
* Statistics used poorly either by accident or design can be very misleading: For example there are far more fatal car accidents involving sober drivers than drunk ones therefore statistically it is safer to drive when drunk than when sober. This is plainly nonsense as there are far more sober drivers than drunk ones but it does illustrate a problem with statistics.
For commercial users there are clear benefits to smart meters with half hourly reading but the benefits for domestic users are questionable to say the least.
New installations and end-of-life replacements should be smart meters but replacing perfectly good meters just for the sake of it is throwing money away.
Perhaps a pilot somewhere (Milton Keynes perhaps, they had it coming) followed by a 2 or 3 year assessment of any benefits to residents would make more sense than a full roll out, but it seems sense and government are mutually exclusive.
Not totally convinced that providing a handy place to grab the text
But it's not, the article has a bitmap of the text which can't be copied to unicode, to do that you'd have to know the code for each of the symbols which while not impossible is reasonably tricky, certainly harder than tracking down the offending string from another source so I'd say there's no harm done in showing the message here.
Saw it years ago at Biggin Hill Airshow, flying low with the afterburners on, warmed everybody up a treat.
Superb aircraft, shame to see it go.
I thought the definitive differentiation was enzymes, in hot blooded beasties there is just one enzyme to do any specific job but as enzymes are very temperature sensitive a cold blooded critter will be able to make multiple enzymes for any given task, each one effective for a narrow temperature band.
" Did nobody from their phone operating compay *notice* this?"
As long as they were getting paid for each call why should they care? It's hardly in their favour to stop a cash cow as they were probably profiting from this almost as much as the charming people making the calls.
The solution is clear, make the telcos financially responsible for sustained detectable abuse of their systems. They can easily detect this sort of behaviour if it's maintained for more than a few days from a single location and on detection they should either pull the plug or involve the authorities in prosecuting the people involved.
No no no.
Basic Economics part 1:
Increase the amount of advertising space available (such as putting commercial ads on the BBC) and the value of that space goes down so you need even more adverts to raise the same revenue.
The upshot of putting adverts on the BBC would be to increase the quantity of adverts everywhere and reduce their effectiveness so ultimately pushing the demand for advertising down which would mean less revenue leading to poorer quality programs (even on ITV, I know it seems hard to believe they could get even worse but it's possible, just).
What follows is purely hypothetical with no evidence to back it up whatsoever.
You Tube are making a loss - Because You Tube are paying a Caymans Islands registered company $x million to use the name "You Tube" and by a happy coincidence is just the sum needed to reduce You Tube revenues to a level where no tax is due.
Humans have been emitting radio waves for about 100 years or so.
And we are emitting less and less every year with low power radios, satellites beaming down instead of stuff broadcast everywhere and more and more of what used to be broadcast being transmitted over fibre. In 100 years I doubt we'd be detectable at all.
Another problem is that the same frequencies are used all over the planet for different purposes which is no problem here but from a long way away they will all blur together into a random like noise where any single signal would be as close to impossible to isolate as makes no difference.
The only radio signal that would be detectable over many light years would have to be one broadcast specifically for that purpose and why would anybody do that?
On the graphic there is the legend:
"32kHz Quart Oscillator"
Is this a UK Quart or a US Quart because there is a difference:
So they should be:
32kHz 1.1365225 litre Oscillator (UK) --> 0.66 Bulgarian funbag Oscillator
32kHz 0.9463529 litre Oscillator (US) --> 0.55 Bulgarian funbag Oscillator
I think we should be told - the truth is out there.
Ah, but take that thinking to the illogical conclusion and then you have "anybody using encryption has something to hide and should be investigated" which of course does not stand up to critical thinking but when has that ever worried the Tory party.
Perhaps if GCHQ & NSA had not vacuumed up every bit of data on everybody while ignoring the laws about privacy and warrants and other bothersome details, we wouldn't be in the situation we are in now where everybody needs to encrypt everything just to maintain a semblance of privacy.
This is suppression pure and simple, terrorists and the like don't use these avenues of communication; steganography, dead-drops and the such like are far more probable.
I used to be keyboard roadie to a lunatic who used a Roland System 700 (look it up) on the road, hours of "fun" setting that bugger up, along with Prophet 5, MiniMoog, various ARPs, Yamaha portable baby grand piano and a host of other crap.
He then bought the Moog from Tangerine Dream and mashed it to the 700 but by then he'd stopped touring - thankfully.
Happy days, well they might have been, can't remember a lot of it to be honest.
Probably apocryphal but everybody used to drive or ride on the left so their sword arm would be presented to anybody coming the other way. Napoleon was apparently left handed so he imposed riding on the right so his sword arm would be in the advantageous position and the rest as they say, is history.
it's OK to lampoon Christianity
Right, any religion that is so weak it cannot stand a little ridicule is probably a waste of time.
perhaps they'd consider spending more time worrying about the bugs in their software and less on the ones on the screen?
But, but, that would be hard work for Diebold rather than just asking Corning to bung a little silver or copper into the surface layer of the glass.
very similar to our own (comprising around three-fourths water and one-fourth rock
Which planet is that because it certainly is not the Earth, while the surface is quite wet and the crust too contains a fair bit of water the vast bulk of the planet is rock,
The density of the Earth is 5.513 g/cm3 if it was 3/4 water the rest would have to be about 19 g/cm3 which is roughly the density of gold. Is there something about the Earth we're not being told?
