abo.fi · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

Re:Only 2.5 miles? by Goaway · 2007-10-05 02:30 · Score: 1 · on 2.5 Mile Deep Hole Drilled Into San Andreas Fault

No, it's well known that they stopped because they reached hell.

Re:Randomly dump their trash would be stupid by Noryungi · 2006-11-13 02:26 · Score: 2, Informative · on Astronauts Throw Trash Into Space

Hmmmm... I love the smell of a flame war early in the morning...

Yeah, because see, all these rocket scientists, they are well known for bein' stoopid. Ain't that a shame to pollute them purty stars.

Let me help you understand what's at stake here. This quote is from the TFA, that you obviously haven't read:

Tools and other gear have accidentally floated away during spacewalks. But NASA has shied away from intentionally jettisoning gear off the ISS in the past because of the threat of space junk hitting the station or other spacecraft. Even tiny flecks of paint have cracked the windows of the space shuttle orbiter because they zoom around Earth at thousands of kilometres per hour.

Total cost of the ISS (so far): close to US$35 billions (source). The collective face NASA is going to make when the ISS is made unusable by some medium-sized space junk: priceless. Added points for the irony of being hit by space junk that comes from the ISS itself. So, yes, allow me to say it again: throwing junk overboard without thrusting is bad policy, and it is stupid.

If all you needed to deorbit something thrown from the ISS was a "small amount of thrust", don't you think that atmospheric drag would have already deorbitted the ISS itself?

Oh wait, are you talking about the same ISS that needs an extra orbital boost from time to time due to atmospheric drag? Hmmm... Interesting... That means the ISS is slowly being dragged toward the earth. Amazing, isn't it? Who would have thought?

In order to deorbit something, you need a very considerable amount of thrust, with an engine and propellant brought up from Earth at enormous cost. Left to its own device, a low-density object such as a bag of trash is going to slowly lose altitude due to atmospheric drag, then burn. No need for propellants. Good old air envelope does the trick.

Which, of course, is in complete contradiction with what you just wrote about the ISS, right? Oh well, what's a few inconsistencies between friends? Besides, the goal is precisely to avoid filling the Earth outer space with dangerous, slow moving bags of trash. If you had read TFA, you would know that the golf ball that was to be putted by a russian cosmonaut is no danger, precisely, because hitting that little golf ball with a gold club is enough to send into the atmosphere, where it will burn harmlessly. Which, again, completely contradicts your previous statement that it takes a lot of thrust to de-orbit trash.

On the other hand, the real heart of the matter is, of course, that even if there is never another rocket launch, the outer space around the Earth will be filled with junk until at least 2055:

The model predicts that even without future rocket or satellite launches, the amount of debris in low orbit around Earth will remain steady through 2055, after which it will increase.

That was one of the the links I posted. But, let me guess: you did not read any of these either, right?

(me)there is no reason not to incinerate their trash. Incinerate? Whaaa?? Look, this is space, ok?

Fine, that sentence should have been: ... there is no reason not to incinerate their trash IN THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE . Happy? I may sound dumb, but I am not THAT dumb, thankyouverymuch.

As for reusing it, I'm afraid that a sizeable fraction of the trash is, er, astronaut dung. I doubt the reuse value of human waste is very high in space, until we have complete hydroponic gardens.

Still, there i

Re:Sounds good until... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-12 03:17 · Score: 0 · on Apple's Leopard Strategy to Kill Microsoft and Dell?

Perhaps you should get a clue before you start bashing?

I haven't seen Jaguar, yet, so I don't know how good it's WMV handling capabilities are

Aah, the elusive Mac OS X 10.2 Jaguar aka "Jagwire" which only came out about 4 years ago.

but I do know watching a 640x480 WMV on OSX is like upsampling a 160x120 video into 1080 high-def - UGLY.

Yes, the quality is breathtakingly ugly http://albin.abo.fi/user/jfors/images/Alita-200608 12-1.png...not

Re:A few days old - still interesting by diskis · 2006-06-09 11:31 · Score: 1 · on Implants for Sensing Magnetic Fields

I broke a bone in my hand a while ago, and had it fixated with some metal spikes. (X-Ray here)
At first it didn't hurt at all, but one of the spikes wasn't fixated well enough in the bone, so it started moving. Having metal pieces walking around in your flesh really hurts.

