Slashdot Mirror

Can be found here

It was sounded because the computer was receiving more instructions than it could handle and it was getting to the point where it would have just stopped executing them, leading to an abort.

According to Rebecca Hoyle, parallel parking is easy:

If:
P = r - w/2
G w + 2r + b
F w + 2r - fg

Perfection is when:
max((r + w/2)^2 + f^2, (r + w/2)^2 + b^2)
min(4r^2 (r + w/2 + k)^2)

Where:
Position (P) = Where to set up for the parallel park
Gap (G) = Determines if parking gap is large enough
Front of car (F) = Determines where front of car should go
r = turning radius of your car
w = width of your car
b = distance from back of car to point midway between axles
fg = gap you want left at the end
k = distance from curb where you end up

Proof of the theorem by construction is left as an excercise for the driver (/dev/park).

My mistake. I guess I just got that impression from a photo of it or an earlier version. How do you know this about the Arius3D system? Have you worked with one before and how did you know it could scan rooms? I can't find details like that on the net, even on the Arius3D site.

instead the(y) are digitized using one of many scanning techniques

What are the different scanning methods you are aware of? I've come across a few and I'm interested in knowing about others. I came across a method used by the National Research Council of Canada, and I think it has spun off into a commercial entity called Arius 3D. It captures surface 3D and colour data of objects on some kind of turntable, scanned by an RGB laser device. There's also the FastScan input device that uses motion-capture technology in combination with a monochrome surface laser scanner, so you move the scanner around, not the object. It was used for Lord of the Rings. I also came across the iModeller software package that apparently lets you use a standard digital camera to capture 3D images somehow. And I also recall seeing a documentary on television before where a RGB laser scanner, like the Canadian one mentioned earlier, was used to scan in ancient cave wall paintings. It scanned the 3D contours as well as the colour information of the cave wall surface, except the scanner laser moved around like a CRT scan line, so neither the scanned object nor the scanner needed to be moved. I couldn't find any information about that one on the web. I'd like to know of other methods and information about them on the web. Oh, and if anybody knows about that cave wall painting scanner device, I'd like to know more about that as well.

This got rejected as a Slashdot story submission:

Wally Wallington moves huge objects alone.

See also Ancient Construction.

My weak little mind is still smarting from the Over-Unity engine story a couple weeks back. I was suckered.

But in a world with uranium-eating bacteria, I suspect there are a few surprises left for scientists and the rest of us. I for one will be happy if these experiments pan out and I can read about it in Science.

As one of the engineers who is working on getting the shuttles back up and flying, I take offense to that. Just getting them back up to the ISS is extremely expensive and difficult. Examining the thermal protection system for damage is no simple task. And that's just detecting and measuring damage. Fixing damage in space is far more difficult and expensive to develop. Finally, the necessity for an alternate return method, i.e., a lifeboat, can't be met going to Hubble.

Can the shuttle be made to go to Hubble safely. Probably. But the expense and time involved would be astronomical. It'd probably be cheaper to build and send up a new Hubble on a rocket.

But if you think the problem is people making excuses, you're full of crap. Real engineers are working their asses off just to get the shuttles to return to the ISS. Hubble is a magnitude more difficult and expensive to reach. It's simply been decided that it is not worth it. Nobody is burying their head in the sand here.

I am not saying we shouldn't go to Hubble. But the problem, as I see it, is that nobody has even come close to demonstrating that the effort and expense are worth it yet. Yes, some areas of scientific work will suffer for a few years, but these are just a small fraction of the whole field of astronomy. There are alternatives to some of this work, like the Keck I and II observatories and other adaptive optics telescopes which can rival or better Hubble in many areas. Yes, admittedly, there are some wavelengths that can't be matched by ground-based. But I have yet to hear any convincing argument about why the work in these wavelengths over the few lost years of Hubble would be significant enough to make the expense and effort to get the shuttles safely to Hubble worth it. For the most part, it sounds more like impatience with a little bit of "spoiled" whining thrown in. (That is, a lot of "We've been able to use Hubble before so why should we give it up now.") No, I don't believe that is the "best" level of argument for keeping Hubble, but it's hard to find the good arguments through all the "noise".

