Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.os.linux > #38879 > unrolled thread
| Started by | tmelmosfire@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-09-16 17:09 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-09-24 19:22 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 68 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.os.linux
When will Linux finally support double clicking? tmelmosfire@gmail.com - 2016-09-16 17:09 -0700
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-16 19:36 -0500
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? tmelmosfire@gmail.com - 2016-09-16 18:50 -0700
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? /less <roam@noabode.nil> - 2016-09-17 01:07 +0700
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? tmelmosfire@gmail.com - 2016-09-16 18:51 -0700
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-09-17 01:12 +0000
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? tmelmosfire@gmail.com - 2016-09-16 18:54 -0700
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2016-09-17 05:39 +0200
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? tmelmosfire@gmail.com - 2016-09-16 21:49 -0700
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-09-17 13:46 +0100
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-09-17 14:01 +0000
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2016-09-17 18:44 +0200
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-09-17 10:14 -0700
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2016-09-17 20:07 +0000
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? jrg <connyank@cox.net> - 2016-09-17 14:18 -0700
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2016-09-17 20:06 +0000
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-09-17 13:37 -0700
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? Dan C <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> - 2016-09-17 01:49 +0000
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? tmelmosfire@gmail.com - 2016-09-16 18:55 -0700
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? tmelmosfire@gmail.com - 2016-09-16 18:55 -0700
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-09-17 07:09 -0400
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? Yrrah <Yrrah-aol@aol.invalid> - 2016-09-17 14:16 +0200
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2016-09-17 18:48 +0200
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2016-09-17 22:11 +0200
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-09-17 22:19 +0200
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2016-09-18 01:03 +0200
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-09-17 23:30 +0000
Changing topics .... (was:- Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking?) Daniel60 <Daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2016-10-16 18:54 +1100
Re: Changing topics .... Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-10-16 10:38 +0100
Re: Changing topics .... William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2016-10-16 11:23 +0000
Re: Changing topics .... "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-10-16 13:46 +0200
Re: Changing topics .... William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2016-10-16 11:59 +0000
Re: Changing topics .... "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-10-16 14:25 +0200
Re: Changing topics .... Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2016-10-17 11:35 +0000
Re: Changing topics .... Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2016-10-17 22:48 +0000
Re: Changing topics .... "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-10-18 01:57 +0200
Re: Changing topics .... Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2016-10-18 04:22 +0000
Re: Changing topics .... Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-10-18 06:20 -0400
Re: Changing topics .... "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-10-18 12:30 +0200
Spoil Sports!! Re: Changing topics .... Daniel60 <Daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2016-10-16 23:32 +1100
Re: Spoil Sports!! Re: Changing topics .... Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2016-10-16 14:01 +0100
Re: Spoil Sports!! Re: Changing topics .... "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-10-16 15:46 +0200
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2016-09-17 08:04 +0200
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? tmelmosfire@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 00:23 -0700
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-09-17 15:04 +0200
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-09-17 11:20 +0200
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? Darklight <nglennglen@netscape.net> - 2016-09-17 13:00 +0100
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-09-17 10:12 -0700
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2016-09-17 23:12 +0000
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-09-17 18:12 -0700
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? Robert Newson <nothanks@bullet3.fsnet.oc.ku> - 2016-09-22 21:33 +0100
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 02:03 +0000
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-09-22 19:20 -0700
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? jrg <connyank@cox.net> - 2016-09-22 20:48 -0700
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-09-22 21:25 -0700
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? Robert Newson <nothanks@bullet3.fsnet.oc.ku> - 2016-09-23 19:31 +0100
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-09-23 13:56 -0700
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? jrg <connyank@cox.net> - 2016-09-23 14:51 -0700
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? tmelmosfire@gmail.com - 2016-09-23 21:05 -0700