But most of the pain was when I moved my wrist so the flesh bent over the spike. Fingertips don't move in that way. And if the magnets are a bit larger, they should stay in place, and thus be painless.

The Biggest Kludge in Engineering History by w33t · 2006-06-08 16:16 · Score: 5, Insightful · on NASA Clears Shuttle Fuel Tank for Flight

What would have been nice is if the space shuttle had been built as it was supposed to be built. The space shuttle was originally a two part system - not entirely dissimilar to the spaceship one paradigm.

The original specs for the space shuttle entailed the orbiter (pretty much the same as it is today) and a "reusable booster" vehicle. The "booster" was going to be a hybrid jet/rocket about the size of a 747 (which explains why the shuttle fits so nicely on one) and was going to fly right to the edge of space and deploy the orbiter for the rest of the journey.

The idea was scrapped primarily because of budget contraints. It seems likely these cutbacks were brought on by the vietnam war and the civil unrest occuring around the southern states.

It is a fact that both shuttle disasters have in no way been the fault of the orbiter in any way whatsoever. The Challenger was lost due to the booster rocket and the Columbia from the external fuel tank.

IMO - Rotating the shuttle 90 degrees and strapping it onto a big fat rocket is the biggest kludge in engineering history. Now NASA has no choice but to continue to shoe shine that billion dollar...you know what.

I hate it so much because I love the idea of the Shuttle so much. I love how that thing flipping LOOKS! It's the greatest spacecraft in history! But now it's got such a reputation when it was never the orbiter's fault. And now we take a leap backwards and go with a capsule again (yes, it's tried and tested - but so is walking, but it's not the best means of travel).

Citing "technical difficulties" with the booster vehicle idea is a cop-out. If we had built the shuttle with the booster vehicle then I think it likely we would have learned much more than we have about reusability and runway-to-runway space flight. Heck, I venture to speculate we may have solved the single-stage-to-orbit problem already.

Let's just hope we don't get stuck some other war which will sap the budgets out of our technological development...

Re:Looks Retro!! by dannyitc · 2005-10-05 01:29 · Score: 1 · on The Gameboy Micro Reviewed

Same could be said about the DS as well.

Re:Tunguska Comet Impact - 1908 by fbjon · 2005-09-08 10:14 · Score: 2, Informative · on First Results From Deep Impact Mission

You can't really find it in g-earth, since it didn't leave any big marks. There are some placemarks with an overlay map though. I found one in the community forums, and made some improvements: Tunguska Event in Google Earth.

Re:Uh-not. by fbjon · 2005-08-21 22:39 · Score: 1 · on Super Door of the Future

Oh, please.. :)

Here's a translation by something that isn't a toy.

For sensible translations from japanese:

Go here
Select the second radio button (ja->en)
Click big button
???
Best autotranslation on the web.

If you compare Google/Babelfish with Excite, you'll notice that the former are indeed toys in comparison. If you find the japanese language of excite intimidating, use my handy panel/sidebar for ja-en translation.

Not really... by Jott42 · 2005-06-28 22:41 · Score: 1 · on Commission Says NASA Failed on Shuttle Safety

Do you have any references for this? The space shuttle has been a vertical take of vehicle since 1970: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuttle.htm
I guess that you talk about the early configuration shown in the first picture on
http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/sld029 .htm
But that configuration was also meant for a vertical takeoff, as can be seen in the third picture. The wings on the booster part is only for the return flight.

Re:Tutorials? by fbjon · 2005-05-07 00:10 · Score: 2, Funny · on How To Conduct Your Very Own Buffer Overflow

Real Men log in by using creative buffer overflowing instead of wimpy user/pass combinations. Real Men use buffer overflows just to write to disk.

Real Men flip out regularly and buffer overflow just for the hell of it, because they are sooo cool!

Once I heard that this wimpy guy dropped a teaspoon, and this Real Man like totally buffer overflowed him, right there on the spot!

