Slashdot Mirror
World's Worst Dog'n'Pony Shows
Thanks to coli for passing along last Thursday's press release from VisuaLABS. This is a company that has been telling investors that they have what they call "GroutFree(tm)" technology, which joins multiple LCD screens invisibly into one, large, flat screen.
On July 3rd, investors were wowed by the demo of the company's "42 inch diagonal flat screen display" prototype. Sheldon Zelitt, VisuaLABS' Chairman and Chief Scientist, said, "It was our great pleasure to share an early look at that technology with our loyal shareholders at the Shareholders' Meeting."
And on July 26th, we got another press release -- this one titled "VisuaLABS Announces That Its Primary Technologies Are Not As Represented And Dismisses Sheldon Zelitt." It turns out that "the large screen GroutFree prototype demonstrated at the Annual Meeting was, in fact, a standard 42 inch plasma television purchased by Sheldon Zelitt ... at a local Calgary consumer electronics retailer ... The Committee believes that no working prototype of a device incorporating the GroutFree technology exists."
While all this was going on, the Pentagon was busy launching two missiles and making them smack into each other. This is the missile defense justification, the one scientists say can't be done, the umbrella that will protect the U.S. and its allies from all those Third World dictators who just have to deliver their nuclear warheads the hard way.
The big test came on July 14, when a target missile (avoiding mishaps) was launched and successfully blown to pieces by its interceptor. Bush was "pleased." CNN showed us the debris radar. And Michael Kelly of the Washington Post stuck it to the "liberal critics," pointing out that "The 'Smart People' Were Wrong." As he wrote:
"In the blink of a video screen going blinding white on July 14, it became impossible to offhandedly disdain a missile defense system as 'weapons that don't work.' It does work."
Yep! So phase one of our missile defense plan is complete. Now we go on to phase two, which is to convince all our enemies to install GPS transmitters in all their missiles.
Oh, you didn't know the test missile had a GPS transmitter on board? Well, you do now.
My favorite part is that the test missile actually launched a Mylar balloon as "chaff" to try to fool the "kill vehicle." Luckily, the balloon didn't have GPS.
So what's your favorite dog'n'pony story? Ever had a demo fail in some especially embarrassing way? Ever cheated? Ever get caught? C'mon, you can tell us...
Update: 08/01 08:00 PM by J : I'm seeing a lot of discussion of the relevance of the GPS. Here's Defense Week which claims the "prototype interceptor was able to find a target warhead partly because the target signaled its location to the interceptor for much of the flight, and the transmissions formed the basis of the targeting orders."
And thanks as always to Slashdot readers for posting more information. monopole points out this link, or take your pick, this one -- they're plans from last year, but still interesting:
SR. DEFENSE OFFICIAL: And we take the GPS data, and we fuzz it up quite honestly, because GPS is a lot more accurate than radars. Okay? [...]
Q: Well, actually, would you then use the degraded GPS, or would you just the regular GPS that you use as a fallback -- (inaudible word)?
SR. DEFENSE OFFICIAL: (Inaudible.)
STAFF: Use the regular GPS.
SR. DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Regular GPS.
A previous poster mentioned that the GPS was not used by the ABM missile to aim for the target, but was part of getting telemetry info for the test.
But even if it weren't true and the ABM missile was using the GPS signal for targetting, this is still a huge success. Getting two minute objects to fly that close to each other under computer control has been the biggest problem until now. Now that we've got the technology to do that we can move on to other methods of tracking the incoming missile. We need to remember that this is a complex system with several objectives. Every time we fail we learn something new, and when we meet one objective (even if the others are 'hard coded' or 'rigged') then we can move on to using real data for the hard coded or rigged objectives. This isn't far from programming a very complex application, and the techniques are surprisingly similar.
The cost and potential results, however, are far different and are what should really be discussed. It's not a matter of if it will work, but when, and the real problem is how does the gov't relationship with other countries and with our country's people change when we make it there.
-Adam
Prehaps a somwhat better question would be how much error is allowed before a product demo is considered a flop, rather than simply new and buggy. Remember Steve Job's recent demonstration of the Mac OS X dvd player, which quit the first time he opened it, and worked the second time. He got his point across, while at the same time reminding people why the software hadn't been released yet. Prehaps it would simply be easier to record the presentation before and, and 'mouse sync' to a video re-broadcast of it, with mistakes edited out, of course
I was working for Harvey's Pro Audio and we had a SMPTE timecode-based audio/video editing system using BTX synchronizers. Harvey's was trying to sell us to BTX, so the BTX company president, chief sales guys, and heads of engineering were there to watch us demo the program. It was running on a PDP-11 with the debugger under control of a 2nd PDP, which is where I had started it up.
