Slashdot Mirror
Apollo 1
Last year we looked at the Challenger. This year: Apollo 1. On January 27, 1967, the three-man crew of Gus Grissom, Roger Chaffee, and Ed White who were in training for the first Apollo flight were asphixiated in their capsule during a training exercise. The men reported communications glitches prior to the disaster, and it is believed that a spark in their pure-oxygen atmosphere quickly started an unstoppable blaze, consuming the many flammable components in the capsule. There were three hatches between the men and the outside of the capsule, which were not designed to be opened in less than 90 seconds. In addition, it is doubtful that the astronauts could have opened the internal hatch at all since pressure inside the spacecraft rose rapidly after the fire, exceeding the capacity of the pressure-equalization valves. Future designs were modified to remove most of the flammable components from the crew area and include a new quick-opening hatch. NASA has a retrospective.
That is no a nice way to go....
my kernal has oops0red and nwo it is borkened!!11 yuo lunix fag0rts owe me a l0t of money for tihs!!! mandyke lunix is a total piace of SHJIT!!!! FUCK FUF KFK FUCK FCUCK YUIOU UCFUCK FYOU!!1111111111111!!!!!11
fuck you in your ass
Nothing like a little Astronaut Flambe to satisfy those cravings. Just like grandma used to make! My mom used to make Astronaut Nuggets, fried-a-licious.
Do you think they froze any, and maybe it's available on the NASA web site?
Are the Open Source advocates mentally healthy?
Some people have trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality. I met a woman who was supposedly normal as a child. After she graduated from high school she got a job and moved out of the house. But during her twenties she became increasingly withdrawn into fantasies.
By the time I met her she was nearly 30 years old. She had quit her job and moved back to her parents' home. She spent most of the day crouched in a corner imagining whenever it is that she imagined.She rarely talked to anybody.
Most of her fantasies were unknown because she never discussed them. But occasionally her family members got a glimpse of what she was thinking.For example, sometimes she imagined that a cat that she had as a child was in the house, and she went around the house looking for it and asking if anybody had seen where it went. Sometimes she mentioned that the phone was ringing when it wasn't. How many people mix fantasy with reality? What is the point of bringing up this particular woman and her mental disorder? The point is that I doubt if she is the only human being on the planet to suffer from this problem in which a mind mixes up fantasy with reality. You can hear some of these people on the Art Bell radio show. You will hear them describe how they died and went to hell or heaven, and then came back to life to tell us about it; how they were picked up by Martians; how they saw a ghost; etc.
While some of these people are certainly fabricating these stories for amusement or profit, some of them believe what they say. (If you find it difficult to believe that people on the Art Bell show believe what they say, consider how many people have conversations with a god.) His web site is www.artbell.com
If we could understand the human mind completely, I bet that we would find that some people almost never mix fantasy with reality, while at the other extreme are people who are so withdrawn into fantasy that they cannot hold a job or function in society. In between these two extremes are the majority of people who occasionally carry on a conversation with a god or who occasionally see a ghost.
If you have a mind that rarely mixes reality and fantasy, your opinions will be based on events of the real world. However, if your mind frequently mixes fantasy with reality, many of your opinions will be contaminated with pieces of your daydreams and night dreams.
How many open source advocates mix fantasy with reality? The documents from the open source people create a beautiful world in which people love each other and share everything. They create a world in which there are no financial issues to deal with. In this Open Source World we do only the things we enjoy, such as creating new software and sharing and loving, with no concern for where food or homes will come from. Also, there is no leadership, no supervision, no rules. Everybody is free to do as they please.
The open source concept makes us feel good. It is similar to the concept of heaven, except that we don't have to die to get there.
When I look at the human race and its history, I see intelligent apes having trouble coping with life. I see uncontrolled reproduction, loneliness, and mental retardation. I see people whose best friends are TV sets, animals, or inanimate objects. I see people struggling to be happy; hoping that money or fame will improve their miserable life. When I go into town or to a shopping center, I see people with bad posture, people who are seriously overweight, people with deformities, and people who are angry. When I look at the behavior of my fellow Americans, I see lots of cheating, lots of people trying to avoid responsibility, lots of people with drug and alcohol problems, and lots of fighting. I also see disease, ticks, fleas, and car accidents. There are also lots of people who are so desperate for money that they sell themselvesfor unpleasant and sometimes dangerous sex acts.
The world I see is not the same world that the open source advocates see. I think the open source advocates are seeing their fantasies, not the real world. Mental disorders can explain the lawsuits Class action lawsuits have been filed against VA Linux, Red Hat, Caldera, and Transmeta for stock fraud. Some or all of these frauds may turn out to be honest mistakes, or they may involve only people outside of the open source community. However, these lawsuits may be a sign that:
When millions of dollars are at stake, some of the open source people dump their noble goals and go after the money.
The confusion is due to mental disorders rather than cheating.
Recall the woman I mentioned who sometimes imagined that a cat from her childhood was in the house. You could put her through a lie detector test and ask her if she is certain that she saw the cat, and she would be able to say yes and pass the test every time.
Now consider the possibility that a Linux executive is suffering from a mild form of that same mental disorder. He may fantasize about acquiring investment money and creating a Linux business. He may fantasize all sorts of facts and figures for this business. He may tell investors that Linux is superior to Windows, and that millions of people are ready to switch to Linux. He may tell the investors that Linux and open source will dominate the world within a few years.
His proposal to investors will sound convincing, but those type of claims are based on fantasies. Years later, when the business fails to become what the investors were expecting, the investors may come to the false conclusion that the company deliberately cheated them.
The open source fanatics have been exaggerating the qualities of open source software for many years. They deceived a lot of people into installing Linux and investing in open source. They even deceived Corel into producing their own version of Linux, which wasted a lot of money that Corel could have spent on useful tasks. IBM is still pouring money into Linux. But the open source people refuse to take responsibility for any of this.
Many people beside me are disgusted by the open source people. They have wasted a lot of our time and money. But are the open source people cheating us? I doubt it. They seem to believe their hype. I think they are mentally ill, not dishonest.
Signs that Linux fanatics have mental disorders
Linux people have trouble with criticism
The Linux fanatics seem to have more trouble with criticism than normal people. I will give just one example. On 29 March 2001 Bill Machrone of ZDnet posted an article (New Linux Kernel Boosts Server Power, Desktop Compatibility). I posted a comment to it that criticized Linux. One of the readers reacted to my criticism with a comment that started with:
to anyone who's reading this: DON'T BELIEVE ERIC!!!
That reaction reminds me of a woman I once worked with. During her lunch break she purchased a meal from McDonald's and had been given some type of sweepstakes ticket with her meal. She was excited about the possibility of winning the grand prize. I looked at her sweepstakes ticket to see what her chances were. The odds were something in the order of 20 million to one. I thought this was amusing so I began reading out loud to the people in the room what the odds were for winning the different prizes. But as I started to read the odds, this woman became very upset and told me to stop it. I assumed she was just joking, so I continued to read. She then came over to me and took away at the sweepstakes ticket.
This woman deliberately ignored the odds on the back of the sweepstakes ticket because she was trying to live in a fantasy world in which she wins the grand prize. When I started reading the odds to her, I was attacking her fantasy world and pulling her back into reality. Her reaction was panic and fear. She did not want to be part of the real world.
The reaction to criticism by some Linux people reminds me of that behavior. Many Linux people do not respond to criticism with intelligent arguments. Rather, they react with panic. Some react by running away and hiding. Initially I assumed it was because some many Linux fanatics are children, who tend to hide behind mommy or daddy when something frightens them. But I have since noticed that many of these frightened Linux fanatics are adults!
Offer raw meat to Linux fanatics to avoid a fight
Notice how many articles that are critical about Linux begin with attempts to pacify the Linux fanatics. For two actual examples:
Before all you Linux fans who don't know me get into a lather, you should know that I've been using Unix as a desktop operating system
Please don't flame me afterwards as I didn't write it nor does it necessarily reflect my opinions on Linux.
This is analogous to offering a piece of raw meat to a wild dog in an attempt to prevent the dog from attacking you. What kind of people need articles to start with such remarks? Defective people, that's who.
What are FUD and trolls?
Until I looked at Linux sites that offer "talk back" features in which readers can post comments, I was unaware of the expressions FUD and troll. But Linux sites are full of these expressions. The slashdot.org site is an excellent source of these expressions.
Slashdot members label remarks that criticize Linux as FUD, and they describe the people who made the remarks as trolls. FUD stands for "Fear, Uncertainly, and Doubt", and I suppose a troll is subhuman creature who wants to hurt people for no reason.
At slashdot.org are some Linux fanatics who have been labeled as trolls simply for making critical remarks about Linux. Imagine this happening with other fields. Imagine an engineer at General Motors makes a critical remark about one of their cars, and the other engineers call him a troll and describe his remark as FUD.
Linux people do not tolerate criticism very well, but how can you improve a product if you refuse to look at its lousy qualities?
Detecting and Dealing With Trolls on K5
The issue of trolls and FUD are taken so seriously by some open source people that the www.kuro5hin.org site posted an article on how to identify and deal with trolls and FUD. The title is Detecting and Dealing With Trolls on K5
I was surprised to find the article describe many of the trolls as being slashdot trolls because I assumed slashdot and K5 were similar groups of people that got along with each other. This is yet another case of open source groups fighting with each other for reasons that I cannot make sense of.
Both slashdot and kuro5hin sites are full of angry articles and comments that promote open source. Both groups seem to be suffering from low self-esteem, and both are like children who are paranoid of trolls. I would describe the kuro5hin site as being a site for pompous geeks, while slashdot attracts the angry geeks.
Will they start an "Anti-Troll" initiative next?
A news article at linuxdevices.com discusses what they refer to as an anti-FUD initiative. Tim Bird of Lineo, Inc. wrote the initiative. One of Tim's remarks start with:
As a first step toward resolving FUD,...
Many Linux fanatics assume that when a person resists Linux, it is because trolls have released FUD into the newspapers and Internet, and that the FUD has confused the person. In other words, they see the non-believers as helpless, ignorant morons, and they imagine that trolls are taking control of the morons through the use of FUD. It never occurs to Linux fanatics that many of us have intelligent reasons for avoiding the open source movement.
Do Linux fanatics believe in a Free Press?
The attitude towards FUD and trolls is similar to the Communists who also assumed that communism was suffering due to the propaganda of the non-communists. The Communists wanted control of the media so that they could eliminate the anti-communist lies, thereby freeing the people from the horrors of propaganda. The communist media only published the truth.
If the Linux people had control of the media, would anybody be allowed to publish anything critical of Linux? I doubt it. Look at Linux sites right now. Actually, try to find an intelligent conversation at their sites! Their articles are like church sermons; ie, they promote Linux, ignore its problems, and resist admitting there are good qualities in Microsoft or Windows.