Buffer Overflows are totally sweet.

And that's what I call real ultimate power! Check it out, it's totally sweet!

Some similar designs... by simonbp · 2005-05-04 14:27 · Score: 1, Interesting · on Lockheed Martin unveils Space Shuttle replacement

The first that comes to mind is the Russian Kliper; similar idea with lifting body crew cabin and orbital module behind... Kliper

Of course, there are obvious comparisons to Lookheed's LS-200 "Starclipper" proposal of the 1960's: LS-200

But the best analog is probably Dyna-Soar, the USAF spaceplane of the 1960's: picture, site...

The Death of Dyna-Soar

Ah, distinctly I remember, it was early last December;
It was felt that very shortly, we would be employed no more;
Every day we feared the morrow; vainly we had sought to borrow;
Funds to budget us tomorrow, for our work on Dyna-Soar...
On the sleek and winged spacecraft we called Dyna-Soar...
Cancelled now, forever more.

From off the duct I pulled the shutter, when, whith many flirt and flutter,
Out there flew a stately raven, of the saintly days of yore;
Not the least obeisance made he; not a minute stopped or stayed he;
But with mien of Lord or Lady, perched beside my office door...
Upon a bust of Eugen Sänger, on the bookcase by the door...
Perched, and sat, and nothing more.

"Prophet !" said I, "Thing of evil !, tell me, agent of the devil,
Whether McNamara axed the program, or just cut us back some more ?
Will he make a presentation, to Congress for appropriation ?
Does he plan continuation, after Fiscal 64 ?
Is the funding in the budget ? Tell me, tell me, I implore..."
Quoth the Raven, "Never more".

Oh, the sleek and winged spacecraft we called Dyna-Soar,
Cancelled now, forever more.

(hopefully not a future statement of the CEV!)

Simon ;)

Re:Root Cause by dedazo · 2005-03-04 17:11 · Score: 1 · on Mars Rovers Have Incorrect Instruments Installed

Only if you had to change the oil

Re:If I were the King by Sygiinu · 2004-09-22 06:41 · Score: 1 · on Senate: NASA May Get Better Budget

Just FYI, you don't have to have all shuttles in a belly to belly configuration - Hermes was intended to be lauched purched on top of Ariane because side-by-side mounting caused all sorts of aerodynamics issues. The first picture I could find showing this clearly is here.

Re:Screenshots by Kethinov · 2004-09-08 09:02 · Score: 2, Informative · on X.org X11 Server Release 6.8

More screenshots I've seen:

http://home.centurytel.net/jacob002/xorg-mplayer.j pg
http://home.centurytel.net/jacob002/metacity-compo sitor.png
http://home.centurytel.net/jacob002/skippy-xd.jpg
http://albin.abo.fi/~jfors/images/saya-20040830-1. png
http://members.arstechnica.com/x/ioslipstream/milk shot.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~amsilveira/screenshots/08 -27-04bg.jpg
http://www.rpi.edu/~penwan/ss-20040829.png
http://home.pacbell.net/elomire/screenshot.png
http://thorin.battleaxe.net/~prototyped/kde33.png
http://members.arstechnica.com/x/treatment/Screens hot-14.jpg
http://home.centurytel.net/jacob002/xorg-glxgears. png
http://www.arslinux.com/~jorge/screenshots/xorg.pn g
http://home.centurytel.net/jacob002/xorg-transvide o.jpg

Crypto RD by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-01 04:08 · Score: 1, Informative · on Does A Pentium 4 Need A Weapons License?

[tinfoil hat on] And so they want to be only ones with enough juice power to break ciphers/ do research in that area...
But the programmers don't need anything over P3 rihgt? Can play games, can send email, can do sound processing... Can cluster... can send attachments and spam...
On the other hand, some free research arround:
this is being optimized for P4 (open sourced, good good).
this can do 35 million md hashes in a second on a pentium 4.(not quite 35, but read the page)
this breaks des and the approximate time for P4 is 4.3 hours (not quite 4.3 but read the page)
I just wonder, if the hardware industry splits, how much the software world will diverge. Of course, other countries don't have the jump US has in this area, but given enough time, the demand will drive the market....

direct download links by roskakori · 2004-01-23 22:35 · Score: 5, Informative · on EiffelStudio O-O Programming Suite for Mac OS X

this form stuff sucks. some of the download links they send you:

Re:2004 by Mr.+Slippery · 2004-01-08 19:00 · Score: 1 · on Bush To Announce Manned Trip To Moon, Mars

Either way, this just isn't going to happen.