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-09-24 04:15 +0000
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? tmelmosfire@gmail.com - 2016-09-24 00:58 -0700
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 20:34 +0000
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? Marek Novotny <mareknovotry@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 17:20 -0700
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 18:07 -0700
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? Marek Novotny <mareknovotry@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 18:20 -0700
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 02:16 +0000
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 19:19 -0700
Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking? Marek Novotny <mareknovotry@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 19:22 -0700
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-17 07:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nrj8nb$k3o$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #38883 |
Dan C wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 17:09:11 -0700, tmelmosfire wrote: > >> <jesus> > > Fuck off and die, troll. +1 -- Q: What do they call the alphabet in Arkansas? A: The impossible dream.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Yrrah <Yrrah-aol@aol.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-17 14:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <n0dqtbp4tnllj6mlqgcbt2nln7lben9viu@net.com> |
| In reply to | #38883 |
Dan C <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid>: > Fuck off and die, troll. F*ck off is enough. Yrrah
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-17 18:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nrjs5f$npu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #38904 |
On Saturday 17 Sep 2016 14:16, Yrrah conveyed the following to alt.os.linux... > Dan C <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid>: > >> Fuck off and die, troll. > > F*ck off is enough. I agree. If he dies, then we have to dispose of his body, which means more contamination of the soil with very hazardous materials. We have to think of the wellbeing of our planet and all that. :p Besides, you wouldn't want to eat any potatoes that had been cultivated in soil where Snit had been buried. Ewww! :p -- = Aragorn =
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-17 22:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e45mc5F3g13U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #38912 |
On 09/17/2016 06:48 PM, Aragorn wrote: > On Saturday 17 Sep 2016 14:16, Yrrah conveyed the following to > alt.os.linux... > >> Dan C <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid>: >> >>> Fuck off and die, troll. >> >> F*ck off is enough. > > I agree. If he dies, then we have to dispose of his body, which means > more contamination of the soil with very hazardous materials. We have > to think of the wellbeing of our planet and all that. :p Space rocket straight into the sun...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-17 22:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nrk8gq$2i4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #38915 |
J.O. Aho wrote: > On 09/17/2016 06:48 PM, Aragorn wrote: >> On Saturday 17 Sep 2016 14:16, Yrrah conveyed the following to >> alt.os.linux... >> >>> Dan C <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid>: >>> >>>> Fuck off and die, troll. >>> >>> F*ck off is enough. >> >> I agree. If he dies, then we have to dispose of his body, which means >> more contamination of the soil with very hazardous materials. We have >> to think of the wellbeing of our planet and all that. :p > > Space rocket straight into the sun... Naah. High temperature toxic waste oven will be OK. And who said that he needed to be dead before?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-18 01:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nrki34$22k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #38918 |
On Saturday 17 Sep 2016 22:19, Peter Köhlmann conveyed the following to alt.os.linux... > J.O. Aho wrote: > >> On 09/17/2016 06:48 PM, Aragorn wrote: >>> On Saturday 17 Sep 2016 14:16, Yrrah conveyed the following to >>> alt.os.linux... >>> >>>> Dan C <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid>: >>>> >>>>> Fuck off and die, troll. >>>> >>>> F*ck off is enough. >>> >>> I agree. If he dies, then we have to dispose of his body, which >>> means >>> more contamination of the soil with very hazardous materials. We >>> have to think of the wellbeing of our planet and all that. :p >> >> Space rocket straight into the sun... > > Naah. > > High temperature toxic waste oven will be OK. > And who said that he needed to be dead before? I say we take off into orbit and push him out of the airlock. If he falls back to Earth, he'll burn up in the atmosphere. No pollution, and you won't have to heat up the oven first, while the effect is the same. With the price of gas and electricity being what they are today, that's a bonus. :p -- = Aragorn =
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-17 23:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <e461vpF5s8gU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #38930 |