Linux fanatics claim to be fighting for freedom, but they do not want to provide us with the freedom to criticize Linux. The Communists also fought for freedom, but not for the freedom to criticize communism.
Don't kill me; help me!
The Communists believed so strongly in providing freedom that they killed and jailed millions of people who opposed communism.
What would happen if Linux fanatics had control of a nation? Would I be arrested for spreading FUD? Would millions of us trolls be taken to rehabilitation camps where we would be taught the truth?
If you think I am kidding about their inability to handle criticism, just post a link to my document at a Linux site or Linux Users Group and watch the reaction! The link to use is: http://members.aol.com/erichuf/Linux.html
However, you will find that many sites will not accept a link to my document because my document is FUD and I am a troll, and you are troll for wanting to post it! You may have to find a sneaky way to slip a link in.
The incessant boasting by Linux people
As I complained in my main document, the Linux people boast incessantly that Linux is superior to Windows. Initially I considered this to be a sign that Linux fanatics are primarily naive kids. However, I now wonder if Linux fanatics are withdrawn in a fantasy in which they imagine themselves as heroes who have developed a superior operating system that has defeated the evil empire of Microsoft. They treat Bill Gates as if he were Darth Vader. Their attitude belongs in a Star Wars movie or a role playing game rather than the real world.
Not much in life is free; why can't Linux people understand this?
The only truly free software is software that is developed by a person in his spare time at his own expense when he could be doing something else, such as socializing or gardening. So why do so many Linux fanatics promote this concept that software can be free?
I am not impressed by the promises of free software by the Linux people. Rather, it makes the wonder if the Linux people are stupid, or if they have withdrawn into a fantasy that does not have an economic system.Perhaps, in their fantasy, food and homes just appear magically when they want them.
We should stop promoting this absurd concept that we will get quality software for free. The only truly free software will be lousy because the people developing it will not have much time to work on it.
Let's now look at a few of the more famous open source advocates.
Richard Stallman
Richard Stallman is the founder of the Free Software Foundation. He started it in 1984, many years before Torvalds started Linux. Stallman is also half of the reason Linux came into existence because he provided Torvalds with the software (for free) that Torvalds was missing. Neither person had created enough software by themselves to make a complete operating system, but together they had something. (Torvalds ended up developing Linux further, while Stallman pursued other activities.)
I never met Richard Stallman, but I have read more than one article in which he was described as different from other people. For example, here is a quote from an article from The Register on 6 April 2001 which the author discusses Stallman's lecture at a conference at Queens' College, Cambridge:
Wearing socks but no shoes, brown canvas trousers and a red polo shirt, Stallman is not as other people.
There may have been a valid reason for him to be at the conference in socks rather than shoes. For example, he may have a medical problem and shoes are simply too painful. Or perhaps the airline lost his luggage, and he had no chance to buy another pair. Or maybe the British police took away his shoes because they were contaminated with hoof and mouth disease.
However, it could be a symptom of a defective mind. Most of us realize that society has certain behavioral standards, such as wearing shoes to conferences, especially if we are one of the speakers. But a person who is withdrawn in a fantasy may not be aware of what other people are thinking or doing. I suggest you consider the possibility that Richard was imagining himself at home in his living room; that Richard was not completely aware of where he was or what was going on around him.
I also suspect the description of Richard as not like other people is merely a nice way of saying there is something wrong with him.
When somebody at the conference spoke about patent protection for software:
This provoked Stallman into an extended rant against the whole idea of patenting software, and ended in him leaving the room to shout in the corridor...
The shouting incident may seem to be insignificant, but it could be a sign that something is wrong with his mind. I think that a grown man should be capable of dealing with a difference of opinion without shouting.Bill Gates is also rumored to lose his temper at Microsoft and shout at people. (Of course, Bill Gates is also rumored to slobber on people, which is a bit worse.)
If this was the only article that described Richard as being different, then we could say that this particular reporter is incorrect, or that this reporter just happened to see Richard during a bad moment. But other articles about Richard also make subtle remarks about his different personality.
Eric Raymond
Eric Raymond is interesting for several reasons. One is that he loves role playing games. See his document about role playing: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/larp.html I lost my interest in playing games when I was in junior high school. Do the adults who enjoy these role-playing games simply have different personalities than me? Or are they suffering from a mental disorder which causes them to withdraw from reality?
This issue also applies to sports, gambling, and beer. For example, some of the people who drink beer seem to be healthy people; others are merely using the beer to withdraw from reality into a state of intoxication.
In regards to adults who play games, especially role playing games, how can we figure out if they are merely playing a game or if they are suffering from a mental problem?
What do we learn from guns?
Eric Raymond also loves guns. You should read his following documents for details. (The ipscc1.htm document is also interesting because it describes tactical pistol shooting, which many of us don't know about.)
http://tuxedo.org/~esr/guns/personal.html http://tuxedo.org/~esr/guns/rig.html http://tuxedo.org/~esr/guns/gun-ethics.html http://tuxedo.org/~esr/guns/ipscc1.htm
I found a few of Eric's remarks about guns to be particularly interesting. In his discussion of ethics he has a section titled:
What Bearing Weapons Teaches About the Good Life
There is nothing like having your finger on the trigger of a gun to reveal who you really are. Life or death in one twitch
He goes on to explain that because a gun allows us to kill a person very easily, a gun has a lot of significance to our lives.
This made me think of my automobile. My automobile allows me to kill more people than I could kill with a gun. For example, I could crash my car through the fence of a school playground, running over dozens of children. As Eric might say:
There is nothing like having your hands on the steering wheel of a car to reveal you really are. Life or death in one twitch...
Later that evening as I held a jar of honey in my hand, I realized that Eric's remarks apply to honey as well. Until I read Eric's remarks about guns, I thought of honey as merely a sweet liquid. Now I realize that I'm holding a dangerous weapon. I could easily kill several infants by pouring honey down their throat and nose while they lay in their cribs. As Eric might say:
There is nothing like having your hands on a jar of honey to reveal who you really are. Life or death in one twitch...
When I hold a jar of honey, I am a powerful man who has control over the life of many infants. But please do not suggest that we ban honey. Honey does not kill; people kill.
Eric Raymond is only one of millions of people who are fascinated by a gun's ability to kill. Not many of these people are fascinated by the ability of an automobile to kill, or the ability of toxic chemicals to create birth defects, or our ability to kill with our bare hands. Is this fascination of guns a sign of good mental health? If so, what about a person who is fascinated by the ability of honey to kill? What would you think of a person who was fascinated that a plastic bag could be used to suffocate people? At what point would you say there is something wrong with these people?
Look around the room you are in and try to find an object that you could not kill somebody with. Almost everything can be used to kill. What makes a gun so special? Why does a gun reveal who we really are, but none of these other objects reveal who we are? What about the people who control missiles, nuclear submarines, and bombs? They have more control over people's lives than a person with a gun. If a gun reveals who we really are, what does having a nuclear bomb reveal? What would having a container of tuberculosis reveal?
I pity the oppressed Europeans
While at the tactical pistol shooting range, Eric Raymond had the following revelation:
I thought then of the historian J. A. Pocock's description of the beliefs of the Founding Fathers of the U.S:
The bearing of arms is the essential medium through which the individual asserts both his social power and his participation in politics as a responsible moral being...
and I felt a flash of pity for the all the frightened, self-disarmed people who have never understood the full truth of that. And more than a flash of loathing for the would-be gun-banners who would rape away their chance to ever learn.
Indeed, as Robert Heinlein famously observed, an armed society is a polite society.
As I read those remarks, I felt the flash of pity for all Europeans who are suffering under oppressive governments that prevent them from purchasing guns. As Robert Heinlein would have observed, the unarmed European societies are not polite societies. Rather, European nations are crude, rude, and unattractive. The Europeans are not a free people who enjoy life; rather, they are denied basic freedoms, such as owning guns.
Since I am American, I get to enjoy all the wonderful things of life. I have freedom, for example, whereas the people in other nations are oppressed.I have wealth, while other nations have poverty. I have a free press, while other nations have biased news and distorted history books. I certainly am glad that I am an American!
Let's reduce crime around the world
The crime rates in Europe, Singapore, Japan, and other nations is appalling. As Eric Raymond and many gun enthusiasts proudly boast, guns lower crime. As Eric describes it:
It is time for us to embrace bearing arms again not merely as a deterrent against criminals and tyrants, but as a gift and sacrament and affirmation to ourselves.
temporary shortage of clean water in a small area. Some people cried; others worked to fix the problem; and some people decided to sell fresh water for $20 per gallon. There was no reason to sell water for $20 per gallon; rather, these people were simply looking for ways to exploit the situation.
Now consider how this applies to computers.
During the 1980's consumers had two primary choices: Apple computers or Windows-based computers. There was an enormous demand for Apple computers. At least some Apple executives decided to exploit the situation by setting prices to very high levels so that they could become extremely wealthy. They hurt the Apple company in the process, and they helped Microsoft grow. But very few, if any, Apple employees complained that prices should be lowered and that salaries should be reduced.
Did the Apple executives or employees show the sort of qualities the world needs? I say no. They were not people who were trying to make a better world. Rather, they look for ways to exploit situations and take advantage of people.
Today a few former Apple employees are involved in the Linux movement. Some of them are extremely wealthy, but they are proposing that the rest of us work for free. It is acceptable that they be wealthy, but it is unacceptable for the rest of us to even make a normal living. Are these the sort of people we should be investing money in?
When former Apple executives start a new company and look for investors, I suggest you wonder if they will behave in the same manner that they behaved when they were working at Apple. Specifically, I would be worried that they would take enormous amounts of money for themselves while setting prices to such high levels that they drive their business into bankruptcy.
Consider Andy's company. According to Dennis Powell's article, Eazel spent at least $13 million, but never completed their project. Many conventional software projects got more accomplished with less money. What did Eazel spend the $13 million on? Executive bonuses? Prostitutes? Drugs?
Andy's dream was to make one small software program, and then collect a monthly fee from every user. Was his goal to make a better world for us all? Or was he simply looking for a way to become even wealthier than he already is? If Eazel could get a monthly fee for their software, how much of it would go to Andy's personal bank account?
Ideally, investors would analyze the personalities of the people they are investing in. They should not invest in people who show signs of exploiting situations or taking advantage of other people's misery. They should not invest in people who want to be kings or queens and who want the rest of us to become their servants.
I do not know Andy, and I never did an analysis of him, so I cannot say whether he is somebody we should invest in, but I suggest that investors analyze people better before they give money to them.
Should you invest in Linux companies?