I expect it will have no more effect than his daddy's plan to go to build Mars.

Straw by jsoderba · 2003-09-02 05:00 · Score: 1 · on E-mail Newsletters Switching To RSS

Try Straw, a three-pane aggregator for GNOME 2 (screenshot). It's almost as good as SharpReader (and some things are better.)

SharpReader and Straw are my primary interface to the web these days.

Re:No Rescue? by PingXao · 2003-02-07 06:48 · Score: 2, Insightful · on Latest Columbia News

This site in Finland has some pretty interesting information on the initial designs that were proposed for the Space Shuttle. In some of the concepts it's interesting to see shuttles docked with a space station of some sort and astronauts outside buzzing around.

Over on the sci.space.shuttle newsgroup there's been a flood of posts from space newbies asking what are considered "ridiculous" questions like "why didn't they take a spacewalk to survey the damage" and "why didn't they go to the space station for repairs?" At first glance, these questions are uninformed, but in the larger sense if you consider the vision that was presented to us (I was around then, albeit as a child) the reality we finally got didn't even come close to the grand scope of it all. Basically there were some mighty big plans afoot after Apollo, but they got squashed pretty fast when Nixon taught NASA a significant lesson: Just because one president wants to do something doesn't mean the next president has to sign up for it. Sad, really, but that's the way it goes.

Re:Make it cheap, and they will come by silentbozo · 2003-02-04 19:55 · Score: 5, Interesting · on Where Should Space Exploration Go From Here?

I'm hanging my hopes on Armadillo Aerospace. Looking forward to them trying out for the X-Prize, and their approach of documenting everything on their website via pictures, video, and blog-type updates is great. I hope they succed - we need a commercial manufacturer of rockets that doesn't need to charge a premium to support overhead of non-space units.

Think cheap dumb boosters - the kind of vehicle the shuttle should have been before it was hijacked into being a commuter service. Keep in mind, we don't need to throw away the STS infrastructure (crusty as it may be.) Just replace the orbiter with a larger unmanned payload module, keep the external fuel tank and boosters. Then, build dozens of payload modules, external fuel tanks (screw the insulation - which is needed to keep ice from forming on the fuel tank, make the payload module disposable), and boosters, in order to get economies of scale. Since there's nobody on board, we don't have to worry about having 99.999999% reliability, nor do we have to waste money on life support.

Just so you know, this payload version of the shuttle already exists on paper, as one of the alternate configurations of the shuttle combo - known as the Shuttle C.

If you're curious about other never-built shuttle designs, visit http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/sld022 .htm.

Or, we can buy Russian rockets wholesale, if we don't want to invest in our domestic rocket industry. Just don't put pilots in cargo vehicles - there's no point! If you want to send up pilots, put them in spacecraft specifically designed to deliver people... survivable spacecraft.

Re:Forget This--I want FIGHTING SAIL by joib · 2002-09-21 03:12 · Score: 2 · on RC Battleship Combat

Problem is, you'd need lots of servos to remote control a square rigged ship. Take a look at this page to get a picture of how complicated it is.

From 1989 Space Digest by Baldrson · 2001-11-05 06:57 · Score: 2 · on NASA Task Force Recommends Radical Changes

Date: Thu, 5 Oct 89 08:24:10 PDT
From: mordor!lll-tis!oodis01!riacs!rutgers!pnet01.cts.co m!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: ucsd!nosc!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SAVE NASP!!!

All PROspace activists should lobby congress heavily to favor NASP over Space Station. The reason is simple: Since NASP is totally bankrupt technically and is promising "results" in a few years, we could kill off Space Station almost immediately and NASP would die in another 5 years or so.