On 2016-09-17, Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote: > On Saturday 17 Sep 2016 22:19, Peter Köhlmann conveyed the following to > alt.os.linux... > >> J.O. Aho wrote: >> >>> On 09/17/2016 06:48 PM, Aragorn wrote: >>>> On Saturday 17 Sep 2016 14:16, Yrrah conveyed the following to >>>> alt.os.linux... >>>> >>>>> Dan C <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid>: >>>>> >>>>>> Fuck off and die, troll. >>>>> >>>>> F*ck off is enough. >>>> >>>> I agree. If he dies, then we have to dispose of his body, which >>>> means >>>> more contamination of the soil with very hazardous materials. We >>>> have to think of the wellbeing of our planet and all that. :p >>> >>> Space rocket straight into the sun... >> >> Naah. >> >> High temperature toxic waste oven will be OK. >> And who said that he needed to be dead before? > > I say we take off into orbit and push him out of the airlock. If he > falls back to Earth, he'll burn up in the atmosphere. > > No pollution, and you won't have to heat up the oven first, while the > effect is the same. With the price of gas and electricity being what > they are today, that's a bonus. :p > I say we give him a book of matches, tell him he is going to make history as he will be lighting the rocket boosters, position him under the rocket and then turn on the engines. There won't be enough left to fill the ashtray in a Prius.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel60 <Daniel47@eternal-september.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 18:54 +1100 |
| Subject | Changing topics .... (was:- Re: When will Linux finally support double clicking?) |
| Message-ID | <ntvbkq$fn1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #38915 |
On 18/09/2016 6:11 AM, J.O. Aho wrote: <Snip> > Space rocket straight into the sun... I've often wondered why this is not the process used to dispose of spent Nuclear rods from reactors!! After all, the Sun *is* just one big Nuclear Reactor!! (O.K. Fusion v Fission, but .... !) Sure, great care would have to be taken getting the spent rods to rocket launch sites and then ensure that the rockets make it into space and then on, on into the Sun. And the process would cost a mint, but .............! Daniel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 10:38 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Changing topics .... |
| Message-ID | <87a8e4zl9u.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #39489 |
Daniel60 <Daniel47@eternal-september.org> writes: > On 18/09/2016 6:11 AM, J.O. Aho wrote: > <Snip> >> Space rocket straight into the sun... > > I've often wondered why this is not the process used to dispose of > spent Nuclear rods from reactors!! After all, the Sun *is* just one > big Nuclear Reactor!! (O.K. Fusion v Fission, but .... !) > > Sure, great care would have to be taken getting the spent rods to > rocket launch sites and then ensure that the rockets make it into > space and then on, on into the Sun. > > And the process would cost a mint, but .............! The earth is moving *fast*; to go ‘straight into the sun’ you need to dump all that speed. Fantastically expensive compared to a broad range of other astronomical destinations. -- http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 11:23 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Changing topics .... |
| Message-ID | <ntvnv4$kmb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #39490 |
On 2016-10-16, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: > Daniel60 <Daniel47@eternal-september.org> writes: >> On 18/09/2016 6:11 AM, J.O. Aho wrote: >> <Snip> >>> Space rocket straight into the sun... >> >> I've often wondered why this is not the process used to dispose of >> spent Nuclear rods from reactors!! After all, the Sun *is* just one >> big Nuclear Reactor!! (O.K. Fusion v Fission, but .... !) >> >> Sure, great care would have to be taken getting the spent rods to >> rocket launch sites and then ensure that the rockets make it into >> space and then on, on into the Sun. >> >> And the process would cost a mint, but .............! > > The earth is moving *fast*; to go ???straight into the sun??? you need to > dump all that speed. Fantastically expensive compared to a broad range > of other astronomical destinations. The bigger problem is "Sure, great care would have to be taken..." Space launch is tricky and dangerous, and even one rocket crash would be a huge disaster. Make Chernobile look like a sunday school picnic. There is no fallback. Burying it is far far safer. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 13:46 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Changing topics .... |
| Message-ID | <ft5cdd-fj9.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #39491 |
On 2016-10-16 13:23, William Unruh wrote: > On 2016-10-16, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> Daniel60 <Daniel47@eternal-september.org> writes: >>> On 18/09/2016 6:11 AM, J.O. Aho wrote: >>> <Snip> >>>> Space rocket straight into the sun... >>> >>> I've often wondered why this is not the process used to dispose of >>> spent Nuclear rods from reactors!! After all, the Sun *is* just one >>> big Nuclear Reactor!! (O.K. Fusion v Fission, but .... !) >>> >>> Sure, great care would have to be taken getting the spent rods to >>> rocket launch sites and then ensure that the rockets make it into >>> space and then on, on into the Sun. >>> >>> And the process would cost a mint, but .............! >> >> The earth is moving *fast*; to go ???straight into the sun??? you need to >> dump all that speed. Fantastically expensive compared to a broad range >> of other astronomical destinations. It would be "spiralling down into"... > The bigger problem is "Sure, great care would have to be taken..." Space > launch is tricky and dangerous, and even one rocket crash would be a > huge disaster. Make Chernobile look like a sunday school picnic. There > is no fallback. Burying it is far far safer. Even launching a exploring mission with a nuclear battery rises a lot of concerns and protests. And it is what is needed to go into the far solar planets. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 11:59 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Changing topics .... |
| Message-ID | <ntvq24$rem$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #39493 |