Some of the people who manage Linux companies do not show signs of greed. Actually, they often show a complete lack of concern for money. While this may seem to be a good quality, there is a point at which it becomes absurd. A company must make enough money to pay their bills and provide their employees with food.
The Apple executives are at one extreme in which greed is uncontrolled and people are exploited. Some of the Linux people are at the other extreme in which they collect so little money that they can barely feed themselves and end up begging for donations and pity. I would say the both of these groups of people have undesirable mental qualities. Ideally the world would invest in people who are between these extremes.
War of the Computer Retards
The Linux community tells us that Microsoft is an evil empire and that the Linux people are the good people who fight for freedom and poor people. But now I see the situation as a fight between two different types of mental disorders. Microsoft seems to be dominated by people who have a type of disorder that creates intense and endless cravings for money and happiness, while the open source people seem to be suffering from a type of disorder that causes people to withdraw into a fantasy.
Rather than being a fight between good and evil, I see a fight between two different groups of retards. No matter which of these two groups wins, the normal people in the world will lose. Neither of these two groups is offering the world a practical solution to our software problems.Microsoft is merely trying to dominate the software business, and the Linux people are trying to bring back some form of Marxism.
We need healthy, happy people in control of the world
The only way the world will become a better place is if the people who dominate it are happy and healthy rather than insane, angry, or struggling for happiness. This requires voters select better government leaders, consumers make better decisions on which companies to support, and stockholders make better decisions on which executives need to be removed from their position.
Unfortunately, there is no evidence to suggest that the voters, consumers, or stockholders will improve their behavior. Therefore, I do not expect any improvements in the foreseeable future.
They made the post-accident modifications rather quickly. It is hard to do that without creating chain-reaction design changes. I guess the gov *can* move fast if they have a press-viewable deadline and a blank check.
Humor:
What did "NASA" stand for after the Challenger accident:
"Need Another Seven Astronauts"
Table-ized A.I.
The reason the hatches took no less than 90 seconds to open is because NASA wanted to prevent another Liberty Bell 7 incident (MR-4) where the hatch supposedly blew off prematurely. Poor Gus Grissom was apparently not intended to make it out of the space program alive.
I am a meat popsicle.
I'd say it's too early to post any +5 Funny comments about this.
However, the Earl of Sandwich in now fair game;
When he died, they put a giant toothpick through his coffin.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
Every astronaut that has ever been KIA has had buerocratic imcompetence to blame. There have been two NASA tragedies: Apollo 1 and challenger. In the case of Apollo 1, NASA was too lazy to use a proper atmosphere: "The committee can only conclude that NASA's long history of successes in testing and launching space vehicles with pure oxygen environments at 16.7 p.s.i. and lower pressures led to overconfidence and complacency.". In challenger, the O-ring manager knew very well that they were likely to rupture and demanded that the launch be scrubbed, but was overruled by his ignorant superiors. It seems to me that astronauts are alot more likely to be killed as a result of someone else's incompetence than their own. They certainly deserve the accolade of bravery since trusting others takes alot more of it than trusting yourself.
Everyone who saw the original HBO series 'From the Earth to the Moon' knew that. It is very well done, and you should go check it out if you haven't seen it. I'm not sure if you can rent it as it's about 6 VHS tapes. Maybe you can get it on a DVD format now?
That's why you don't fill the cabin with PURE OXYGEN.
While many Slashdot readers will not recall the sad events of 1967, a bit younger than I perhaps, I remember it too well. I was about to finish my undergraduate studies and like many of my generation had an intense interest in the Apollo project. Too many today write off Apollo as a waster of funds and one of little accomplishment. It was anything but that. It was the fulfillment of the dream of President John F. Kennedy, a symbol of mankind's thirst for knowledge. Symbols can be costly and unnecessary, and all too often are, but Apollo was anything but that. Those who died will always be remembered as the trail blazers for those who would one day walk on the moon. And when that happened the whole world tuned in. The peoples of our planet everything that a television set could be found sat glued to the tube with the expansion of the possibilies for the future a much clearer and important vision than being locked in the mud and muck of daily toil. These men died for a reason, a reason in which we who read this thread all have an interest. They sacrified their lives for the sake of the future. I have spent some time, not enough perhaps, browsing the remembrance that NASA has. But it was in part written, I can easily tell, by those who weren't there and done that. You had to be there to share the grief, but you had to, and most did, keep hope alive. I lift my fist in their memory and with my thoughts of their great moment.
so this is considered a slow-day for /. news right?
-- Note to self - 'Don't push that button'.
Seriously, though, I've seen shit like this on the site where the armchair engineers start to spout off with their 20/20 hindsight and it's quite annoying. I'm bracing myself to seeing the posts appear as I type this.
Oh, well...off to kuro5hin
AC
Are the Open Source advocates mentally healthy?
Some people have trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality. I met a woman who was supposedly normal as a child. After she graduated from high school she got a job and moved out of the house. But during her twenties she became increasingly withdrawn into fantasies.
By the time I met her she was nearly 30 years old. She had quit her job and moved back to her parents' home. She spent most of the day crouched in a corner imagining whenever it is that she imagined.She rarely talked to anybody.
Most of her fantasies were unknown because she never discussed them. But occasionally her family members got a glimpse of what she was thinking.For example, sometimes she imagined that a cat that she had as a child was in the house, and she went around the house looking for it and asking if anybody had seen where it went. Sometimes she mentioned that the phone was ringing when it wasn't. How many people mix fantasy with reality? What is the point of bringing up this particular woman and her mental disorder? The point is that I doubt if she is the only human being on the planet to suffer from this problem in which a mind mixes up fantasy with reality. You can hear some of these people on the Art Bell radio show. You will hear them describe how they died and went to hell or heaven, and then came back to life to tell us about it; how they were picked up by Martians; how they saw a ghost; etc.
While some of these people are certainly fabricating these stories for amusement or profit, some of them believe what they say. (If you find it difficult to believe that people on the Art Bell show believe what they say, consider how many people have conversations with a god.) His web site is www.artbell.com
If we could understand the human mind completely, I bet that we would find that some people almost never mix fantasy with reality, while at the other extreme are people who are so withdrawn into fantasy that they cannot hold a job or function in society. In between these two extremes are the majority of people who occasionally carry on a conversation with a god or who occasionally see a ghost.
If you have a mind that rarely mixes reality and fantasy, your opinions will be based on events of the real world. However, if your mind frequently mixes fantasy with reality, many of your opinions will be contaminated with pieces of your daydreams and night dreams.
How many open source advocates mix fantasy with reality? The documents from the open source people create a beautiful world in which people love each other and share everything. They create a world in which there are no financial issues to deal with. In this Open Source World we do only the things we enjoy, such as creating new software and sharing and loving, with no concern for where food or homes will come from. Also, there is no leadership, no supervision, no rules. Everybody is free to do as they please.
The open source concept makes us feel good. It is similar to the concept of heaven, except that we don't have to die to get there.
When I look at the human race and its history, I see intelligent apes having trouble coping with life. I see uncontrolled reproduction, loneliness, and mental retardation. I see people whose best friends are TV sets, animals, or inanimate objects. I see people struggling to be happy; hoping that money or fame will improve their miserable life. When I go into town or to a shopping center, I see people with bad posture, people who are seriously overweight, people with deformities, and people who are angry. When I look at the behavior of my fellow Americans, I see lots of cheating, lots of people trying to avoid responsibility, lots of people with drug and alcohol problems, and lots of fighting. I also see disease, ticks, fleas, and car accidents. There are also lots of people who are so desperate for money that they sell themselvesfor unpleasant and sometimes dangerous sex acts.
The world I see is not the same world that the open source advocates see. I think the open source advocates are seeing their fantasies, not the real world. Mental disorders can explain the lawsuits Class action lawsuits have been filed against VA Linux, Red Hat, Caldera, and Transmeta for stock fraud. Some or all of these frauds may turn out to be honest mistakes, or they may involve only people outside of the open source community. However, these lawsuits may be a sign that:
When millions of dollars are at stake, some of the open source people dump their noble goals and go after the money.
The confusion is due to mental disorders rather than cheating.
Recall the woman I mentioned who sometimes imagined that a cat from her childhood was in the house. You could put her through a lie detector test and ask her if she is certain that she saw the cat, and she would be able to say yes and pass the test every time.
Now consider the possibility that a Linux executive is suffering from a mild form of that same mental disorder. He may fantasize about acquiring investment money and creating a Linux business. He may fantasize all sorts of facts and figures for this business. He may tell investors that Linux is superior to Windows, and that millions of people are ready to switch to Linux. He may tell the investors that Linux and open source will dominate the world within a few years.
His proposal to investors will sound convincing, but those type of claims are based on fantasies. Years later, when the business fails to become what the investors were expecting, the investors may come to the false conclusion that the company deliberately cheated them.
The open source fanatics have been exaggerating the qualities of open source software for many years. They deceived a lot of people into installing Linux and investing in open source. They even deceived Corel into producing their own version of Linux, which wasted a lot of money that Corel could have spent on useful tasks. IBM is still pouring money into Linux. But the open source people refuse to take responsibility for any of this.
Many people beside me are disgusted by the open source people. They have wasted a lot of our time and money. But are the open source people cheating us? I doubt it. They seem to believe their hype. I think they are mentally ill, not dishonest.
Signs that Linux fanatics have mental disorders
Linux people have trouble with criticism
The Linux fanatics seem to have more trouble with criticism than normal people. I will give just one example. On 29 March 2001 Bill Machrone of ZDnet posted an article (New Linux Kernel Boosts Server Power, Desktop Compatibility). I posted a comment to it that criticized Linux. One of the readers reacted to my criticism with a comment that started with:
to anyone who's reading this: DON'T BELIEVE ERIC!!!
That reaction reminds me of a woman I once worked with. During her lunch break she purchased a meal from McDonald's and had been given some type of sweepstakes ticket with her meal. She was excited about the possibility of winning the grand prize. I looked at her sweepstakes ticket to see what her chances were. The odds were something in the order of 20 million to one. I thought this was amusing so I began reading out loud to the people in the room what the odds were for winning the different prizes. But as I started to read the odds, this woman became very upset and told me to stop it. I assumed she was just joking, so I continued to read. She then came over to me and took away at the sweepstakes ticket.
This woman deliberately ignored the odds on the back of the sweepstakes ticket because she was trying to live in a fantasy world in which she wins the grand prize. When I started reading the odds to her, I was attacking her fantasy world and pulling her back into reality. Her reaction was panic and fear. She did not want to be part of the real world.
The reaction to criticism by some Linux people reminds me of that behavior. Many Linux people do not respond to criticism with intelligent arguments. Rather, they react with panic. Some react by running away and hiding. Initially I assumed it was because some many Linux fanatics are children, who tend to hide behind mommy or daddy when something frightens them. But I have since noticed that many of these frightened Linux fanatics are adults!
