Also, have they solved the rampant security issues with IoT shit yet? If not, WTF? Thanks for adding to the botnet problem, San Diego. Can't wait to hear about how your entire IoT net has been hacked, and is now under the control of some unknown third party.
Ain't that the truth? IT's going to be really interesting when San Diego gets owned. Because it will get owned.
It's true that proximity is one of the top drivers for making a story newsworthy, so local news will always have a strong interest value. The problem for local newspapers isn't consumer interest, it's advertiser value. My wife sells advertising for our local paper and she's finding it increasingly difficult to compete with Facebook and other advertising opportunities.
In the mid-late 1990's I had a side business doing photography and video. Our local paper had advertisement prices that were prohibitive of anything but million dollar per annum plus businesses. I could easily have spent a hundred K per year with small ads. So I advertised only enough so that people remembered the name of the business. A system like that is very vulnerable to economic downturns and especially the internet incursion.
The coders in this place mostly won't know about bending moments but it's a good concept to look up to get an idea as to why it was so insane to strap the shuttle onto the side of a rocket instead of on top. NASA did incredibly well to get it to fly at all.
Dunno if you recall, but Columbia came close to breaking off the stack in the first launch..It's interesting to watch a shuttle leave the pad versus a Saturn 5. Because while the 5 looks like a leisurely takeoff - around 8 seconds to leave the launch tower -, the SRBs and main engine make for a real shit and git around 4 seconds. Tower height is less, but so is the stack. https://www.history.nasa.gov/s... A lot of pressure and inertia and placing the vehicle right in the middlle of it instead of on top.
Now all that being said, if you ever have the chance to get to KSC, their Atlantis Shuttle display and the entrance to is is breathtaking and stunning. I was left speechless for a good ten seconds, and I'm not rendered speechless easily. You could tell who the engineering types were, and it added to the moment the shuttle that was actually supposed to be there.
I'm skeptical about the actual effectiveness of advertising on consumers on the whole, but the ad industry has been extremely effective in selling advertising to companies. That is apparently where advertising actually works and I bet the ad mongers are just as unscrupulous in their dealings with their clients as they are with the public.
That reminds me of the old saying about fishing lures. Supposedly to catch fish, they are designed to catch fishermen.
If your computer is connected to the Internet, and you choose not to update, and a computer intruder takes advantage of this choice to surreptitiously install a botnet worker on your computer, how shall users of computers other than yours be protected from attacks originating from your computer? Automatic updates provide the counterpart to herd immunity.
If your computer is so unsafe that one update missed makes it a menace to everyone on the internet, it is not even remotely the users fault. If many of the updates make your computer inoperative, or it stops doing what you bought it for, It isn't much of an operating system.
People buy computers to do thing on, and the main purpose is to do those things, not receive updates because the OS is inherently non-secure.
I update my Linux and MacOS machines soon after the updates are available. I hold off on Windows as long as possible.
The problem with comparing Apple with any other computer company is that Apple fully controls their product line. When Apple pushes an update they know exactly what the base hardware is (since they make it themselves). When Android and Microsoft push updates they have to worry that the update may adversely affect machines made by numerous hardware manufacturers. In Android's case the manufacturer of the device may not even make an updated OS for their older devices and loading Google's base Android OS isn't something many end users can/will do.
You know, once upon a time, Windows fans would brag About the great choice of hardware, as a much superior solution than that controlled Apple ecosystem.
Ironic how a mark of superiority is now used as an excuse for Windows breaking systems with every update.
Amazingly enough, Modern Linux doesn't have that problem. Just update, and don't even have to reboot 99 percent of the time.
I hate defending microsoft, however the problem is most users won't install an update. even today the average user is to stupid to understand how and why they should update.
Look at ios and Mac OS . iOS achieves something like an 75% updates installed within 3 months of it being released.
The reason isn't always stupidity. Its what happens when your computer hangs or otherwise gets screwed up when Microsoft updates it. I update my MacOS and Linux computers a week after I'm offered the update - just in case. Through Windows 7, it would be weeks before I updated it. Windows 10 only lets me delay it a little. Unfortunately, they don't often fix the problems the update caused, but there's no choice.