On 2016-10-16, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote: > On 2016-10-16 13:23, William Unruh wrote: >> On 2016-10-16, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> Daniel60 <Daniel47@eternal-september.org> writes: >>>> On 18/09/2016 6:11 AM, J.O. Aho wrote: >>>> <Snip> >>>>> Space rocket straight into the sun... >>>> >>>> I've often wondered why this is not the process used to dispose of >>>> spent Nuclear rods from reactors!! After all, the Sun *is* just one >>>> big Nuclear Reactor!! (O.K. Fusion v Fission, but .... !) >>>> >>>> Sure, great care would have to be taken getting the spent rods to >>>> rocket launch sites and then ensure that the rockets make it into >>>> space and then on, on into the Sun. >>>> >>>> And the process would cost a mint, but .............! >>> >>> The earth is moving *fast*; to go ???straight into the sun??? you need to >>> dump all that speed. Fantastically expensive compared to a broad range >>> of other astronomical destinations. > > It would be "spiralling down into"... Depends on how rapidly you "dump all that speed". Certainly the most efficient way is to "spiral down" or use the other planets (Venus, mercury) to assist. But that has the danger of crashing the rocket into those planets-- cosmic pollution. > >> The bigger problem is "Sure, great care would have to be taken..." Space >> launch is tricky and dangerous, and even one rocket crash would be a >> huge disaster. Make Chernobile look like a sunday school picnic. There >> is no fallback. Burying it is far far safer. > > Even launching a exploring mission with a nuclear battery rises a lot of > concerns and protests. And it is what is needed to go into the far solar > planets. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 14:25 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Changing topics .... |
| Message-ID | <t68cdd-rhb.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #39494 |
On 2016-10-16 13:59, William Unruh wrote: > On 2016-10-16, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote: >> On 2016-10-16 13:23, William Unruh wrote: >>>> The earth is moving *fast*; to go ???straight into the sun??? you need to >>>> dump all that speed. Fantastically expensive compared to a broad range >>>> of other astronomical destinations. >> >> It would be "spiralling down into"... > > Depends on how rapidly you "dump all that speed". Certainly the most > efficient way is to "spiral down" or use the other planets (Venus, > mercury) to assist. But that has the danger of crashing the rocket into > those planets-- cosmic pollution. Spiralling you don't need to dump all the speed. Just enough to not compensate the gravity pull. Compare to those coming back into the Earth. If they want to land alive and don't burn, they need to shed the speed, via friction with the atmosphere. If surviving is not a concern, then just go down full speed. As long as it is less than the orbital speed, it goes down. Hours, years... not an issue. :-) The real problem is rising all those tons to Earth orbit and more, expending fuel. Any estimate of how many tons? And then how many rockets? If it were possible, I'd land then on the Moon. Just in case we can use the waste many years into the future. But it is not possible. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 11:35 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Changing topics .... |
| Message-ID | <nu2d27$j3o$1@gonzo.alcatraz> |
| In reply to | #39495 |
On 2016-10-16, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote: > On 2016-10-16 13:59, William Unruh wrote: >> On 2016-10-16, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote: >>> On 2016-10-16 13:23, William Unruh wrote: > > >>>>> The earth is moving *fast*; to go ???straight into the sun??? you need to >>>>> dump all that speed. Fantastically expensive compared to a broad range >>>>> of other astronomical destinations. >>> >>> It would be "spiralling down into"... >> >> Depends on how rapidly you "dump all that speed". Certainly the most >> efficient way is to "spiral down" or use the other planets (Venus, >> mercury) to assist. But that has the danger of crashing the rocket into >> those planets-- cosmic pollution. > > Spiralling you don't need to dump all the speed. actually you need to dump more, because you need to reduce X and Y motion to spiral. where-as to dive straight in you only need to reduce X > Just enough to not compensate the gravity pull. Also the lower you go, the faster you move. a=Gm/R^2 > The real problem is rising all those tons to Earth orbit and more, > expending fuel. Any estimate of how many tons? And then how many rockets? That's not even half the problem. -- This email has not been checked by half-arsed antivirus software
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 22:48 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Changing topics .... |
| Message-ID | <slrno0al7p.s2i.dan@xps-linux.djph.net> |
| In reply to | #39499 |
Jasen Betts wrote: >> The real problem is rising all those tons to Earth orbit and more, >> expending fuel. Any estimate of how many tons? And then how many rockets? > > That's not even half the problem. > Good news! A lot of that stuff is *already* on top of a rocket! :) -- |_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947 |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 01:57 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Changing topics .... |
| Message-ID | <055gdd-3ur.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #39499 |
On 2016-10-17 13:35, Jasen Betts wrote: > On 2016-10-16, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote: >> Spiralling you don't need to dump all the speed. > > actually you need to dump more, because you need to reduce X and Y > motion to spiral. where-as to dive straight in you only need to > reduce X No. You simply reduce the speed, which means that the object is no longer at equilibrium at that orbit, so it starts loosing height, till a new equilibrium is found. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 04:22 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Changing topics .... |