Offer raw meat to Linux fanatics to avoid a fight
Notice how many articles that are critical about Linux begin with attempts to pacify the Linux fanatics. For two actual examples:
Before all you Linux fans who don't know me get into a lather, you should know that I've been using Unix as a desktop operating system
Please don't flame me afterwards as I didn't write it nor does it necessarily reflect my opinions on Linux.
This is analogous to offering a piece of raw meat to a wild dog in an attempt to prevent the dog from attacking you. What kind of people need articles to start with such remarks? Defective people, that's who.
What are FUD and trolls?
Until I looked at Linux sites that offer "talk back" features in which readers can post comments, I was unaware of the expressions FUD and troll. But Linux sites are full of these expressions. The slashdot.org site is an excellent source of these expressions.
Slashdot members label remarks that criticize Linux as FUD, and they describe the people who made the remarks as trolls. FUD stands for "Fear, Uncertainly, and Doubt", and I suppose a troll is subhuman creature who wants to hurt people for no reason.
At slashdot.org are some Linux fanatics who have been labeled as trolls simply for making critical remarks about Linux. Imagine this happening with other fields. Imagine an engineer at General Motors makes a critical remark about one of their cars, and the other engineers call him a troll and describe his remark as FUD.
Linux people do not tolerate criticism very well, but how can you improve a product if you refuse to look at its lousy qualities?
Detecting and Dealing With Trolls on K5
The issue of trolls and FUD are taken so seriously by some open source people that the www.kuro5hin.org site posted an article on how to identify and deal with trolls and FUD. The title is Detecting and Dealing With Trolls on K5
I was surprised to find the article describe many of the trolls as being slashdot trolls because I assumed slashdot and K5 were similar groups of people that got along with each other. This is yet another case of open source groups fighting with each other for reasons that I cannot make sense of.
Both slashdot and kuro5hin sites are full of angry articles and comments that promote open source. Both groups seem to be suffering from low self-esteem, and both are like children who are paranoid of trolls. I would describe the kuro5hin site as being a site for pompous geeks, while slashdot attracts the angry geeks.
Will they start an "Anti-Troll" initiative next?
A news article at linuxdevices.com discusses what they refer to as an anti-FUD initiative. Tim Bird of Lineo, Inc. wrote the initiative. One of Tim's remarks start with:
As a first step toward resolving FUD,...
Many Linux fanatics assume that when a person resists Linux, it is because trolls have released FUD into the newspapers and Internet, and that the FUD has confused the person. In other words, they see the non-believers as helpless, ignorant morons, and they imagine that trolls are taking control of the morons through the use of FUD. It never occurs to Linux fanatics that many of us have intelligent reasons for avoiding the open source movement.
Do Linux fanatics believe in a Free Press?
The attitude towards FUD and trolls is similar to the Communists who also assumed that communism was suffering due to the propaganda of the non-communists. The Communists wanted control of the media so that they could eliminate the anti-communist lies, thereby freeing the people from the horrors of propaganda. The communist media only published the truth.
If the Linux people had control of the media, would anybody be allowed to publish anything critical of Linux? I doubt it. Look at Linux sites right now. Actually, try to find an intelligent conversation at their sites! Their articles are like church sermons; ie, they promote Linux, ignore its problems, and resist admitting there are good qualities in Microsoft or Windows.
Linux fanatics claim to be fighting for freedom, but they do not want to provide us with the freedom to criticize Linux. The Communists also fought for freedom, but not for the freedom to criticize communism.
Don't kill me; help me!
The Communists believed so strongly in providing freedom that they killed and jailed millions of people who opposed communism.
What would happen if Linux fanatics had control of a nation? Would I be arrested for spreading FUD? Would millions of us trolls be taken to rehabilitation camps where we would be taught the truth?
If you think I am kidding about their inability to handle criticism, just post a link to my document at a Linux site or Linux Users Group and watch the reaction! The link to use is: http://members.aol.com/erichuf/Linux.html
However, you will find that many sites will not accept a link to my document because my document is FUD and I am a troll, and you are troll for wanting to post it! You may have to find a sneaky way to slip a link in.
The incessant boasting by Linux people
As I complained in my main document, the Linux people boast incessantly that Linux is superior to Windows. Initially I considered this to be a sign that Linux fanatics are primarily naive kids. However, I now wonder if Linux fanatics are withdrawn in a fantasy in which they imagine themselves as heroes who have developed a superior operating system that has defeated the evil empire of Microsoft. They treat Bill Gates as if he were Darth Vader. Their attitude belongs in a Star Wars movie or a role playing game rather than the real world.
Not much in life is free; why can't Linux people understand this?
The only truly free software is software that is developed by a person in his spare time at his own expense when he could be doing something else, such as socializing or gardening. So why do so many Linux fanatics promote this concept that software can be free?
I am not impressed by the promises of free software by the Linux people. Rather, it makes the wonder if the Linux people are stupid, or if they have withdrawn into a fantasy that does not have an economic system.Perhaps, in their fantasy, food and homes just appear magically when they want them.
We should stop promoting this absurd concept that we will get quality software for free. The only truly free software will be lousy because the people developing it will not have much time to work on it.
Let's now look at a few of the more famous open source advocates.
Richard Stallman
Richard Stallman is the founder of the Free Software Foundation. He started it in 1984, many years before Torvalds started Linux. Stallman is also half of the reason Linux came into existence because he provided Torvalds with the software (for free) that Torvalds was missing. Neither person had created enough software by themselves to make a complete operating system, but together they had something. (Torvalds ended up developing Linux further, while Stallman pursued other activities.)
I never met Richard Stallman, but I have read more than one article in which he was described as different from other people. For example, here is a quote from an article from The Register on 6 April 2001 which the author discusses Stallman's lecture at a conference at Queens' College, Cambridge:
Wearing socks but no shoes, brown canvas trousers and a red polo shirt, Stallman is not as other people.
There may have been a valid reason for him to be at the conference in socks rather than shoes. For example, he may have a medical problem and shoes are simply too painful. Or perhaps the airline lost his luggage, and he had no chance to buy another pair. Or maybe the British police took away his shoes because they were contaminated with hoof and mouth disease.
However, it could be a symptom of a defective mind. Most of us realize that society has certain behavioral standards, such as wearing shoes to conferences, especially if we are one of the speakers. But a person who is withdrawn in a fantasy may not be aware of what other people are thinking or doing. I suggest you consider the possibility that Richard was imagining himself at home in his living room; that Richard was not completely aware of where he was or what was going on around him.
I also suspect the description of Richard as not like other people is merely a nice way of saying there is something wrong with him.
When somebody at the conference spoke about patent protection for software:
This provoked Stallman into an extended rant against the whole idea of patenting software, and ended in him leaving the room to shout in the corridor...
The shouting incident may seem to be insignificant, but it could be a sign that something is wrong with his mind. I think that a grown man should be capable of dealing with a difference of opinion without shouting.Bill Gates is also rumored to lose his temper at Microsoft and shout at people. (Of course, Bill Gates is also rumored to slobber on people, which is a bit worse.)
If this was the only article that described Richard as being different, then we could say that this particular reporter is incorrect, or that this reporter just happened to see Richard during a bad moment. But other articles about Richard also make subtle remarks about his different personality.
Eric Raymond
Eric Raymond is interesting for several reasons. One is that he loves role playing games. See his document about role playing: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/larp.html I lost my interest in playing games when I was in junior high school. Do the adults who enjoy these role-playing games simply have different personalities than me? Or are they suffering from a mental disorder which causes them to withdraw from reality?
This issue also applies to sports, gambling, and beer. For example, some of the people who drink beer seem to be healthy people; others are merely using the beer to withdraw from reality into a state of intoxication.
In regards to adults who play games, especially role playing games, how can we figure out if they are merely playing a game or if they are suffering from a mental problem?
What do we learn from guns?
Eric Raymond also loves guns. You should read his following documents for details. (The ipscc1.htm document is also interesting because it describes tactical pistol shooting, which many of us don't know about.)
http://tuxedo.org/~esr/guns/personal.html http://tuxedo.org/~esr/guns/rig.html http://tuxedo.org/~esr/guns/gun-ethics.html http://tuxedo.org/~esr/guns/ipscc1.htm
I found a few of Eric's remarks about guns to be particularly interesting. In his discussion of ethics he has a section titled:
What Bearing Weapons Teaches About the Good Life
There is nothing like having your finger on the trigger of a gun to reveal who you really are. Life or death in one twitch
He goes on to explain that because a gun allows us to kill a person very easily, a gun has a lot of significance to our lives.
This made me think of my automobile. My automobile allows me to kill more people than I could kill with a gun. For example, I could crash my car through the fence of a school playground, running over dozens of children. As Eric might say:
There is nothing like having your hands on the steering wheel of a car to reveal you really are. Life or death in one twitch...
Later that evening as I held a jar of honey in my hand, I realized that Eric's remarks apply to honey as well. Until I read Eric's remarks about guns, I thought of honey as merely a sweet liquid. Now I realize that I'm holding a dangerous weapon. I could easily kill several infants by pouring honey down their throat and nose while they lay in their cribs. As Eric might say:
There is nothing like having your hands on a jar of honey to reveal who you really are. Life or death in one twitch...
When I hold a jar of honey, I am a powerful man who has control over the life of many infants. But please do not suggest that we ban honey. Honey does not kill; people kill.
Eric Raymond is only one of millions of people who are fascinated by a gun's ability to kill. Not many of these people are fascinated by the ability of an automobile to kill, or the ability of toxic chemicals to create birth defects, or our ability to kill with our bare hands. Is this fascination of guns a sign of good mental health? If so, what about a person who is fascinated by the ability of honey to kill? What would you think of a person who was fascinated that a plastic bag could be used to suffocate people? At what point would you say there is something wrong with these people?
Look around the room you are in and try to find an object that you could not kill somebody with. Almost everything can be used to kill. What makes a gun so special? Why does a gun reveal who we really are, but none of these other objects reveal who we are? What about the people who control missiles, nuclear submarines, and bombs? They have more control over people's lives than a person with a gun. If a gun reveals who we really are, what does having a nuclear bomb reveal? What would having a container of tuberculosis reveal?
I pity the oppressed Europeans
While at the tactical pistol shooting range, Eric Raymond had the following revelation:
I thought then of the historian J. A. Pocock's description of the beliefs of the Founding Fathers of the U.S:
The bearing of arms is the essential medium through which the individual asserts both his social power and his participation in politics as a responsible moral being...
and I felt a flash of pity for the all the frightened, self-disarmed people who have never understood the full truth of that. And more than a flash of loathing for the would-be gun-banners who would rape away their chance to ever learn.