If they dodn't consistently bollix up the system, I'd update the same as the other OS's.
Microsoft has trained it's users well, which is why they often avoid updates.
I've "fixed" many people's computers by installing Adblock. They were ready to buy another computer because they though the dropoff in speed was due to age. Same result - Happy people.
Computers don't get slow with age. That is a mistake microsoft teach them . ..
You do know that many people think that they do. It is just a misinterpretation of Moore's Law.
I'd bet you're against life extension and the leisure society though. I got it, that wasn't covered in the pulp sci-fi you grew up reading...
I'll address those in reverse order. The leisure society is a fine idea. Having retired way early at 55, I have to say that it beats the shit out of working. I still keep busy but mostly doing what I want. We are truly entering a time when al most no one will need to work to survive. The alternative is either rejection of advancements or mass popucide, purposefully killing off most of humanity.
Life extension? That depends on where the extension comes from. The problem today is that it all comes on the old end. Which means we spend the last 20 years of our lives drawing down any omney e set aside, and are the healthiest demented people in the nursing home.
It's physics, it's hard to dump 80MWs of heat in space and wishing won't change that. Invent a better way to extract electricity from nuclear fuel, perfect fusion, or use solar panels seem to be the current choices. It would be nice to have some breakthroughs, especially a reaction less drive that uses little power.
Breakthroughs are nice, but seldom achieved without increments. I worked on some "breakthroughs" that appeared to most people like venus rising from the sea fully formed. They were actually based on a lot of incremental steps over a surprising amount of time. We have to let them do the work, and try stuff. Iron out the problems such as it were. The Saturn V was the result of decades of work. Present day rockets are incrementally better, but so far, not much of a breakthrough.
Now will we get that breakthrough? I suspect. I don't believe it will be this reaction-less motor though The present levels of "thrust" show both a remarkably awful efficiency as well as the "thrust" can be explained adequately by differential thermal heating and energy transfer to the particles bouncing off the thruster side. Cold fusion-ish, but with a plausible explanation for the effect.
Now, if I were to put on my prognostication hat, I wouldn't be too surprised that if we get to the point of working on actual starships, we may need to do the proof of concept well outside the orbit of earth and the inner planets. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there might be some serious space time warping happening that we might not want to happen in the neighborhood. There we use the robotic option. Then if warping the crap out of the local spacetime doesn't cause problems (and works) we can start building the starships near earth. I suspect the source will be something dealing with both magnetism and gravity. I'm doubting ZPE will work, but not ready to articulate that doubt.
Anyhow, don't hold me to that stuff, as it is what we call a wild-ass guess. I don't often bring this stuff up in a world where one is expected to make up their mind before puberty and never change it.
I asked a question. a rhetorical one. Seriously if you don't understand that asking a question isn't accusing someone of something, then I hope you are merely a troll, because I hate to call people stupid, but that's your two choices
Well no, obviously you don't even know what a rhetorical question is, you aren't expecting an answer but rather insinuating the belief of the OP.
I read what you wronte and I don't believe it, I mean I read it, I believe you wrote it. But it beggars the imagination that you included the very definition of rhetorical in what you said I wrote.
But since we are going pedantic, allow me to clear this up a little.
Rhetorical is an adjective
of, relating to, or concerned with the art of rhetoric:
"repetition is a common rhetorical device"
synonyms: stylistic oratorical linguistic verbal
expressed in terms intended to persuade or impress:
"the rhetorical commitment of the government to give priority to primary education"
synonyms: extravagant grandiloquent magniloquent
(of a question) asked in order to produce an effect or to make a statement rather than to elicit information.
Bold and italics mine. Well there you have it. Thanks for playing, and come back when I don't have to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man. Ciao, me hearty! This conversation is ended.
So I said, "Hey, wanna see something cool? There's this thing called 'Adblock', I think you'll like it...."