To me, the "bullshit-mongers" are those who suggest that NASA isn't looking at this seriously, or those who seem to think Hubble is some sacred god that must be saved at any expense. Most people arguing it needs to be saved don't understand the amount of time, expense, and effort to do so. The opposite also applies somewhat, those who would have to make this effort (and time and expense) don't fully understand the importance of this apparently "short-term" loss of data over a "few" wavelengths. You'd do much better to make your case on why this is necessary than spewing untrue claims and insults about "heads in the sand". My mind is open, but all I'm hearing is insults and contempt, not reasons.

You missed a big physics fact. The orbit that the ISS sits in is totally wrong for launching anything. Originally the orbit was to be just off the equator, but in order for the Russians to help and launch from the Cosmodrome in Khazakstan, the orbit was changed to 51 degrees. That meant a change in the mission of the ISS from a "jumping off point to outer space" to an international scientific outpost. Here's a NASA quote: "NASA spokesperson Phil West says the ISS' inclination of 51 degrees was chosen as a compromise to accommodate all of the international partners who will be launching from different latitudes. For example, Russia's launch site in Kazakhstan is further north than the Florida site, making lower inclinations difficult to achieve."
ISS History article
Space Station History

The frontman for the tea party has had this for a while (dunno if it's exactly the same.. I was under the assumption that his was a custom job...)

Check out this, from the Discovery Channel (.ca) ("Jeff Martin on 'smart guitars'").

S

The hosers also developed a great interceptor, but it got shitcanned due to...

The aircraft in question leaves thousands of middle-aged Canadian men huddled in their dens building models of it, all the while grumbling about massive American military-industrial complex which squelched it. When the Canadian troops come pouring over the border, you'll know then that Washington made a grave mistake treating Canada like a banana republic.

AVRO Canada had a working flying saucer back in the height of the cold war.

The hosers also developed a great interceptor, but it got shitcanned due to the emerging threat of ballistic missiles. Or something like that. Some say the program was killed by the Marecans.

Many organisms do not have central nervous systems but do respond to stimuli that are harmful to them.

But it takes a somewhat complex nervous system to be possessed of consciousness. I can wire a very simple circuit to respond to stimuli, but that's not sentience.

But even if there were such a thing as plant "suffering", a vegetarian diet would still be preferable - after all, all those cows eat a lot of plants.

A quick look at the human physiology (eye placement for binocular vision, types of teeth in the jaw - canines and incisors as well as molars and bicuspids, etc.) all indicate that humans are omnivorous by design.

Uh, gorillas have binocular vision and similar dentation (indeed, larger canines and incisors IIRC), but are herbivorous. Chimps and humans are the only higher primates that eat meat at all; chimps get only about 5% of their food from predation, and that's mostly insects. Humans, unaided by tools, could catch and eat an occasional small mammal, but that's about it. You couldn't even bite your way into larger animals.

I wonder what the vegetarian community thinks of the Atkins Diet

There are a few who follow it (it is possible). Most, however, know enough about nutrition (having been told for years by ignorant people how we're going to die any day now from lack of protein, vitamin B-12, or whatever, we learn in self-defense) to realize that its a sophmoric, health-endangering fad diet. Protein is for building tissue, not for burning. It makes a dirty fuel. Eat complex carbohydrates for fuel, dammit.

Wouldn't you love to sit in on some of those presentations rather than waiting to hear about one of them in a 30-second encapsulation on network TV?

No, I wouldn't. Most of these presentations are duller than paint drying, and I've seen video of ones I was interested in. Also, Michael sounds like he wants it to be the Skeptics Network. I think the Skeptics movement are their own worst enemy. They sound as shrill as the people they're attacking.