Indeed, as Robert Heinlein famously observed, an armed society is a polite society.
As I read those remarks, I felt the flash of pity for all Europeans who are suffering under oppressive governments that prevent them from purchasing guns. As Robert Heinlein would have observed, the unarmed European societies are not polite societies. Rather, European nations are crude, rude, and unattractive. The Europeans are not a free people who enjoy life; rather, they are denied basic freedoms, such as owning guns.
Since I am American, I get to enjoy all the wonderful things of life. I have freedom, for example, whereas the people in other nations are oppressed.I have wealth, while other nations have poverty. I have a free press, while other nations have biased news and distorted history books. I certainly am glad that I am an American!
Let's reduce crime around the world
The crime rates in Europe, Singapore, Japan, and other nations is appalling. As Eric Raymond and many gun enthusiasts proudly boast, guns lower crime. As Eric describes it:
It is time for us to embrace bearing arms again not merely as a deterrent against criminals and tyrants, but as a gift and sacrament and affirmation to ourselves.
they have no desire to use it? Are they speaking for people such as me, who develop software? They imagine that they are freedom fighters, but who are they fighting for?
Why should the world listen to these open source people when they promote concepts that they themselves do not want to follow? Are these people truly leading us in the right direction? Or are they suffering from mental disorders?
What sort of community is Linux?
Another odd characteristic of the Linux movement is that many of the Linux users refer to themselves as a community. But what sort of a community is it when there is no cooperation, no leadership, and no coordination?
Linux is not a community at all. The Linux community is actually just a bunch of independent people scattered around the world. Each of them is doing and saying whatever they please with no regard to what other people are doing or saying.
I think the reason they refer to themselves as a community is because they are lonely and want to imagine that they are part of a social group. I suppose most Linux fanatics are social misfits. They want to imagine that they are part of a community and that they have friends. So they fabricated this fantasy of a Linux community.
Is Open Source different from Free Software?
Just as there is amazing disagreement on whether Linux is suppose to be a replacement to Windows, so is there amazing disagreement on what Open Source is and how it differs from Free Software. Richard Stallman was quoted in an interview at slashdot.org as saying:
Although I will not join the Open Source Movement,..
Stallman considers himself to be an advocate of free software, and he says there is a significant difference between free software and open source software. But everybody you ask will give you a slightly different answer on this issue. As with Linux, there is no leader to make decisions. The chaos of the Linux movement is so extreme that I suspect it is a sign that the Linux and open source fanatics are suffering from mental problems.
Linux is similar to a religion
Consider the similarity between Linux and religion: * A common remark among Linux people when somebody complains about open source is that we must read about open source until we get it. This is similar to the religions in which a person becomes born-again, or discovers Jesus Christ. Religious people cannot explain the process of being born again or discovering Jesus. Rather, we must simply get it.
* The Linux people ask for donations, as do churches.
* Linux fanatics routinely publish feel-good articles about how wonderful Linux and open source is. They never discuss issues seriously, nor do they tolerate criticism. Churches also routinely bombard their congregation with biased sermons. The sermons never discuss issues seriously, nor do churches tolerate criticism.
* Religions have a god, and the worshipers often have symbolic items that they wear as jewelry or collect in their homes. For example, the Christians collect crosses and images of Jesus. Many Linux people treat Torvalds as a god, and the penguin seems analogous to a statue of Jesus.
To some Linux users the penguin may be nothing more than a corporate logo that identifies the Linux software. However, compare Linux to other software applications. Are you aware of any other software in which the users or the developers have such an attraction to the software or its logo? And if you can find such a product, do you consider those people to be healthy?
Some Macintosh users are described as having an extreme attraction to the Macintosh, but even they do not seem to have the same level of attraction to the Apple logo or to Steve Jobs as the Linux people do to the Linux penguin and Torvalds. Steve Jobs was even tossed out of the Apple for a while; ie, he was treated as just another human being. Would Linux people consider dumping Torvalds and getting a different leader? I say Torvalds is performing worse as a leader than Steve Jobs ever did, but I have yet to hear a Linux fanatic say something critical of him.
void HelloMouse (void)
When software designed for MS Windows needs access to the computer's clock, it has to ask Windows to set up a timer. Microsoft programmers decided to call the request for a timer SetTimer, and when finished with the timer, the request is KillTimer. Windows also has several Destroy functions, such as DestroyMenu and DestroyIcon.
Microsoft programmers could have selected any name for these functions. For example, instead of KillTimer they could have called the function FinishedWithTimer or CloseTimer. The function that removes a menu could have been referred to as FinishedWithMenu or ClearMenu rather than DestroyMenu.
If computer programmers were happy, healthy people, their happy attitudes would certainly be reflected in the way they develop software. For example, a function that initializes a modem might be referred to as HelloModem.A function that terminates what is referred to as a child process might be called GoodByeChild or, if you want to be cute rather than informative, LoveYou.
I can only barely remember COBOL, but if I remember it correctly, a frequent statement in a COBOL program is something such as GO TO END. The programmer would use this statement mainly for documentation purposes to identify the end of a block in the program. The person writing the COBOL program could decide what to label these sections in order to be more descriptive. For example, he could write GO TO CLOSE FILES if a particular routine was finished processing files.
One of the teachers who taught me the basics about computer programming mentioned to us that in a previous group of students was a guy who was not very happy or cheerful. This guy would swear a lot in his normal conversations, and his COBOL programs reflected his unpleasant attitude. Specifically, he decided to always label his ending statement HELL, which meant that his COBOL programs were full of statements that stated GO TO HELL. He used a few other unpleasant phrases in his programs, but the teacher did not want to mention them.
The hints of violence, death, and destruction that we find in computer software could simply be a reflection of the violent nature of human beings rather than a sign that many computer programmers are defective. After all, most movies, TV shows, games, and other activities that we refer to as entertainment are destructive. The soap operas on television do not have much violence but they are full of emotional torture and suffering. Human beings are violent creatures, and it shows in our expressions, our daydreams, and our software.
If Linux programmers were happier than Microsoft programmers, we should find evidence of this in their software, in addition to finding evidence of this in their behavior. While I have not performed a serious analysis of either Microsoft or Linux programmers, what little I've seen suggests that neither group seems better than the other. My own software has more pleasant function names than both Windows and Linux.
Eazel has given up
On 19 April 2001 an article was posted about the financial troubles of Andy Hertzfeld's company (Eazel). Dell Computer and other companies invested and/or donated millions of dollars in his company, but by April Eazel needed more money. In May of 2001 they gave up.
Should you invest in former Apple employees?
Andy worked at Apple for a while. But before considering the significance of that, consider that occasionally a natural disaster will create a temporary shortage of fresh water. Each of us reacts slightly differently to these disasters. Some people whine about how cruel life is, while other people find ways to deal with the situation, and still other people look for ways to profit from the misery of others.
For example, several years ago a hurricane in Florida created a
Asphyxiated? That means suffocated.
It was my impression they burned to death in the veritable blast furnace the capsule turned into.
As for design flaws.. the major flaw was the test itself. In space, they would have been okay.
Why?
They used a very high concentration of O2 in the air, and raised the pressure a few PSI above normal, to simulate the forces on the capsule?
The result? ALthough all forces were the same on the capsule, and yes, they would use the same o2 mix in space.. there was WAY, WAY, WAY more oxygen in there considering they were at a few PSI over 1 Atmosphere, rather than a few PSI over vacuum. That's a HUGE difference in the amount of O2 available to burn.
So what would have been a potentially minor smoldering in space turned into a blast furnace on the ground.
The Space programs is americas claim to fame.
Maybe I haven't been paying attention closely enough, but I don't recall seeing articles commemorating the deaths of cosmonauts on /.
Valuable information about the FreeSoftware/OpenSource/Linux movements and their excellent, superior software can be found here, here, here, here and here.
Examples of the excellent community spirit within that movement that will help us bring down the evil, illegal Microsoft monopoly: here, here, here, here, here, here and here.
Support Free Software! Buy a mug or t-shirt today! This is how open source morons earn their money, you know! By being beggars!
Michael Sims is a liar and void of ethics.
...and include a new quick-opening hatch
;-)
Am I the only one thinking of the Simpsons episode where Homer jimmies the latch with a carbon rod which gets the fame rather than him?
Ah yes, this is Slashdot. I thought not.
--- Some say Netware is just like a wheel/ When you abend it, you can't mend it
Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)
by Julia Ecklar
In a tower of flame in capsule twelve
I was there
I know not where they laid my bones
it could be anywhere
but when fire and smoke had faded
a darkness left my sight
and I found my soul in a spaceship's soul (hull?)
Riding home on a trail of light
Chorus:
And my wings are made of tungsten
My flesh of glass and steel
I am the Joy of Terra
for the power that I wield
Once upon a lifetime I died a pioneer
Now I sing within a spaceship's heart...
Does anybody hear?
Before each mornings launch
they know that I am there
To the soul that warms this vessel's hull
they say a silent prayer
I am father ship and spirit
of the dream for which they strive
for I am man (?) at the hands of man
see us rocket for the sky
(Chorus)
My thunder rends the morning skies
Yes, I am here
Though lost to flame when I was man
Now I ride her without fear
For I am more than man now
and man builds me with pride
I lead the way, and I lead the way
of Man's future in the sky
(Chorus)
This song still gives me chills up and down my spine when I listen to it - it is quite possibly the most moving memorial to those who lead the way that I have ever heard.
Ad astra per aspera, Amen.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
the parent is a plagiarized troll. please moderate accordingly.
Custer's Revenge: The greatest video
Actually they were combining the pressure test and the O2 checks at the same time.(to save time because they were behind schedule) Unfortunatly the aluminum in thier suits burned at 14PSI of pure oxygen.
good luck,
sopwath
I used to work for the company that made some or all (don't know which) of the wire in the Apollo module. At one point, it was suggested that our wire caused the fire: the insulation was said to flow under pressure, thus becoming thin and allowing for a spark. All that was required was that the wire be stretched across a hard, rather sharp edge. Our company lived in dread of bad publicity, and we talked of the charges in hushed tones only. There was a very unpleaeant feeling associated with any mention of the topic...not because people died, but because the bigwigs were afraid of being blamed. Some insulation flows under pressure, some does not. Wrong insulation for that wire? If so, who chose the insulation? There is a strong tendency both to place blame on someone and to do all you can to cover your behind.....that sort of "It was not my fault, he did it" attitude was the company's motto. I hated working there.
Nasa's two disasters came on the 27th and 28th of January...
[echelon]
It's so nice to see /. giving space to this.
We get graced with so many great stories here (none of mine have NEVER been accepted! hee hee) regarding technology and not only about computers.