The situation with NASP dying to save Space Station is terrible. We really do need space facilities. Now we will end up with a gold-plated, bureaucrat-controlled CDSF about 10 to 15 years after we could have had an affordable, industry-controlled CDSF. Giving NASP enough rope to really jerk its head off when it falls would be a great wake-up call to Congress.

Unfortunately, Congress has just enough knowlege to see that NASP won't work and that maybe NASA can fly something called a Space Station. They don't have any deeper insight.

From 1989 Space Digest by Baldrson · 2001-11-05 06:57 · Score: 2 · on NASA Task Force Recommends Radical Changes

Date: Thu, 5 Oct 89 08:24:10 PDT
From: mordor!lll-tis!oodis01!riacs!rutgers!pnet01.cts.co m!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: ucsd!nosc!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SAVE NASP!!!

All PROspace activists should lobby congress heavily to favor NASP over Space Station. The reason is simple: Since NASP is totally bankrupt technically and is promising "results" in a few years, we could kill off Space Station almost immediately and NASP would die in another 5 years or so.

The situation with NASP dying to save Space Station is terrible. We really do need space facilities. Now we will end up with a gold-plated, bureaucrat-controlled CDSF about 10 to 15 years after we could have had an affordable, industry-controlled CDSF. Giving NASP enough rope to really jerk its head off when it falls would be a great wake-up call to Congress.

Unfortunately, Congress has just enough knowlege to see that NASP won't work and that maybe NASA can fly something called a Space Station. They don't have any deeper insight.

No Contest At All by BlenderHead-2001 · 2001-08-06 23:03 · Score: 1 · on Brain vs. Computer: Place Your Bets

There is no contest at all, the brain wins. However in this particular game the computer has the advantage. First of all let's go over how it operates. The computer takes a brute force/god's eye view of the game, using rules it creates a set of all possible moves and recursively evaluates these sets of possible moves until it finds a winning condition. This is really easy to program, I can do it so can you the only thing we don't have is a massively parallel supercomputer kicking around to evaluate 21 moves in advance every second for us. What makes the computer better than a brain in this domain is that the rules are known so the game is finite - it's a combination problem, a set of all possible states exists.
But, this isn't how the brain operates. A brain on the other hand deals with incomplete, unknown or outright false information and must construct a system that operates without knowing the rules or even what information is even relevant to solving a problem. The problem with the real world is that it is chaotic - the combination of problems grows in such a way that to evaluate all possible combinations for even one move would take more time than has already passed since the big bang. I'm exaggerating a little with the previous sentence but it is the central issue. So to deal with this influx of information the brain has to find ways to reduce the sensory information into important features which can then be used to drive higher order logics (in the AI sense, not mathematical sense). Strategies for condensing raw information include Baysian logic, Fuzzy logic, and Common sense. The greatest area of research in the future is in extending Cyc, with something not quite like Expert Systems but along the same lines - contextual knowledge. Contextual knowledge is simply constraining the possible choices from moment to moment by following scripts or stories. An example might be 'How to make a cup of coffee'.
So to sum it up, yeah it can beat me at chess but ask it to make me a cup of coffee and I win :)

Deeply Embeeded Python by evenflow · 2001-02-24 06:33 · Score: 1 · on Python Painfully Ported to Palm; Plan is "Peer-to-Peer"

Here is an embedded port of the Python interpreter: http://www.abo.fi/~iporres/python/

Finally... a story where this is *not* offtopic... by Anonymous Coward · 2000-05-19 20:38 · Score: 5 · on Oxford Yanks Student Page Over Spoof DeCSS

and I'm asleep at the keyboard. Doh!

Oh well... here it is.
Add your own, and spread this far and wide:

This announcement brought to you by the DeCSS Polar Bear.

Time for Slashdot to take a stand... by Anonymous Coward · 2000-04-05 03:12 · Score: 4 · on MPAA Files Another Injunction Against 2600

The following is a list of all the mirrors from the 2600 site.

Slashdot Mirror

Domain: abo.fi

Comments · 27