| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Comments:
<0> char previousCourseName[6]
<0> when I read it, its something like ABCXYZ and then rubbish
<0> how to cleant the rubish ?
<1> you add 0 at the end
<0> something like ABCXYZ*#$&($*%&W()$&%)#$&dgdfgdgdgdgdr
<0> in previous...[6]?
<1> char previousCourseName[7]; previousCourseName[6] = 0;
<0> '\0' ?
<1> yes
<0> danke
<2> When peterhu appears on this channel, the ensuing conversation reminds me of that prehistoric scene from 2001 Space Odessey in which monkey men curse at each other around a dirty pool of water.
<3> hi
<4> :(
<2> JBlitzen when do you think humanity will start mining asteroids for minerals?
<4> Probably when we start building things in the asteroid field
<2> You mean mining equipment etc.?
<4> No, I mean interstellar ships
<4> ***uming we figure out how
<4> No reason to build them in a gravity well
<2> Well you have enough asteroids in the solar system to bring minerals worth $100 billion per person in this world
<2> By a conservative estimate
<2> And thats not even counting the planets
<4> Factor in the cost of getting the materials here
<2> And space travel within the solar system is achievable
<4> We have enough minerals within two miles of the surface of the earth do that
<2> JBlitzen who is talking about bringing it back?
<4> I don't see what the asteroids have to offer us right now
<4> What mineral are we in dire lack of
<2> Its stopping us from taking up grandiose projects
<4> Like what, mining the asteroids?
<2> Like building 2000 km towers on earth so you don't need a rocket to leave it.
<4> I don't think a 2000 km tower would work too well
<2> why not?
<4> I think you're thinking of a beanstalk, which would be largely carbon, which isn't exactly in short supply
<2> Twin towers worked well
<2> It'll be a composite material. Metal + carbon or silicone based something
<5> how high were the twin towers?
<2> shenenigan above the twin tower level, you don't have any atmosphere or something else to endanger the structure integrity
<5> that makes no sense
<2> There are asteroids that p*** very close by earth in their orbit
<2> Then, there are housing and other structural needs on earth that can be fulfilled with the additional resources.
<4> The world trade towers, if those are what you mean, were under 2000 feet high
<4> Which is under 2/3 of a kilometer
<4> 2000 kilometers would be quite a bit taller
<4> A beanstalk would have to be 22,241 miles long, or thereabouts
<2> Not really
<4> As the earth is only about a third of that in diameter, I use the word long instead of tall
<4> Yes, really, as the counterweight the beanstalk is stuck in would have to be in geosynchronous orbit
<2> Gravitational tug isn't an issue at 100 km up there
<4> This may be why Pakistan hasn't yet developed a space program
<2> Its as badly managed as NASA, but with a lot less money
<4> NASA's pretty well managed.
<4> Okay, quick physics lesson.
<2> Heh with their shuttle program?
<6> heh
<4> The space shuttle, orbiting at 200 miles or so
<4> Has to do a complete orbit of the earth a couple times an hour
<4> If it doesn't maintain that velocity, it stops falling around the earth and starts falling into it
<4> Gravity doesn't vanish at 99.9 miles
<6> but i thought there was no "gravitational tug" =(
<6> no wonder this clown can't grasp evolution
<2> And whats stopping it from maintaining that velocity?
<6> time for dinner
<4> At 22,000 miles and change, the speed needed to orbit the earth without power dictates that a point moving in that orbit is doing exactly the same circuit of the center of the earth as a point on the equator.
<4> Thus, geosynchronous orbit, that satellite will always be over that spot on the equator.
<4> Not a whole lot is stopping the shuttle from maintaining that velocity.
<4> But a beanstalk would be connected to a point on the Earth
<4> So, quite a bit would be stopping it from zipping around the world every few minutes
<2> ...
<2> So you are saying you don't know newtonian physics
<4> Thus, the counterweight has to be in geosynch orbit
<2> The second law
<4> No, I'm saying that you don't know any physics whatsoever
<4> Don't think that our atmosphere stops at 100 miles up
<4> There is resistance that the shuttle flies through which over time would degrade its orbit
<2> It stops at 75 miles. Effectively
<4> But it's only up there for a week or two, so it never matters.