When it crashed (as we surely knew it would) I said "Oops, sorry guys I must've hit the debugger halt key over here" and we re-started and completed the demo. BTX eventually hired me even though they didn't take the rest of the company or program. When I went to work for BTX in Boston my new boss, the head of engineering, said "By the way, nice move with the debugger during the demo".
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Right, and Missile defense will do nothing to alter the brinksmanship of MAD. MAD presumes large numbers of warheads on each side, such as the US and russia. Take out 90% of either sides warheads using NMD and there are still more than enough to destroy both countries.
It would be foolish to assume every incoming warhead would be destroyed. It would be just as foolish to consider the destruction of the vast majority (or even a large minority) of warheads a failure.
A success yes, but quite the phyrric victory. Say 100 Warheads are launched at the US, and the interceptor system is 99% accurate (which im sure you would consider very sucessful) That still leaves 1 warhead that strikes its intended target, or nearby (close counts in nuclear war). Granted, you are saving millions of lives, but you are still losing all the lives and property from the one that got away. Not only that, but multiple missiles target the same place, so that taking down several can still mean the target is destroyed. The difference between ten warheads hitting the pentagon and 1 is not that much, you are still equally dead.
The purpose of a missile defense shield is not to protect us from terrorism. It is to protect us from being Saddam Hussein's bitch.
Heres a valid point, yes NMD will prevent us from being saddam husseins bitch. Knowing saddam, however, it will encourage him to actually launch, in order to "test" our NMD Since any NMD system will have a finite amount of missiles, why wouldnt saddam simply launch hundreds of fake warheads. Warheads that look like the real thing, but lack any nukes. The US is compelled to launch NMD against each launch due to "what if" Finally, when our defensive missiles are depleted, saddam launches the real thing, or not. Even showing he can do so puts the gun right back to our heads. Even if NMD is 100% effective, the finite nature of interceptors means that we are back in the same boat we were before we started.
Science fair.. heh.. the whole point is to see who can BS the best.
/.) had written an "operating environment". Basically, you boot the computer, their logo "interOS" is displayed, and then you're dropped to a nice little file-manager-type tool to manipulate files.
.dlls". Also, it crashed once and I noticed that ScanDisk started up automatically (hrmm...). So, actually, it's really just running Windows.
I went to the International Science and Engineering Fair (it's sponsored by Intel.. the prizes are HUGE (i.e. 10-50k$)) in May '98. I had some lame-ass project (but that's not the point).
The team next to me (I wouldn't be suprised if some of them read
Basically, all they had done was written a proggy in one of MS's nice Visual languages (C++ or Basic) that allowed them to move/copy/rename/delete files on the system. It was out a little before win98 was released and had a feature that was similar to activeDesktop (i.e. the desktop looked like a webpage, etc.)
It also supported voice recognition, and was compatible with all windows-based software programs... (sounds pretty impressive so far...)
Oh, they also had a few really thick notebooks worth of code...
All the judges that came by were amazed (and to tell you the truth, I was very impressed at first).... But after listening to their pitch about 30 times (my booth was next to theirs), I started noticing things.
Firstly, they stated that "it used MS
Their voice recognition was just IBMs voice-rec software. Kinda getting lame...
Basically, what they'd done is written a small app that they were running as their shell (instead of explorer.exe).
It really didn't do to much... but they could sell the hell out of it... the judges were in awe.
In the end, they won the grand-prize (a shitload of cash, free trip to see the nobel prize ceremony, etc, etc). And all for what? There were _tons_ of projects there... certainly there were more deserving projects. (not that mine was any good... but that's another story)
So, moral of the story... He who BSes best, wins.
-Andy
I grant you that a GPS transmitter on the target warhead would help you to get close to it. But that isn't the hard part. The hard part is hitting the missile. If GPS has an accuracy measured in anything more than inches, it would be useless for terminal guidance. Furthermore, even ground-based radar will tell you where the warhead is, with arbitrary accuracy, following which you can uplink this data to the interceptor. The hardest part of the task is guiding the interceptor to intersect with the missile at a closing velocity of of around 20,000 mph, even when it knows exactly where it is, and this was in fact accomplished. I still think this was a success.
And as for "liberals" being the ones opposed to NMD, let's not forget that it was a Democratic president who revived the notion.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Having been 'behind the curtain' on Gate's talks before, I can tell you why you dont see blue screens more often. There are about 50 machines and 100 people offstage routing computer signals. If anything goes wrong on one machine, they switch to another. Now, you'd think people would notice, but it turns out that the MS presenters, especially Bill Gates, are extremely adept at making it look like everthing is going smoothly; you'd never know they just had a meltdown backstage.