I would love real science on the Discovery channel and TLC (back when it used to do that occasionaly), but you know what needs to happen first? More content. More production. That costs money. Real money. Horizon by the BBC kicks Nova's ass most of the time, and when it doesn't, it's because Nova is actually showing a Horizon documentary with Peter Coyote narating instead.

We need documentary makers who'll make interesting documentaries about math, physics and other hard sciences. I'm sick of the "animal/nature" specials that are nothing more than an hour of "Awww! Look at the *cute* animals!" Feh! At least Steve Irwin makes it interesting.

If you want to do an animal show, do it like Sir David Attenburough and make it about the science. I want the details. I want the cold, rational view of things that teaches me things I didn't know. You can talk about the philosophical or subjective aspects of it too, but it's first about the science, then the human side. Example: Industrial Revelations with Mark Williams for Discovery Networks Europe. All too often (like in Horizon/Nova's doc about Fermat's Last Equation), it's only about the human side.

Balance, people! Is that so much to ask for?

I'm sure if I get to see it on TV I'll be impressed to

There's some (Windows Media) video at Discovery Canada's website. Dunno what it is since my 28.8 choked.

You are, I think, speaking of the Nemesis Theory which is just that - a theory, yet to be proven.

Actually, IIRC there's been some recent evidence that casts serious doubts on the validity of the theory, but can't seem to locate the link(s) at present. Google for more, of course.

Soko

don't know about terrorists, but we can definitely lump flight simulators into the same category as all those FPS games that lead to violent behavior...

I think it's also worth pointing out that when a car or plane has an accident it's relatively easy to clean up. While these flights are low, space debris is a much more wicked problem. Even a loose screw or bolt is traveling at a fast enough speed to severly damage other crafts and satellites. That's why NASA tracks it all. I even saw a Discovery show where they explained that one good smash up could potentially cause a domino effect and wipe out a bunch of stuff -- even potentially creating a thick enough outer junk sphere to make future launches phenomanally difficult -- perhaps impossible. Wouldn't it be nice if we managed to trap ourselves here?
_________________

What you're looking for can be done by VISAR as displayed here
Although, as it's apparently only available though Intergraph I'm sure it's rather costly.

I think Las Vegas might have a leg up here with the Venetian. Daily Planet has had this story up for a while. Everything from satellite linked checking at the Airport, to self calculating bar tab, to well, a wireless network where you can call the valet from anywhere.

I think Las Vegas might have a leg up here with the Venetian. Daily Planet has had this story up for a while. Everything from satellite linked checking at the Airport, to self calculating bar tab, to well, a wireless network where you can call the valet from anywhere.

touting an impressive "BSD is dying!" campaign?

Set in Soviet Luskan, where DRAGON slay YOU!
You must rescue Natalie Portman* from the clutches of the evil (Bill Gates/RIAA/MPAA/other /. baddie)...

*Actually, I prefer Natasha Stillwell as far as geek girls go.

The main suspected "kink" are the telomeres, and if we do discover it's a kink, it may be a difficult one to work around. Here's a good article on telomeres and telomerase.

I think so. The specs don't specify the details, but I think that the Mobile Servicing Station, provided by Canada, uses electromagnets within the Base System and the Dexterous Manipulator.

Here's more info on Canada's robotic hand/arm thing. It's like a crazy robotic slinky/robot arm which doesn't have a shoulder. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that it uses electro-magnets, but I can't find any direct mention of the coupling mechanism it uses.

That baby could make nearly into space!

For those of you who havent heard of it, here's a link to a great site about it.

Daily Planet (link) is a pretty good show. It was called @Discovery Canada, but changed a little while ago. It runs on the Discovery channel here in Canada. Read the site for more info.

Would it not have been better to build something up, not out? With all the work that was put into this, IMHO, I would think that if it was for water, it would be better to use your time to start stacking rocks up, even if it's into one large pile (per site). This way if you're stumbling across the desert you would be able to see the marker from a farther distance.