Technological growth is all exponential though. Now we realize all the great things that space exploration has contributed to, like Kevlar.
We probably don't think enough about how much our astronauts have contributed to the advancement of technology.
Then there's just the bravery of it all. Just think about what is actually happening: flying into space with a huge and very deadly rocket under your butt!
It's really amazing and back in the days of Apollo 1 it was all about doing what was so bleeding edge and untested.
It is such unexcelled bravery. It's mind boggling really. Into space and doing it with less computer power than a Commodore 64.
All the space pioneers were amazing and some of them gave all. God bless all of 'em, especially Apollo 1.
Y'all r stupid... we never landed on the moon. I had read such things on the web, but it took some serious reporting on the part of the Fox Network to really convince me. Anyway, Gus & Co. were killed because they were about to blow the lid on the whole thing...
really though, get a life, are you 12?
and if you are lucky maybe they will send them to your sorry ass!
American endurance has shown throughout the ages, though with a few setbacks like "war against communism" for instances, we never give up. I think that Apollo 1 should set as an example. America's war on terrorism will not stop and we were hit with a big blow, but we got right back up even more pissed off than we were before we got hit. Though not invincible, we as Americans, hold true in our beliefs. Democracy and the value of the individual American will always be held as a wonderful thing.
Is America perfect? No, but I'll tell ya what, I wouldn't turn my back on my country for a damn thing. Patriotism is strong in every American and will always be that way. We've set the groundwork to never have a facist dictator ever lead us (how many other countries can say that? ... yeah about 3). We don't have all the best things, but we sure as hell try to make sure that everyone knows that we're on top in every endeavor we take up.
Though the price was high, NASA has brought us things that were never once thought possible. To be able to sit in the heavens and sustain life. Maybe one day to be able to call even another planet, home. But that doesn't mean that Americans want to do it alone, hence the ISS.
So I'm proud to be an American, and proud to know that 3 men risked their lives to advance science and safety. And I also am more than happy to remember the veterns and fallen soldiers who fought to keep my country a free country. Thank you.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
Heyo!
Firstly, introductions all round. My name is [removed to protect dolphinlovers], musician, pre-vet student and Delphinic Zoophile. People are often wondering just what the hell zoophilia is. Zoophilia is best described as a love of animals so intimate that the person (and the animal) involved have no objections to expressing their affection for each other in the sexual fashion. This is not to be confused with bestiality, where a person forcefully mates an animal, without their consent, and with no mutual feelings whatsoever. This is something that I would never do to a dolphin, since I love them dearly, and treat them with the same respect that an honest husband would have for his wife and children.
Dolphins are very intelligent, highly emotional and expressive creatures. They enjoy the company of humans, and if a relationship develops between a human and a dolphin, as has happened with me, they will, on occasion, wish to express their trust and affection for you in the most direct way; through mating, or sex-play. You see, dolphins do not use sex purely for procreative reasons. They use it as a way of strengthening the bonds between pod mates (mothers and calves included), and also for fun. Dolphins and humans share this common trait with very few other animals, so sometimes it makes me wonder when people continue to ask me "How DO you mate with a dolphin?". Easy. Let the dolphin tell you!
Well, here is a selection of questions people have asked me, so I hope this sheds some light on the subject...
Q1) How do I tell a male dolphin from a female one?
A1) Probably the most common question I get asked. There are 2 ways of determining the sex of a dolphin. The most obvious way is to take a peek under the peduncle (the long part of the body connected to the tail flukes). On the dolphin's belly, directly opposite the dorsal fin, will be the umbilicus, or the navel of the dolphin. Looking further down towards the tail, you start to see the differences.
Male dolphins have two separate slits for the penis (the urogenital opening) and the anus. These are separated by a bridge of skin. The male's urogenital opening is generally located further up the belly, towards the navel.
Females, on the other fin, have one continuous larger slit, the anus located at the end of it. On either side of the genital slit, you will find two smaller slits; these are the mammary slits, where the nipples of the dolphin are kept for feeding the calves. The slit is also located closer to the tail stock of the dolphin.
The other way to determine the sex of a dolphin, if you can't reach their belly, is to look at their mellon, or head. The males tend to have a fatter, rounder mellon, while the females are more sleek and streamlined.
Q2) How do I know if a dolphin wants to have sex?
A2) There are various ways a dolphin has of showing that she or he is interested in sex.
Males are probably the easiest to detect. They will swim around, sporting an erection (anywhere between 10 to 14 inches long for a Bottle-nose), and will have no bones about swimming up to you and placing their member within reach of your hand. If you are in the water, they may rub it along any part of your body, or wrap it around your wrist or ankle. (Dolphin males have a prehensile penis. They can wrap it around objects, and carry them as such.) Their belly will also be pinkish in colour, which also denotes sexual excitement.
Females can be a little harder. The most obvious way a female dolphin has of displaying her sexual interest is the pink-belly effect. Their genitals become very pink and swollen, making the genital region very prominent. They may be restless, or they may be acting as normal. If you are out of the water, they may swim up to you and roll belly up, exposing themselves to you, coupled with pelvic thrusts. If you are in the water, they may press their genitals up against yours, nibble your fingers, nuzzle your crotch, or do pelvic thrusts against you.
Each dolphins way of expressing sexual readiness varies, so the longer you know the dolphin, the better you will detect when they are sexually active.
Q3) What do I do if a dolphin wants to mate with me?
A3) Accept, if possible! I will go through the steps involved with males and females...
The Male:
When a male dolphin is interested in you, about the only thing you can do, if you are male, is to masturbate him. (Unfortunately, I cannot speak for the female of the human species... it seems women just don't like dolphins enough... so I cannot say for sure if it is safe to mate with them. I would suspect not, due to a dolphins size, but then again, I cannot say for a woman.)
WARNING! In the considerations of safety, you should NEVER let a male dolphin attempt anal sex with you. The Bottle-nose dolphin member is around 12 inches, very muscular, and the thrusting and the force of ejaculation (A male can come as far as 14 feet) would cause serious internal injuries, resulting in peritonitus and possible death. Unless you are the masochistic type, you will have a hard time explaining your predicament to the doctors in the emergency ward....
A male dolphin's member is roughly S-shaped, tapered at the end. If you are in the water with them, it is best to support the dolphin on his side, just under the water, with one hand, and handle him with the other. Male dolphins, I find, tend to prefer the base of the penis to be gently massaged and squeezed, as well as gently rubbed along it's length. It feels very much like the rest of the dolphin (ie. smooth and rubbery to the touch, but firmer). It doesn't take long for the male to ejaculate, around 40 seconds to a minute, and this is usually accompanied by either shuddering just prior to ejaculating, and thrusting and tail-arching during ejaculation. The force of ejaculation can be powerful at times, so it is best to keep your face out of the line of fire, or keep his member underwater. You can attempt to lick and suck on the end of it while masturbating as well, but be warned, do not try to give full throat, and get the hell out of the way before he ejaculates! A male dolphin could snap your neck in a accidental thrust, and that would be the end of that relationship.
The Female:
Well, the females are again a little trickier. There are two courses of action with a female fin: Masturbation, or mating.
Masturbation: Female dolphins, once they show interest in you, can be supported in much the same way as the male, one hand under the fin, supporting her, the other doing the stimulating. The clitoris of the female is located at the top of the genital slit, and is a prominent lump when erect. You can rub this with your finger tips, or lick and suck it, but with the oral aspect, you might end up with a bruised nose as they thrust up into you. You can slide your hand gently into their genital opening, and feel around inside, rubbing gently. They feel warm and muscular inside, their labia like tough, squishy sponge when they are excited. Don't be surprised if they start to play with your hand inside them. They have very manipulative muscles, and can use them to carry and manipulate objects, including your hand. (They can do things that would make a regular human woman turn green with envy.) Their climax is coupled with stiffening, shuddering, sometimes a lot of thrusting, clinching of the vaginal muscles, and sometimes vocalization.
Mating: This is harder. Obviously, being human, it is awkward, but not impossible to mate in open water. It is easier to have the dolphin in a shallow area (like the shallows just off the beach) around 1 1/2 to 2 feet deep. This is usually comfortable enough for both the dolphin and you. Gently, you should roll the dolphin on her side, so she is lying belly-towards you. You can prop yourself up on an elbow, and lie belly to belly against her. You may want to use the other arm to gently hold her close, and place the tip of your member against her genital slit. She will, if interested, arch her body up against you, taking you inside her body. There is usually a fair bit of wriggling and shifting, usually to get comfortable, both outside and inside. Once comfortable, though, females initiate a series of muscular vaginal contractions that rub the entire length of your member. They may also thrust rhythmically against you, so enjoy the experience while you can, since you will rarely last longer that a minute or two. Just prior to her climaxing, she will up the speed of her contractions and thrusts. It is interesting to note that the times I have mated with females, they have timed their orgasm to mine. Whether they do this consciously or not, I do not know, but it is a great feeling to have two bodies shuddering against each other at the one time.
One thing to note. Whether you masturbate or mate a fin, male or female, always spend time with them afterwards. Cuddle them, rub them, talk to them and most importantly, show them you love them. This is essential, as it helps to strengthen the bond between you. Like a way of saying that this wasn't just a one-night fling. The dolphins appreciate it, and they will want your company more the next time you visit them.
Q4) What diseases can I get from dolphins? Can I give them any?
A4) I have had no experiences with Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD's) with dolphins, so I couldn't rightfully say. I do know, however, that you can pass the Flu between you, along with other respiratory problems. (I got a cold when a dolphin sneezed on me once. It cleared up after a week or so.) You can also pass some skin irritations on to them, if you handle them with chaffed or broken skin. Just like with a human, it is best to BE CLEAN when you handle a dolphin. If you have cuts on your hands, avoid touching them unless you wash with a Betadine surgical scrub prior to handling. This is available from most Veterinary and Surgical suppliers. If you have some disease of some sort, avoid mating, for the dolphins sake. This is a little known area, more so because Zoophilia is considered illegal in many places (which I think is a load of crud, but the law's the law....)
Q5) Is their any way I can invite a dolphin to be masturbated?
A5) Well, yes. If they are hanging around, but not looking particularly excited, but you are, you can invite them with this way...
Male and Female dolphins can be invited by rolling them on their sides, again, but instead of going straight to the genital slit, rub along their bellies, between their pectoral fins, along the navel, and every once in a while, over the genital slit. If they are responsive, they will show the signs of excitement as described earlier, and you can proceed as usual. If, however, they are not responsive, they will swim away, or turn back upright. DO NOT force the issue with a dolphin! Trying to restrain them will only break their trust in you, and could cause you serious injury. Pat them, stroke them and talk to them lovingly, but do not try anything else. It is best, anyway, to let the dolphin tell you when they are ready. It is far more pleasant, and more fulfilling anyway. And more special.