Surely this would affect all internet users in Iran so it would count as "collective punishment" which is illegal in international law so how did it even make it to court?
Where the fuck do you think your country (where ever that may be) is any better than the USA?
Sigh, I know it's a waste of time trying to reason with trolls like this one.
a: I never said where I live is better.
b. Unlike you I take no pleasure in the sorry state of other countries such as the US
c. The Republicans have opposed every action by Obama and then they say he is ineffective, can you not see the dichotomy? In a mature democracy the opposition will support good policies and not just automatically oppose.
d. Since WWII one country has spent more money supporting & promoting terrorism than the rest of the world combined, that country was the USA. (Mujahideen & Contras for example)
e. Gerrymandering isn't even denied by either the Republicans or the Democrats and has been a part of American elections since the founding of the country. And is very undemocratic.
f. I'm bored now so others can add any more examples. Incidentally swearing does not lend strength to your arguments, actually it makes you look a bit of a prat, just some friendly advise.
As Yank I want to defend my country
It's a great shame you can't, in the post war period the USA showed amazing potential but Reagan shifted the priorities and from there it got progressively worse, Thatchers' legacy over here is similar but we had some safeguards to prevent it getting as bad as in the USA such as a Boundaries Commission which reduces (but does not eliminate) the opportunities for gerrymandering and our elections have a secure paper trail instead of easily rigged machines.
I hope something can be done to bring the USA back to where it should be but I'm regrettably not hugely optimistic.Nothing is likely to happen from the top but a large number of American citizens are noticing that portions of the US police are out of control and desperately need to be brought back in line as the protests around the States testify. You might have some politicians either sensible or cynical enough to realize that doing something about the police could be a big vote winner.
nations hostile to human rights and democracy
What, like the USA?
A country where the police can execute pretty much anybody they want and hardly ever get punished?
A country where gerrymandering and rigged voting machines are used to force a certain result.
Put you own house n order before criticising others.
Only the ones that developed stereo vision and grasping "hands" would be likely to survive. The rest probably fell "out of the tree".
I'd say it's more likely that as fruits only start to ferment once they have fallen that the poor metabolisers didn't fall out of the tree but were unable to climb it in the first place and fell to predation while rolling around drunk and singing obscene songs about ocelots.
Was that you in the opening of the original Italian Job?
They are out there but they cost more than the entire turntable cost when new.
I'd also check the motor mounting as that was basically just a few rubber bands which will probably have petrified a bit by now.
I don't go for the 'oxygen free cable laid along ley lines' nonsense, because that's just a load of balls.
Quite right, as any fule kno they should be laid at right angles to the ley lines.
What is it over there, 1970? I doubt if anybody has used a mechanical timer in a bomb for at least 40 years as electronic ones are more rugged, reliable, cheaper, easier to use and I'd better stop incriminating myself now.
old pirate bar - OK I can see that, but bourbon! Pirates drink Rum, everybody knows that - Yo ho ho and a bottle of thereof and other jolly shanties.
Am I at the Register? I seem to be surrounded by cynical old bastards
Yes you are at The Register and if you are surprised by "cynical old bastards" you've plainly not been here for long.
Not only was Turing’s most famous work – breaking the German Enigma code during World War II
Er, no, that was broken by Polish codebreakers before the war had started and they passed their knowledge to British intelligence, Turing took that work and expanded on it to crack the more complex codes used by the German high command.
Well it depends upon what they were drawing outside his house.
Edit: Oops, I see from your message it was outside their house in which case your assessment is quite correct and proper, I salute you.
doesn't that just mean the mass of the propellant increases as well, so that the thrust stays constant?
Good question, I wish I knew the answer but I would have thought that no matter what the mass of fuel is the volume is constant so the chemical or nuclear energy available remains constant. However reaction mass is a different question but as it's mass has increased it'll take more energy to propel a given volume so I don't think there's any easy way out of the problem.
A constant 1g acceleration would get you to near c in 30 years
There's something wrong with your maths.
v = at + u
v = final speed
a = acceleration
t = time
u = initial velocity
a = 1G = 9.80665 m/s^2
t = 1 year = 31,557,600 seconds
therefore v = 9.80665 x 31,557,600 = 309,474,338.04
Which is a tad more than 299,792,458 so is just not going to happen.
300 days at 1G would leave you zipping along at 254,188,368 m/s (84.8% c) and you'd cover 124 light days while doing it, as a fun side effect it'd also increase your mass to 1.886 times your rest mass.
Not all wrong though, 1 day at 0.5g would get you to 423km/s is correct. (423,647.28 m/s)
It does sound too fast, 3 minutes/week is about 2.6 hours/year. Voyager does not hold much fuel, some for manoeuvring but little for propulsion and it's been over 30 years since it's last major encounter and it's met few bodies it could slingshot off so either it has accelerated somehow or it can't be going anything close to 3 minutes/week as that would put it about 60 hours out.
I was wondering about that, you get a hopeless but nebulous sounding company, stuff a truckload of cash into it and put some of your cronies, friends or relations on the board for huge salaries then do nothing for a year or two then it collapses so you can write the entire "investment" off against tax and some of your cronies, friends or relations have got rich.
For a colonisation mission an all female crew is the best bet to ensure genetic diversity.
As long as you include a freezer full of sperm and a turkey baster, that way you could have a few dozen women and genetically speaking tens if not hundreds of thousands of men which should last for several generations until the colony has a sufficiently diverse genetic base.