Maybe I'm just old-fashioned (probably not as old as YOU, but I grew up reading conspiracy and UFO files on bbs') but I still like the idea of the images being signs to aliens. ...Really. I mean, check out 'The Owl Man'. Does that not look like our friend Mr Aldrin? (hehe. Buzz=funny name. Like my friend 'Shitter'. I'll never figure that one out.)

In any case, I'll stick with my alien conspiracy.

On a side note, isn't Atlantis recently being 'proven' to be located in South America too? ...And the plot thickens. (Don't get me started on 'the money changers' hehe)

All this week, Daily Planet, on Discovery Channel Canada, will be featuring little segements of James Bond tech & science.

Watch last night's segment here (caution -- ASF formatted clip).

All this week, Daily Planet, on Discovery Channel Canada, will be featuring little segements of James Bond tech & science.

Watch last night's segment here (caution -- ASF formatted clip).

Actually.. I'm a little surprised that they named the project the Arrow, considering the fate of the last Canadian Arrow(My girlfriend's father was one of the engineers on the project).

Seriously, the Avro Arrow is one of the things that every Canadian learns about in history class and there certainly wouldn't be a canadian aerospace engineer who wasn't familiar with the story. So I'm wondering if the name is some sort of inside joke to them or if possibly some suit decided it was a good name and the engineers couldn't explain the stigma that goes along with it.

Well, redardless, good luck to them.

or china, who claimed something similar a few years ago. from this 1999 article:

The Chinese appear to have turned things around. Their new Passive Coherent Location system allegedly tracks fluctuations in normal or civilian broadcasts, which function at a different frequency, and looks for distortions, reports Newsweek.

Here is an interesting discussion of the very debate you two are going through.

My general recollection (and my source eludes me at this point) is that Woolly Mammoth parts are frequently found in conjunction with prehistoric settlements/campsites. Carcasses are frequently found with Clovis points embedded in the ribs. There is no question that there was severe hunting pressure on the mammoths. Did this wipe out the mammoth, or was it a combination of factors, including climate change (continuing today) resulting from the end of the ice age? My (amateur) guess is that it was a combination of those two factors.

As the National Geographic article mentions, the hunting pressure on the other types of mega fauna is not as obvious. I tend to think that the "overkill" supporters are generally right on the mammoth, but probably wrong on the other mega fauna extinctions in the New World.

There is also a disease theory on the extinction.

Could early man kill woolly mammonths? The answer is unquestionably yes. (Check out Google for "Atalatl" some time). The fossil record clearly supports this. Did early man cause significant pressure on the mammoth population as a result of his hunting activities? The answer is clearly yes. Did early man alone cause the mammoth to extinction? This answer is less clear.

ahem...the current hypothesis is man killed the Mammoth in North America.

Here are a couple of articles on the subject:

TIME
Outriderbooks
Discovery
Article

Scroll down to Freak waves.

The fundamental issue is this. The vehicle has to be close to the water. As a result, running into a single large wave is a problem. The larger the vehicle is, the larger a wave it can handle. But the larger the vehicle is, the more it costs to build and the more it needs to transport to be profitable.

So you need quiet water which a lot of people want to cross fast. But the water has to be a lot quieter than you think. You see every so often several different waves of different frequencies fall into sync, and form one really large wave. This may only happen to you once per year, but even once per year is far too often if it happens under a vehicle that you needs several years to pay off.

So you make a bigger craft. Fine, but now it is going to take you even longer to pay off. There is no practical limit to the size of a freak wave. Bigger ones happen more rarely, but they still happen.

As a result this kind of vehicle, which by nature needs to be very delicate and very expensive, has always wound up on the wrong side of the cost curve. People have looked into them in several markets, but they are just too easy to sink in a freak accident to be commercially viable.

Of course regular ships run into these, and occasionally sink from them as well. But they don't need to be so light, nor do they hit waves as fast, and therefore ships cost less and can take more wave. this makes the risk acceptably small.

The Canadian Discovery Channel had a program on about such a thing, in the show the referred to it as the "Cascade Effect." One piece of debris hit another that made three or more then those pieces hit more and so on.