Q6) Where can I find a dolphin to mate with?
A6) Aquariums are a bad choice, for many reasons. Too public, the dolphins are not in their natural habitat, night visits are impossible, etc etc... some may have external enclosures, which may be accessible, but that is no guarantee. Best thing sometimes is to find a beach or a cove that the dolphins frequent. It takes time to develop a relationship with a dolphin to the point where they will let you mate with them (although some have been as quick as 3 days to acclimatize). Gaining their trust takes time, and you need to visit frequently. This is impossible for some people, I understand, but it is the best way. Sometimes you just need to be in the right place at the right time. I have been extremely lucky on two occasions with wild dolphins, and my current mate is a dolphin who lives in the harbor of my resident city.
Well, I hope this is of use to whoever is interested. One final note. You should love a dolphin, not because of the sexual relief they can provide, but because they are a unique animal, one of the few wild animals that seek the company of man by their own initiative. This is special. Do not abuse it.
They cut the middle part of the post!
Bastards!
Please follow the link at the top of that post for the whole article!
close your pc, and go outside for a change, if you are so miserable that all you can type is nonsense, then its time to do somthing else for a while, really..
Fscking Slashdot editors cut the middle part of the post. Please follow the link at the top of the parent post for the whole article!
I still have an empty spot on my heart, both for the crew of Apollo 1 and the Challenger. My father worked for NASA during the space race up until 10 years ago. I was neat getting the 8x10 publicity pictures for reports, the walls, etc.
... but think about it.
Even though I'm an old poop now, I still keep a few hanging, and one wall, is the crew of the Apollo 1 to remind me not to take things for granted.
Yeah, I know, I sound like a big wuss
In spite of this tragedy, we still managed to put a man on the moon with little more than vaccum tubes and slide rules !
healyourchurchwebsite.com - WWJB?
haiiii i am new here. ctc? asl????????
I think there were two issues that led to the disaster of Apollo 1:
1. There was WAY too much exposed combustible material inside the capsule. Even if the atmosphere inside the capsule during the test sported a gas mix similar to regular air if a fire broke out it would have been extremely difficult to douse the fire.
2. The fact the atmosphere was close to pure oxygen meant that if a fire broke out it would have burned with extreme ferocity.
That was why by the time Apollo 7 flew in October 1968 the entire capsule owed almost nothing to the original capsule design--all the combustible material were replaced by fire-retardant equivalents and the gas mixture on the launch pad was equivalent to air, which slowly changed to pure oxygen by the time the Apollo CSM was in orbit.
What was not known to the Americans was in the early 1960's during a series of tests to develop Soviet manned space vehicles a fire broke out in a test space capsule design with a cosmonaut in it when it was filled with pure O2--the cosmonaut burned to death.
How are you?
When I saw this screen saver, I immediately thought about you.
I am in a hurry, I promise you will love it!
what many of you that are commenting on are failing to realize is that you are using your perspective of "today" and not from that time. My dad was part of the apollo project and specifically was part of the accident and redesign team that focused on all aspects of the electrical system. I had the fortune to visit the launch pads and facilites in florida where he worked shortly before he passed away. The hatch may have prevented them from getting out, but fire in the capsule was not considered a possibility at that time. It was an engineering choice. After the accident they went through the entire design, testing, production phases and made significant changes on everything. the cause was a short in the oxygen panel in a rarified oxygen atmosphere. It was a flashfire that they could not have escaped even if they could have My dad was very proud to have helped to redesign the entire electrical system, but he also pointed out that they (engineers) took the time to go through every system on the entire craft. All the engineers took the acident personally and went out their way contribute to the improvements. It was a time of unknowns and great challenges and shows the quality of the human spirit in the face of adversity.
Yup, and Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy, yada yada. Coincidences happen, especially when the involve a restricted name space, like alphabets or calendar years. Some are meaningful, but most are not. If we could compare the coincidences that do happen with those that don't, we'd be less impressed.
Standing there alone
The ship is waiting
All systems are go
"Are you sure?"
Control is not convinced
But the computer
Has the evidence
No need to abort
The countdown starts
Watching in a trance
The crew is certain
Nothing left to chance
All is working
Trying to relax
Up in the capsule
"Send me up a drink"
Jokes Major Tom
The count goes on
4, 3, 2, 1...
Earth below us
Drifting, falling
Floating weightless
Calling, calling home
Second stage is cut
We're now in orbit
Stabilizers up
Running perfect
Starting to collect
Requested data
"What will it affect
When all is done?"
Thinks Major Tom
Back at ground control
There is a problem
"Go to rockets full"
Not resonding
"Hello Major Tom
Are you receiving?
Turn the thrusters on
We are standing by"
There's no reply
4, 3, 2, 1...
Earth below us
Drifting, falling
Floating weightless
Calling, calling home
Across the stratosphere
A final message
"Give my wife my love"
Then nothing more
Far beneath the ship
The world is mourning
They don't realize
He's alive
No one understands
But Major Tom sees
"Now the light commands
This is my home,
I'm coming home."
4, 3, 2, 1...
Earth below us
Drifting, falling
Floating weightless
Calling, calling home
There was no officially designated Apollo 1. The first was Apollo 2 I believe.
Are you delusional or what? Nazi moonbases? Are you mentally ill or what? Please seek professional help. Conspiracy theorists like you should be put up against a wall and shot.
from the NASA site:
"The missions of AS-201 and AS-202 with Apollo spacecraft aboard had been unofficially known as Apollo 1 and Apollo 2 missions (AS-203 carried only the aerodynamic nose cone). In the spring of 1967, NASA's Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, Dr. George E. Mueller, announced that the mission originally scheduled for Grissom, White and Chaffee would be known as Apollo 1, and said that the first Saturn V launch, scheduled for November 1967, would be known as Apollo 4. The eventual launch of AS-204 became known as the Apollo 5 mission (no missions or flights were ever designated Apollo 2 and 3). "
These early explorers were in many ways treated like lab animals, yet they soared trough the heavens like living gods: can you imagine what it was like being the first humyn to see the earth from space?
And yet, it is the fate of all pioneers for the trails they first blazed to be trod by myriad lesser souls. As the unspoiled lands explored by Lewis, Clark, and Sacajawea are now criss-crossed by highways, so the ethereal realm of the early astronauts is now a playground for billionaires.
Oh well, on to Mars, I suppose.
This is in fact true. but nasa and the govt have a history in not choosing the best design, the safest or even something that has a working prototype. The replacement shuttle project was a prime example.. we have a VTOL self contained re-useable space vehicle designed, and was working (2 prototype flying around happily.) yet they chose a vaporware lift body design that relied on vaporware engines and vaproware designs. result? that project died (as expected) and we now dont have a replacement for a space vehicle that was designed in 1969.
commercilization of space is mankinds only hope... expecting a politician to do the right thing is the same as believing that they plan to keep those promises they made during an election year.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Mirsborp Schmorgasbort! Trolla Trolla.
Jafhiaolooop! Froop! Sbernopsy! Derp!
MOD THIS UP! This is way above the average childish slashdot post!
Sarcasm.
I thought that breathing pure oxygen got you high, that it was like taking a drug. Why were they doing this then? Did they have some way of counteracting this? Or were they doing it because it would simulate the physical conditions of actually being in space?
Put that in your pipe and smoke it you liberal whiners. We put men on the fucking moon! Do you realize the importance of that? Its the single greatest achievement in the 20th century and probably of all time.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
I think these lyrics are made for you:
I wake you up in the morning baby with a kick in the tit I treat you like shit!
You love it
Smack you right in the face now baby, just to show you I care
And then I kick you pregnant ass right down the stairs
Slap slap slap
U around
Slap slap slap
U around
Slap slap slap
U around
All day.. All day,
every fucking day I pay the doctor bills baby,
so I'll break what I want I spend all my money in a fucking restaurant
I let you live in my house now woman,
I take you out on the town I want some payback now woman,
I get to slap you around
Slap slap slap
U around
Slap slap slap
U around
Slap slap slap
U around
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
I make a one-line post about the apparent lack of attention to non-American deaths and I get smacked down as flamebait? I wasn't even intending to be flamebait!
THIS is flamebait:
If Apollo 11 can commemorate the deaths of Gagarin and Komarov alongside the friends they lost on Apollo 1, why can't I even reference Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11 missions in passing on Slashdot?
You guys are a fucking joke, this guy hit the nail on the head as far as the country goes and the methods we use to reach our goals.
Free Unix? Free Windows. http://www.reactos.com
Interestingly enough, in order to keep with the desired "20% oxygen" atmosphere of the capsule, NASA decided that they would create a total O2 environment, but at only 20% of the pressure to give the same net result. Unfortunately, of course, this created a COMPLETE oxygen environment which allowed the fire to spread wildly. From then on (the next manned mission would be Apollo 7) and including today's Shuttle, the compatment contents are kept at 20% oxygen by means of an air consisting of 20% oxygen and 80% nitrogen.
Apollo 7 and on also gave the astronauts complete and independent use of an emergency hatch opener, a lesson tragically learned from Apollo 1.
AC
I forget which Apollo mission it was, but it was one of the ones that made it to land on the moon. The crew were down and they were getting ready to leave and a switch snapped off. Left them in quite a pickle. Of course, their suits bulky gloves couldn't depress it. And without it, they couldn't leave. IIRC, this was solved with one of the super-fancy space pens.
Perhaps some other slashdotter will post the link to the story about this - some sci-fi author (Spider Robinson) wrote about it (in the context of whether it made sense to spend piles of cash developing a pen that could write in space).
It just illustrates the point that space is the most unforgiving environment we're aware of. The Antarctic and the deep sea floor might be close competitors, but space still has them beat. If engineers and astronauts can overcome the kinds of challenges space presents, that is quite an achievement.
We talk about the trickle down from space technologies... and we bitch about the costs of the space program. Quite frankly, it isn't that expensive when you think of the things that have worked there way down to us from that program, that might not have otherwise been developed.
Add to that the fact that one of the major things lacking in our modern world is aspirations and dreams. The dream of getting off the planet to Mars, and then to other systems, should be a powerful draw. It offers us new horizons, new frontiers, a chance to be new pioneers, not just custodians of the remnants of the past. It offers us opportunities to expand our horizons, to learn, and maybe one day to discover other life forms. That has to be the single greatest opportunity I can imagine, and if the dream of going to space doesn't fire your blood, then you're already dead.
Besides, we'd better get some of our populace into some other stable biosphere just in case a big chunk of space debris decides to make a bank shot and knock Earth into the Sun. (With apologies to Dave Lister, cosmic pool player extrordinaire).