| Message-ID | <nu482u$s7$2@gonzo.alcatraz> |
| In reply to | #39501 |
On 2016-10-17, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote: > On 2016-10-17 13:35, Jasen Betts wrote: >> On 2016-10-16, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote: > > >>> Spiralling you don't need to dump all the speed. >> >> actually you need to dump more, because you need to reduce X and Y >> motion to spiral. where-as to dive straight in you only need to >> reduce X > > No. You simply reduce the speed, which means that the object is no > longer at equilibrium at that orbit, so it starts loosing height, till a > new equilibrium is found. > yeah, (allowing for your imprecise language) that's what I said. -- This email has not been checked by half-arsed antivirus software
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 06:20 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Changing topics .... |
| Message-ID | <d5WdndvQg57GapjFnZ2dnUU78eHNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #39502 |
Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> writes: > On 2016-10-17, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote: >> On 2016-10-17 13:35, Jasen Betts wrote: >>> On 2016-10-16, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote: >> >> >>>> Spiralling you don't need to dump all the speed. >>> >>> actually you need to dump more, because you need to reduce X and Y >>> motion to spiral. where-as to dive straight in you only need to >>> reduce X >> >> No. You simply reduce the speed, which means that the object is no >> longer at equilibrium at that orbit, so it starts loosing height, till a >> new equilibrium is found. >> > > yeah, (allowing for your imprecise language) that's what I said. Based on what I see here, your language isn't that precise either. I also wonder how precise your Spanish is? :) El burro hablando de orejas. I was able to understand what both of you wrote, but this is Usenet so we have to split hairs. "Buscarle la quinta pata al gato."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 12:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Changing topics .... |
| Message-ID | <b7ahdd-6ga.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #39503 |
On 2016-10-18 12:20, Bud Frede wrote: > Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> writes: > >> On 2016-10-17, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote: >>> On 2016-10-17 13:35, Jasen Betts wrote: >>>> On 2016-10-16, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> Spiralling you don't need to dump all the speed. >>>> >>>> actually you need to dump more, because you need to reduce X and Y >>>> motion to spiral. where-as to dive straight in you only need to >>>> reduce X >>> >>> No. You simply reduce the speed, which means that the object is no >>> longer at equilibrium at that orbit, so it starts loosing height, till a >>> new equilibrium is found. >>> >> >> yeah, (allowing for your imprecise language) that's what I said. > > Based on what I see here, your language isn't that precise either. I > also wonder how precise your Spanish is? :) El burro hablando de orejas. > > I was able to understand what both of you wrote, but this is Usenet so > we have to split hairs. "Buscarle la quinta pata al gato." Juás :-) LOL :-) -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel60 <Daniel47@eternal-september.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 23:32 +1100 |
| Subject | Spoil Sports!! Re: Changing topics .... |
| Message-ID | <ntvrug$2ia$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #39494 |
On 16/10/2016 10:59 PM, William Unruh wrote: > On 2016-10-16, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote: >> On 2016-10-16 13:23, William Unruh wrote: >>> On 2016-10-16, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>> Daniel60 <Daniel47@eternal-september.org> writes: >>>>> On 18/09/2016 6:11 AM, J.O. Aho wrote: >>>>> <Snip> >>>>>> Space rocket straight into the sun... >>>>> >>>>> I've often wondered why this is not the process used to dispose of >>>>> spent Nuclear rods from reactors!! After all, the Sun *is* just one >>>>> big Nuclear Reactor!! (O.K. Fusion v Fission, but .... !) >>>>> >>>>> Sure, great care would have to be taken getting the spent rods to >>>>> rocket launch sites and then ensure that the rockets make it into >>>>> space and then on, on into the Sun. >>>>> >>>>> And the process would cost a mint, but .............! >>>> >>>> The earth is moving *fast*; to go ???straight into the sun??? you need to >>>> dump all that speed. Fantastically expensive compared to a broad range >>>> of other astronomical destinations. >> >> It would be "spiralling down into"... > > Depends on how rapidly you "dump all that speed". Certainly the most > efficient way is to "spiral down" or use the other planets (Venus, > mercury) to assist. But that has the danger of crashing the rocket into > those planets-- cosmic pollution. > >> >>> The bigger problem is "Sure, great care would have to be taken..." Space >>> launch is tricky and dangerous, and even one rocket crash would be a >>> huge disaster. Make Chernobile look like a sunday school picnic. There >>> is no fallback. Burying it is far far safer. >> >> Even launching a exploring mission with a nuclear battery rises a lot of >> concerns and protests. And it is what is needed to go into the far solar >> planets. Thanks for responding, guys, even if you have all dashed my dreams!! ;-( Daniel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.os.linux
csiph-web