I got the fax functionality working using Symantec WinFax the next week, so no major harm was done.
Well, except to the extent that the spam server worked as designed.
The Maginot line was a superb fortification built by the French between the world wars. It covered most of the border between Germany and France, and was as modern and effective a defense-in-depth as could be built at the time. (See Steven Ambrose's "Citizen Soldiers" for one evaluation.) Attacking it directly would entail a bloodbath for the Germans. Tactically and strategically, it was an almost total success: the Germans dared not assault it until the winter of '44-'45, when it proved very effective indeed.
Instead, the Germans blitzkrieged through Belgium and took Paris in something like fourty days.
While the Maginot line itself was a success, the policy behind it was not. Trusting that the Germans would respect Belgium's neutrality, and that they couldn't attack through the Ardennes even if not, France neglected her mobile forces. These were, when the moment came, not up to the task of stopping the Germans.
So are we repeating history? I think so. Even if we develop an impervious shield against ballistic missle attack, other routes for attack abound. Thinking that NMD solves the rogue-state problem is like thinking a firewall appliance protects your network. It's true as far as it goes... which isn't all that far.
Not only do these other options exist, they're a helluva lot easier than cobbling up a working ballistic missle. (Can you say "Containerized Freight"?) What's worse, such attacks will be MUCH harder to track to their origins than a ballistic missle. What good is a deterrent force if you don't know whom to hit back?
I don't disparage the technical accomplishments of NMD so far... the collision they managed was a darn difficult task even if it turns out that they did cheat. (Why, by the way, do you need to broadcast GPS once the target is on a ballistic track? Gravity is pretty darn predictable...)
I think it's clear that this is a dubious allocation of resources. It's very expensive insurance against a very unlikely event. Those billions of dollars could do a lot more good doing other things, even if they never left the defense budget. This limited defense gives every appearance of being a PR device and a boon to the military-industrial complex.
Now if we really mean to abandon MAD, we'd unilaterally proclaim that we will bring NMD on-line with all due haste, and cut offensive weapons one-for-one until we had only a couple hundred SLBM warheads left. We'd still have credible retaliatory power, we'd still be vulnerable to a backpack nuke, and we'd impress the hell out of the rest of the world. If NMD is worth doing at all, why not go all the way?
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
In the article, they don't talk about using GPS to find the target, they talk about the target using a GPS BEACON. This means the target was transmitting. Doesn't matter what it's transmitting. You just need to home in on the signal. Don't even need to decode it.
This is the same way that HARM missles work, so it's not like it's really cutting edge technology.
They cheated.
They knew in advance the size of the decoy, and programmed the interceptor to discriminate accordingly, from what I've read. Otherwise (like in real life) they'd have had a 50-50 chance of failure.
I was pleased to see that Jamie chose the words: "dictators who just have to deliver their nuclear warheads the hard way." I've been ranting about missiles only being warhead DELIVERY SYSTEMS for YEARS, while the military "experts" on TV prattle-on as if all future opponents will of course box only according to the Marquis of Queensbury rules and never use an unconventional warhead delivery system (say, diplomatic pouches, which can't be searched?). My respect for these "experts" is low, and I'm surprised when countries like Russia act scared of their projects (US citizens are who should be scared, since we're going to pay the taxes to spawn this make-work jobs program for the military industrial complex).
All's fair in war, anyway. If I were (Saddam, Hussein, Khadaffi, insert favorite dictator) and I has plans to turn Washington, DC into a few square miles of smoking glass, I don't think I'd want a missile's obvious physical trail back to (insert dictator's nation) anyway, and it's a lot easier to aim the trunk of a rental car, or an old freighter, or even a backpack(!) to directly hit a city than it is to make an intercontinental ballistic missile work accurately the first time you try it. IMO.
JMR
Speaking ONLY for myself!!!!
Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
That's the way the system is designed to work:
1) A radar system detects the launch
2) The radar tracks the target to determine trajectory
3) The tracking signal is fed to the interceptor missle
4) The interceptor is launched along the track of the incoming warhead
5) When the interceptor is close enough, it switches to it's own seeker systems and homes in on the warhead
The problem is that the radar portion isn't done yet - but they wanted to test the final-interecept stage (which is the hard part anyway)
So they configured a GPS system to transmit the _same information that the radar would have provided_ using the same formats and same systems. the interecptor got no information that the radar would not have provided - so the test is perfectly valid.
At least, as long as one assumes that the radar will work as designed.
The intereceptor did NOT "home in on the beacon" as some people would have you believe. Everything here was completely above board.
They learned their lesson back in the Sgt York days. Faking Isn't Worth It.
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
How else do you expect them to track the missile during the test? A guy sitting on the ground with a telescope and a sextant or something?