<4> Space is not completely empty.
<4> But none of this is germane to the beanstalk point.
<4> Don't digress.
<2> When you have a 2000 km tower, its not cutting through the atmosphere. Its moving along with it.
<4> A 2000 km tower could not possibly support itself
<4> This is why you hear about a space elevator.
<4> I.e., beanstalk.
<2> That remains to be demonstrated
<4> It doesn't remain to be demonstrated at all.
<4> Walk over to the nearest radio antenna.
<2> or proven
<4> Couple hundred feet up, solid steel
<4> And it needs guide wires to keep it upright
<2> solid steel has certain material properties
<4> So does your brain
<4> One of those properties is "vacuous".
<2> Oh look who is talking
<4> I understand your interest in this, but there is absolutely no way under our current technology to build a structure five miles tall.
<4> And you want something 40 times that high.
<4> Self supporting, no less.
<4> Sorry, but it's not going to happen.
<4> The space elevator is unlikely enough, you're just removing the counterweight.
<4> The supposed beauty of the space elevator is that you're not building a self supporting structure, you're building a string between two orbiting gravitational bodies.
<4> Therefore, there's some semblance of equilibrium to the situation
<4> But there's still an immense amount of force acting on the structure, even with a couple meter diameter thread
<4> Visualize trying to get a five foot long hose to stand upright
<4> Then visualize trying to get it to dangle down to a fixed point on the floor
<4> In that example, you are the supporting structure, and through physics largely unrelated to the hose, you're supporting it
<4> With the beanstalk, the counterweight is the supporting structure, and to some extent the Earth, and so it does not have to be self supporting.
<6> now imagine JBlitzen was straight
<6> unthinkable
<4> Additionally, that gets you to geosynchronous orbit, which is much easier to get away from than low earth orbit, which is only a hundredth as far away.
<4> What all this leads to is the inevitable conclusion that peterhu is enormously gay.
<4> So, to the Pakistani space program's aspirations, I say "pfft".
<7> lol peterhu
<7> mm, time to order some sushi
<8> has anyone tried to compile in vstudio2005 having an fstream object and testing for eof? it says eof is not a member std::basic_fstream
<7> paste code
<8> fstream mystream; if(mystream.eof()) { ... }
<8> has anyone ever come up with a problem in Visual Studio where the fstream has no .eof() ?
<9> can you explain what you mean?
<9> "has no .eof()" ?
<8> i mean i declare fstream mystream; and then mystream.eof() does not exist
<9> the member function doesn't exist?
<8> yes
<9> what version of visual c++ ?
<8> 2005
<9> did you #include <fstream> ?
<8> yes
<9> why do you need to call .eof() anyway?
<9> and what is the error message you get ?
<8> i want to test for eof
<8> i mean to see whether eof was set
<9> why? usually you don't
<9> how are you reading the file?
<9> (paste code would be good)
<8> with fstream::read
<8> but how do you stop reading when you don't check for EOF
<8> ?
<9> you test whether or not the read failed or not
<9> eof() only returns true after an unsucessful read PAST the end of the stream - not after a sucessful read that brings you TO the end of the stream
<8> so if you test for fail means it didn't read so you've reached EOF?
<10> not necessarily
<8> and how do you test for fail?
<10> if (read failed) { if ( eof ) { end reached } else { /* Other error, check ERRNO */ } }
<8> hehe, don't tell me that you test for fail with fstream::fail()
<10> no, I don't use streams at all.
<8> and how do you read files?
<10> some other way you shouldn't mess with for now.
<8> nice, i just saw other people also using VStudio05 can't find fstream::eof() and also fstream::fail() does not exist
<8> could someone propose how i could test for the end of file with using the above?
Return to
#c++
or
Go to some related
logs:
#linux
serial telebubbies
zeuz heracles
#java
datediff in mysql3
#linux
Pid=76487270
installing vista on vmware esx 2.5.3
#java
#linux
|
|