See this link

According to an @discovery.ca segment a month or two ago, NASA is already falling seriously behind in its responsibilities in the International Space Station. Not to place blame anywhere, but I think the United States needs to realize that this is an international project and that they have to keep up with the other countries involved. Cutting funding for international projects like the ISS isn't really their call... although I'd be interested to see what action the other countries would take if NASA's non-compliance became a serious problem.

Sealand was originally used as an armed fortress in the Second World War as one of the most easterly aspects of the UK, whose main role was shooting down Nazi bombers, U2 rockets and other undesirables.
In 1967, the island - then known as Roughs Tower - was founded as a sovereign principality with a currency called the Sealand dollar - which runs at parity with the US dollar - and with English as its official language.
Sealand was founded on the principle that a group of people dissatisfied with oppressive laws and restrictions of existing nation states can declare independence in any place that is not under the jurisdiction of another sovereign entity.
The state's independence was upheld in the British courts in the late 1960s when a judge held that Roughs Tower stood in international waters and did not fall under UK legal jurisdiction.
...
HavenCo is offering what it calls "secure Web hosting" on its server farm for any company or organization that is looking for a Web hosting service that is free of any existing global legislation and tax laws.
Although Samir acknowledged that HavenCo could well attract companies wanting to offer tax-free havens for customers wanting offshore services, the firm's main emphasis would be in attracting organizations looking for Web site hosting facilities free from any possible monitoring or censorship from third-party governments.
With its high degree of independence, he said, Sealand offers an ideal home for those organizations looking for a totally offshore Web hosting facility.
Samir said that, while Sealand obviously cannot defend itself against a serious military attack from a country such as Great Britain, its operation is heavily armed to protect the firm from pirates.
"We also chose to locate in Sealand because we know that the UK respects the law. Any legal problems that could develop regarding our sovereignty would be heard in an English Court of Law," he said.

Does anyone remember the Avro Arrow?

I seem to remember that these guys toyed with the launch vehicle concept back in the 1950's. The Arrow had a huge internal missile bay, larger than that of a B-29.

Yes, it was scrapped, and the people there mustn't have had much talent. After all they did end up contributing to the Concorde, Mercury program, Gemini spacecraft, Lunar Orbit Rendezvous (LOR), lunar module, Apollo program, and Mission Control.

Learn all about what almost was... courtesy of your neighbors to the north:

http://www.exn.ca/FlightDeck/Arrow/

I don't suppose anyone else remembers the
infamous fire in a Bell Canada phone exchange in Toronto. This fire knocked out phones in much of the city for a couple of days as the crews scrambled to fix things. It was interesting trying to do business....

In my company's case, we still had working Internet via ISDN, so we were still able to go about our business. Some cell phones weren't working, however.

Hydrogen, being a lighter than air fuel quickly disperses from the scene of the accident.

Why did the Hindenburg burn? Newer theory: It was made of highly flammable cloth and hit by lightning. See one description here.
Don't use a tragedy from the 30s make us fear the fuel of this century.
--mycr0ft

Somehow though, I suspect life on the ISS is a lot better than on MIR, but Bill Shepherd probably doesn't realize it, just like someone who has a broken air conditioning in Minnesota and has never experienced the Sahara desert in the dead of summer thinks life sucks.

Right now, people just drive over the crabs when they cross roads during there yearly crab migration. Apperantly, the inhabitants don't even think about a solution. In Holland we have special little viaducts for wildlife roadcrossing. On Chrismas Island the red crabs are killed by millions every year. What will this spaceport do the population? Is there even being thought of the consequences for the crabs?

More on Christmas Island crabs:

http://www.kidzworld.com/Frameset/reloadframe.asp? s=102&p=http://www.kidzworld.com/site/p820.htm

http://www.markuskappeler.ch/fot/fots/ch_crabs.htm l

The AD2000 was water- and sand-proof and had a two-week battery life (better than Apple's beasties). Imagine a Newton 2000 that could be dropped onto concrete with no ill effects, and that's what the AD2000 was. The AD2000 was aimed at the telcom field-service people, wasn't offered to the general public and was *expensive*.