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
On the tape, you can hear them screaming as they burn alive. It's one of the most horrible sounds I've ever heard, bar none.
So, even if the official cause of death is asphixiation, don't get the idea that they quietly went to sleep as all the air got used up. The suits didn't withstand it, or weren't closed. It was an oxygen blast furnace.
Erik
Nasa engineers believed that before the fire actually flashed (almost like a flashbulb, with all that exotic metal in a pure O2 atmosphere), the insulation smouldered for a bit. They decided that one way to prevent future accidents of that sort was to detect the smoke the preceededs the fire.
So they commissioned research to do so. And the result was the ionization-type smoke detector. Which you can now buy at any hardware store for as low as ten dollars, and which is required by zoning for virtually all human-habitable houses in the US and many other countries.
These devices have saved many thousands of lives so far, and will continue to do so.
These devices use a small radioactive source to ionize smoke particles, so they don't need to depend on natural ionization and can thus detect extremely miniscule amounts of smoke. This greatly increases their sensitivity, giving much earlier warning. The anti-nuclear hysteria was in full cry at the time. So it's unlikely a private company would have tried to design and market such a device for consumers. But for a NASA project, for short-term use above the atmosphere, it made sense. Once the device was done and its characteristics known, it was easy to show that a tiny amount of short-lived isotope, whose radiation doesn't leak beyond the container during the device's service life, was a miniscule risk compared to the number of lives saved. And a classic NASA spinout occurred.
So the fire and the deaths of the three astronauts was the direct cause of the invention and introduction of practical domestic smoke detectors, which otherwise certainly would not have been introduced for decades, if ever.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
This is what we like to see! Americans made into toast! Wonderful! Why don't you all do this?
That was funny shit, they burned like a match.
You are wrong. The mission was ORIGINALLY designated Apollo 204, but then NASA director Webb changed it to Apollo 1 due to a request from Grissom's wife. There's a bit of trivia for you.
When your karma gets above a certain point, you get a free +1 bonus to your posts. My karma hasn't been below 47 for about a year or so, so I have the bonus. The only reason this post is at 1 is becuase I turned off the +1 bonus for this post.
If you notice, my first post started at two and had to be modded down twice to get down to 0.
But you missed the point.
Firstly, I know what pressure is.
Secondly.. no, there is not much difference between 14.7PSI and 16.7PSI (the 2PSI overpressure is to simulate the pressure in outer space.)
The DIFFERENCE is that they were trying to simulate real conditions in space.
But in space, yes, the cabin pressure would be 2PSI higher than outside. Which would make it.. 2PSI!
So. 2PSI of pure oxygen, or 16.7PSI.. which is more? You guessed it.
No, cabin pressure was supposed to be at 5 psi in space. From the perspective of the dangers of a fire, it hardly makes a difference if it's 5 psi or 16.7 psi if the environment is PURE OXYGEN. Even 1960's most state-of-the-art fire-proof materials would burn at 5 psi in PURE OXYGEN.
1) It wasn't a pure oxygen atmosphere. Pure o2 is deadly poisonous. It was a oxygen rich environment. Very big difference.
2) Components weren't flammable. They were combustable.
3)Pressure inside the capsule didn't rise -- a vacuum was formed due to the consumption of oxygen by the fire.
Someone told me this (most likely apocrophyl) story about the differences between the US and the USSR engineers in the space program. The American's spent tens of thousands of dollars to come up with a pen that would work in the harsh enviroment of outter space: zero-g, temperature changes, uv rays, etc.
:)
The Russians used a pencil.
Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know.
Richard Muller at Berkeley used lunar soil gathered by the Apollo astronauts to demonstrate that impact cratering significantly increased around 500 million years ago. Moreover, the craters appear to cluster around every 26 million years (last cluster occured 13 million years ago.)
Muller hypothesized that the periodic cratering is due to a star that orbits the sun. Every 26 million years, it comes swinging closer into the sundragging debris from the Oort cloud. Some of that debris ends up hitting either the earth or the moon.
500 million years ago is referred to as the Cambrian explosion because the fossil record shows a huge proliferation of different species. There have been a number of hypothesis as to what precipated the increase in life forms and Muller's data does an excellent job of supporting comet/asteroid impact. There's more at Lawrence Livermore
It may be that the Apollo program has yielded a significant clue as to why we aren't all just a bunch of jellyfish.
Thanks! :)
I think what you forgot is that the Soviets had the chance to really take a step closer to a moon mission had the Soyuz 1 mission worked. Unfortunately, the Soyuz 1 capsule suffered all kinds of system failures during its flight, which resulted in a re-entry that resulted in a tangled parachute line. This caused the capsule to literally crash into the ground, killing the cosmonaut on the flight.
The Soviet moon program never really recovered from that tragedy, because the a derivative of the Soyuz spacecraft was to have flown to the moon. Realizing its limitations, the Soviets decided to use Soyuz as an Earth-orbiting spacecraft, which has worked well to this day.
You're right, cabin pressure was supposed to be 5psi in space. But 5psi of oxygen in a 5psi environment behaves little or no differently than 5psi of oxygen in a 14.7psi environment. Of course the partial pressure of oxygen in air at 1atm is slightly less than 5psi, so the fire danger in the cabin at 5psi would be greater than in normal air. But it would still be FAR LESS than a pure oxygen environment at 16.7psi.
The article from Spider thanks to Google cache.
BTW, you'll notice I never mentioned who'd developed it. And the discussion about the merits of these kinds of projects is hardly urban myth, thanks very much. The point is people question whether these kinds of projects are worthwhile. Moreso, admittedly, if it is public money. But even if it is not. (and I never suggested it was!)
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
If an important anniversary time is coming up, may I venture to suggest that it might be advisable for the Slashdot Editors to post these advisories at a time such that all of their readers *around the world* were given adequate prior notice ?
Let's say 24 Hours in advance ?
Then again, it would be nice if posts distinguished between
"its" and "it's" and "then" and "than" ( for the still-literate, non-US readers ).
One can but dream.
Now I haven't seen that before, goatse.cx masquerading as slashdot.
Hmmm, in the HBO series "From the Earth to the Moon", they claimed that there mission was to be known as Apollo I, but was renamed to avoid having a failure associated with the first Apollo missions. The series was pretty serious about getting details right, and showing all the little aspects of the Space program that are less public. Not stating your incorrect, just that this was a different perspective.
Hmmm, no-one seems to have mentioned Andrew Chaikin's excellent Apollo resource A Man on the Moon - you can read the first few pages of the section on Apollo 1/AS201 using amazon's "Look Inside" feature. If you can't abide to buy anything from amazon for whatever reason, the ISBN is 0140272011 for the most recent paperback edition, and 0783556799 for the bloody expensive illustrative commemorative boxed set edition.
Probably one of the best, most accessible books on the subject of Apollo.
neuro at well dot com (when I post, it's my opinions, no-one elses)
OK it's late here, I have a cold and I want to sound profound but...
Oxygen combines with other elements and that's called oxidizing or really fast oxidizing is called burning. If you're in a room made of just metal while wearing a space suit that doesn't oxidize and you light a match the match will burn like crazy because of all the oxygen saturating it, and then it stops. You won't burn and the room won't explode because there's nothing else for the oxygen to combine with. Doesn't that sound right?
Was there enough wiring and other junk in the space capsule to sustain a fire that intense? I guess so from the result but it seems weird.
(* ...were unable to convince the people at NASA through a series of confusing charts and misinformation.*)
I sense a great angle here for a PowerPoint ad.
"....if they had just used PowerPoint..."
Table-ized A.I.
(* The only problem with complaining about the beauracracy is how do have a moon shot without one? *)
I don't know why they gave you a zero. That is a good point.
I don't know of any large successful project where the nerds had most of the control. There are successful experiments by nerds, but the jillions of failures before it never make the history books.
I don't like PHB's and Buroheads either, but what the fudge are the proven alternatives?
Table-ized A.I.
I had a simulation subcontract from NASA in 1966. I needed data on the characteristics of the ventilation control valve in the Apollo Command Module which allowed the crew to breathe module-supplied air or their suit's air (IIRC). My employer's contact man at the MSC had a great deal of trouble chasing down these data. He finally found them two hallways away from a man who should have had the data. He estimated that he had saved NASA two weeks from their normal data handling methods in getting that valve data to the right engineer.
I told my wife afterward that I thought the people at the MSC would wind up killing someone.
When the account fo the horrible pad accident was published, I felt sick about it; not because I could have done anything that might have prevented it, but because there was nothing I could do despite my offhand conviction.
Asphixiated? More like incinerated. Pure oxyigen will cause most anything to burn completely and pictures of the capsule showed only ashes left of the interior.
nohup rm -rf ~/. >& zen &
NASA didn't just review the hatch & capsule design after this incident, they reviewed every aspect of the Saturn V design and made many improvements. Engineers who worked on the project have since said that without this review the Apollo missions would not have made it to the moon.
Here is a quick link to one of NASA's sites that talks about some of their product spinoffs. Not a lot of details, but interesting.
I don't know for certain, but didn't Mercury, Gemani, and Apollo astronauts stay sealed in their suits?
Thus, what they were breathing may not have been the same as the capsule atmosphere.
The Space Shuttle is a differant shirt-sleeves enviroment.
.
(David Bowman, EVA near HUGE Monolithic Win-PC in orbit around Jupiter) "My God - its full of Malware!"
EOM
I'm reminded of the "From the Earth to the Moon" documentary put out by HBO. In testimony to the Senate regarding the accident, an astronaut (I can't remember the name off the top of my head) was asked to explain what killed the astronauts in Apollo 1.
His response was basically "Lack of Imagination". His claim was that no one imagined that the type of test that was occuring was actually dangerous.
It is always easy to sit here with the perspective of history and blame all sorts of people. The fact is that in the case of Apollo 1, with no intention of firing off the main rockets, it simply did not occur to ANYONE that there was serious danger.
The book What Do You Care What Other People Think? (at least I think that's the title) has an autobiographical account of Richard Feynman's experiences on the investigative team of the Challenger disaster. (This would be the guy who dipped pieces of O-ring plastic into his glass of ice water at a news conference to demonstrate the problem.)
I highly recommend reading it.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
>So they commissioned research to do so.
>And the result was the ionization-type smoke detector.
Today the research would have to be kept secret,
until it was patented. The patent royalties would
have to be high enough that nobody could make a
household smoke detector to be sold at a consumer
price level.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
I found this at a nasa site.
l o1 info.html
The mission, originally designated Apollo 204 but commonly referred to as Apollo 1, was officially assigned the name "Apollo 1" in
honor of Grissom, White, and Chaffee.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apol
Hey, for what its worth, i metamoded as "unfair" the guy who modded you down as a troll. Just so you know. :)