Oh I don't know... maybe... radar? How do you think NORAD tracks missles? How do AEGIS cruisers track missles (the Iraqi airliner incident notwithstanding)?
-StaticLimit
While I don't entirely disagree with your post, I implore you and the moderators to consider another viewpoint concerning this statement. Logically it is easier to think of it as a "welfare program" for the defense industry. When people talk about the missile defense shield they think, "why build it if it costs so much and isn't going to stop all forms of nuclear attack and maybe won't work in the first place?" Enter the knee-jerk response - "Don't make it with MY money!" Okay, this is actually rational I must admit. But there's more to it than that:
First, we had a lot of technology developed during the Cold War. You can't uninvent Nukes. Likewise, scientific knowledge is another genie that cannot be put back in the bottle. You can't make a person "forget" that he/she knows how to develop high-end missile guidance systems without physically harming them in some way (killing, lobotomizing, etc.). It really only takes one well educated and trained high-energy nuclear physicist/rocket scientist to move to China and help them out. That figure that people keep throwing around about them being only twenty or so years behind us would be reduced to maybe only ten. Why don't we just give them high paying jobs as high-school teachers instead? Unfortunately, that concept goes flying out the window when taxpayers decide that they are getting ripped off by having to pay a half a mil a year to teach their kids algebra. I think it's a much harder sell to the public than a high-tech defense project. At least they'll be getting something for their money.
So that leads to the next point. At least they'll be getting something for their money. You can argue for or against that point all day. The truth is, it doesn't matter if the missile shield can actually shoot down other missiles. We just need everyone to THINK that it does. Let me explain that. One of the most ancient and well-known principles of war/conflict/politics/dealing with kids and so on, is that you always offer your opponent choices and make one of them seem the most attractive. BTW, I don't look at kids as enemies but if you have one, I'm sure you can relate
Great! So if a bad guy attacks, it will be with a briefcase instead! What's the difference? The difference is that missiles can be launched within minutes in an irrational fit of rage by a dictator with a button, arrive at their target in minutes, and cannot be stopped. A freighter takes days to arrive at the target, someone can change their mind, and it can be stopped if detected. I know, we can't stop illegal aliens from entering the country so how are we gonna stop one briefcase? Simple. People don't have radiation signatures. At least not the same signature as fissile material does anyway. Okay, so just hide the radiation signature. It's not that easy. But I'm not saying it can't be done. Read "The Sum of All Fears" by Tom Clancy. There's actually a whole bunch more to this subject. But I don't like reading super-long posts so I'll digress.
I believe in both and AM an American. Missle defense is nothing but a gift to the defense contractors. WIll it work? Maybe, but just like most other miltary systems, there are sizable margins of error. In this case I'm sure it'll be high - I figure if the Air Force can say they have a 75% chance of hitting a missle it'll be deployed - I just don' tthink its worth hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars for a threat that isn't very real. Hell, there aren't many countries that can reach our shores with a missle that would be considered 'rogue'
Do I think terrorists will try to nuke the US - hell yes. But they won't use a missle, they'll build it here and drive it to the target and set it off. End of story and city. An dthe missle defense won't get you a damned thing.
SO don't get so high and mighty. People have different beliefes. I think 100 Billion or more can be put to much better uses than trying to shoot down missles that will likely never come.
Remember, MAD assumes BOTH countries can destroy each other. If Sadddam managed to get his hands on a Russian or CHinese ICBM he'd never use it. Why? Because it would cause minial damage to our country as a whole (but would suck major for wherever it hit) and Iraq qould cease to exist as we launched a couple of the thousands of missles we have in their direction. So its not MAD in this case - what they are trying to sell missle defense for. Its raging stupidity and most despots are evil and egomaniacs but they usually are smart. Saddam knows now bunker would protect him if he nuked a US city because we'd turn IRAQ into a freaking crater.
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
The game consists of a 3d battlefield of, say, 1600 pixels cubed. There is a missile which is launched somewhere in that space which is guranteed to hit above a certian height before heading back down. Your job is to code a script or program (which the game will interpret and run) that has access to:
3 radars that can be simultaneously pointed and operated
1 or more missiles which have a certian thrust (possibly variable), and a variable amount of deflection, as well as the ability to explode on command, sending lethal shrapnel up to 2 pixels away from its current location. This missile also has a limited radar.
Optionally you can also use a script or program to control the target missile, since enemies are obviously going to be upgrading their technology as we upgrade ours. The enemy missile might have to be more complex, though, sending dummy junk, using heat or radio/radar jamming, etc.
It might show people how difficult it really is to do, but that things are still within the realm of possibility.
-Adam