Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US & Russia Show Off New Rocket Designs

Posted by michael on from the fourth-of-july dept.

jonerik writes "Following up on today's story on the Soviet Union's massive N1 rocket are these two articles on the latest US and Russian rocket designs. Space.com covers the American side of things, with a story on Lockheed Martin's Atlas 5 and Boeing's Delta 4 boosters. The Associated Press has this article on the Russians' Rokot booster, originally built in the '70s as the SS-19 ICBM and converted to civilian use in the mid-'90s. The Rokot was in the news this past weekend when it successfully launched a pair of US-German satellites - dubbed Tom and Jerry - into orbit to map the Earth's gravitational field and 'chart large-scale movements of water around Earth.'"

16 of 121 comments (clear)

  1. Slashcode's HTML vs. Microsoft HTML by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic
    Introduction

    Recently there has been some controversy over Slashdot's apparent disregard for browsers other than Konqueror or Netscape (*cough* IE *cough) ability to render the page, and some unfortunate crapfloods which would appear differently in different browsers.

    The "editors" (I use the term loosely) of Slashdot appear to believe that Slashcode generates perfect HTML which any browser should render correctly, else the browser must be "buggy".

    Slashcode's HTML Output

    Just curious, I tried running the front page of Slashdot through the W3 validator to test this claim. The results were shocking.

    Lets stick to the facts and drill down into the numbers. The W3 validator found HUNDREDS of errors on the very first page of Slashdot that you view every day. It terminated with the simple line Sorry, this document does not validate as HTML 3.2..

    So, what is broken? Is it IE? Or is it the amateur garage-style open source code which is at fault? You be the judge.

    Apparently, Slashcode follows the open source coding and testing ethic of "it worked for me". It's just too much to ask them to try to test their code for conformance and compliance, or even just try it on a variety of platforms.

    Microsoft's HTML Output

    Still curious, I tried running msn.com and microsoft.com through the validator. I was totally taken aback when the validator reported ZERO ERRORS in *either* of these pages.

    Conculsion

    1. It may benefit the coders to attempt to adapt to some kind of acceptable process for designing, writing, and testing their own code. Perhaps some professional experience would be beneficial here. Certainly an accountability for certain quality standards must be implemented.

    2. Perhaps Slashdot should consider switching to IIS 5.0 or .NET server and rewriting their code using a stable, reliable platform like Visual C++ or .NET. Perhaps only then will the browser compatbility issues will be resolved.

    These are just suggestions. I am here to help.

    1. Re:Slashcode's HTML vs. Microsoft HTML by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Conculsion?
      Perhaps you should consider validating through a spellchecker.

    2. Re:Slashcode's HTML vs. Microsoft HTML by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic
      It's funny how Slashdot "administration" chooses to ignore probably 80% of all Slashdot readers (IE users).

      It's also a dirty shame that your truly interesting post will languish in the land of the -1 before long. Expected, but still a shame.

    3. Re:Slashcode's HTML vs. Microsoft HTML by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      People bitch too much...slashdot displays fine on my work browser(ie 5) school(ie 4) and home(ie 6) Not to mention mozilla/konquerer/netscape...i dont doubt there are bugs in their code, but geez drop the freakin conspiricies

    4. Re:Slashcode's HTML vs. Microsoft HTML by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      i went and ran a whole load of popular sites and they all checked out fine. slashdot is really fscked up to be the only one that doesnt check out.

    5. Re:Slashcode's HTML vs. Microsoft HTML by AnalogBoy · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      whoever you are.. I love your work :)

      -analogboy

  2. Third psot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Third Post for Katie!!!

    Get it in ya, Logged in Bitches!

  3. Those rockets remind me of something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Penis! They remind me of PENIS! What I wouldn't give for a hot twink right now...

  4. Re:The US REALLY needs some competition by dolphin558 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    How does the scoring work? Are fellow members doing it? Can someone please explain this?

  5. Try the +1 troll bonus by Oily+Tuna · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Introduction
    Recently there has been some controversy over Slashdot's apparent disregard for browsers other than Konqueror or Netscape (*cough* IE *cough) ability to render the page, and some unfortunate crapfloods which would appear differently in different browsers.

    The "editors" (I use the term loosely) of Slashdot appear to believe that Slashcode generates perfect HTML which any browser should render correctly, else the browser must be "buggy".

    Slashcode's HTML Output

    Just curious, I tried running the front page of Slashdot through the W3 validator [w3.org] to test this claim. The results were shocking.

    Lets stick to the facts and drill down into the numbers. The W3 validator found HUNDREDS of errors on the very first page of Slashdot that you view every day. It terminated with the simple line Sorry, this document does not validate as HTML 3.2..

    So, what is broken? Is it IE? Or is it the amateur garage-style open source code which is at fault? You be the judge. [w3.org]

    Apparently, Slashcode follows the open source coding and testing ethic of "it worked for me". It's just too much to ask them to try to test their code for conformance and compliance, or even just try it on a variety of platforms.

    Microsoft's HTML Output

    Still curious, I tried running msn.com and microsoft.com through the validator. I was totally taken aback when the validator reported ZERO ERRORS in *either* of these pages.

    Conclusion

    1. It may benefit the coders to attempt to adapt to some kind of acceptable process for designing, writing, and testing their own code. Perhaps some professional experience would be beneficial here. Certainly an accountability for certain quality standards must be implemented.

    2. Perhaps Slashdot should consider switching to IIS 5.0 or .NET server and rewriting their code using a stable, reliable platform like Visual C++ or .NET. Perhaps only then will the browser compatbility issues will be resolved.

    These are just suggestions. I am here to help.

    --
    Mmmmmmm ... sushi.
    1. Re:Try the +1 troll bonus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      repost as a new parent post please

    2. Re:Try the +1 troll bonus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Msn.com and microsoft.com returned no errors because the validator had problems parsing and could not validate the documents...try reading

  6. NASROCKET by Baldrson · · Score: 2, Offtopic

    Until people stop thinking about rockets as though they were religious icons and start thinking about them like dragsters, we will get nowhere fast in space.

    --
    Seastead this.
    1. Re:NASROCKET by Baldrson · · Score: 1, Offtopic
      people die

      All the time... Even at NASCAR rallys and Winternationals.

      You need to spend more time around rednecks.

      --
      Seastead this.
  7. Re:Human Rocketry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    anything less than a saturn 5 and i would say no

  8. EDITORS ABUSING POWER AGAIN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    I can't beleive this!

    Not content with moderating my parent comment down, CmdrTaco and friends have gone though the last 5 of my posts (some of which were over 1 month old) and moderated them down as well.

    Looks like censorship is alive and well in slashdot land.