I briefly thought about getting one (hey, check my User Page for the reason why), but their cost and bulk made them unattractive, even if it did say "Harris" on it.

Looking through the external Harris pages I can't find much on it; perhaps it's been dropped. I don't work in that area, so I never dealt with it.

I suppose I'm a pedant, but "endurance" means time aloft, not distance flown. This plane set a record for distance flown by a robotic plane, not the record for time aloft.

I can't see how less than 24 hours en route qualifies for an endurance record, since a small (10 foot wingspan) robotic propeller-driven plane called an "Aerosonde" crossed the atlantic in August 1998, taking about 26 hours 45 minutes. In fact, I seem to remember that /. carried that story, though I don't find it in a quick search.

I did find a few other stories from that time, though, at ABC and EXN, and you can always visit Aerosonde Robotic Aircraft if you are interested.

I think, but do not know, that there have been robotic flights longer in duration than that, but I don't have time to look for them now. :-)

See:
http://www.exn.ca/Stories/1999/11/03/01.cfm
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/2000/38/ns-18053.html
http://www.youve-got-male.com/
http://slashdot.org/articles/99/09/23/0836256.shtm l

Is this funny, or is it informative?

- subsolar

One example of Canadian engineering abilities might be found in some of the sites regarding the ill-fated Avro Arrow, like here and here. Some of the things achieved with this experimental craft have never been duplicated, and unfortunately the project was only destroyed due to political reasons. It could be said that while the U.S. does have great research abilities, in some areas the U.S. can learn from their Northern neighbours. After all, even NASA is still using the Canadian-made robotic arm on the space shuttle.

This story has been around for over a year, see eg. here or here. I wonder why there's so much publicity surrounding it right now? (I heard a "news" article about this on the usually excellent BBC Radio 4 today programme). Perhaps they're about to try and commercialise this?

A similar jump was done in 1960 by the Air Force. Project Excelsior was a pre-NASA experiment to see if it was possible for pilots and astronauts to eject from these kinds of altitudes (102,800 feet to be exact, which took 4 minutes and 36 seconds). They solved the spinning problem by deploying a small stabilizing chute first to slow him down. This site says Captain Kittinger almost died on the first attempt when the stabilizing chute tangled and he blacked out. Luckily, the main chute was set to deploy automatically. Apparently his landing words of wisdom were "Thank you, God, thank you."

So far, and correct me if I'm wrong, nobody's died in space yet. Challenger hadn't left the atmosphere before it blew up, and Apollo 13 got back safely (although by the skin of their teeth).

With the number of missions needed to put the station together, and the unprecedented EVA time needed, it's just a matter of time before there's a serious accident up there.

With all the trips, the odds of breaking a seal and suffocating, or a pressurised tank exploding, or some other major system failure.

And once it's all running, there's always the chance of sudden illness popping up amongst the station's crew (despite the medical checks, there's always the one-in-a-million chance), and it becoming fatal before medical help can be reached.

I thought I'd seen an article on the risks somewhere before... Google popped this one up, which seems similar enough to what I remember. According to a study, the odds are at least one astronaut will die in the next 15 years.

As I read this, earlier today, I was reminded of a news bit that I saw on @Discovery.ca a while back. (http://www.exn.ca/Stories/2000/05/30/5 4.cfm)

The gist of it was that engineers at University of Toronto had been able to make a silicon mesh that was capable of performing the same operations as a transistor, except using light. Oh the possibilities!

So I started thinking. I don't think that these "biotransistors" are appropriate for computing technology. They might make a good control chip for a bionic appendage, but that's about it. These bacteria have to eat. And as so many others have pointed out, it would get a bit ridiculous to have to wake up, feed the cats, the fish, and the computer. I think they're only practical in situations where they can be attached to an existing food supply, like blood, because we all know that the average user will forget to feed their computer.

ciao.