It's been over a year now and my friend still hasn't stopped thanking me.
I've "fixed" many people's computers by installing Adblock. They were ready to buy another computer because they though the dropoff in speed was due to age. Same result - Happy people.
Nonsense. As I stated, the only time NASA launched people on the first flight of a launch system was the Shuttle, and that was only because the Shuttle couldn't be flown and landed remotely.
The Saturn V, for example, was flown unmanned twice before it was deemed safe enough to put people on it.
When was the first successful unmanned launch of a Saturn V rocket? Those first two had some likely mission ending problems.
No it wasn't. They tested it unmanned. Then they tested it in LEO multiple times. Only then did they send it around the moon. Apollo 8 most likely would have been a failure if not for the earlier testing.
It wasn't a Saturn V they tested it on. Apollo 8 was the first manned launch of a Saturn V rocket. https://www.theguardian.com/sc... Here's a nice story on the matter. They were taking a pretty big gamble.
Regardless it was a time when we didn't cower in our closets and saferooms because a UPS man was at the door. We did stuff.
We've done it (sent a manned ship to at least loop around the Moon) nine times already, almost 50 years ago.
At this point, it's not impressive or useful to replicate Apollo VIII.
I suspect a shakedown of sending people to Mars will indeed be a trip around the moon. If not, it's a good idea to have a shakedown.
p>It's also insane to send a manned crew on untested hardware. The only time they did that before was for the STS, and that was only because the STS was unable to fly or land without pilots. That was a serious design flaw. This is just a stunt, forced upon NASA due to the obscene cost of the new launch system.
You kind sir, need to go back and read about Apollo 8. It fits your definition of insanity quite well. The Saturn V had 2 problem filled missions and was questionably ready - very questionably - to launch humans. The earlier Apollo flights were not capable of sending humans to the moon, so they took a gamble.
We were not all weak willed pussies once upon a time.
IIf the Shuttle hadn't been a bus misused as a tractor trailer needing all the weight-savings that could be achieved then they could've kept that latex coating over the main fuel tank and its insulation, such that the insulation wouldn't have been directly subjected to the forces that break it apart and that ultimately led to the destruction of Columbia.
I skwacked about that one for a long time. The actual solution to a problem that was caused by the solution's removal. I fear that painting the tank again would have opened a political can of worms.
Robots should be part of it for the dangerous work but we need to send people too. What's life without risk? There's no shortage of volunteers willing to risk all for the opportunity. I'd like to see a serious effort to build a serious ship designed for system exploration that would hold at least a dozen people and sustain them for 10 years. To go to Mars and other places and orbit there and conduct experiments and explore. It's crazy that we put people on the moon over 4 decades ago and haven't done shit since. It's like we got there, looked around and said okay, that's it! Then went back home to stay.
This. If we aren't going to send people at some point, there is no point. The science is all well and good, but I want people as the main focus.
To the point that a full fledged rocket slut such as myself supports unlimited assets to be applied if human meatbags are in the mix, and if no human presence, I support exactly $0.00.
Slashdot Mirror
Bimmer. A beemer is a motorcycle. I can see why you'd need an app to find a mate.
I always thought it was when a woman gets cold, and her high beams turn on. What my better half calls them anyhow.
i must tell my wife! hooray!
Mine said fine as long as dhe has equal access.
There's no law saying I can't wander around public spaces wearing a high-power infrared LED that's blinking out Bobby Tables in Morse code.
Hehe - I like it! While I'm not sure of the need to defeat these, Its always good to think of countermeasures.
Also, have they solved the rampant security issues with IoT shit yet? If not, WTF? Thanks for adding to the botnet problem, San Diego. Can't wait to hear about how your entire IoT net has been hacked, and is now under the control of some unknown third party.
Ain't that the truth? IT's going to be really interesting when San Diego gets owned. Because it will get owned.
It's true that proximity is one of the top drivers for making a story newsworthy, so local news will always have a strong interest value. The problem for local newspapers isn't consumer interest, it's advertiser value. My wife sells advertising for our local paper and she's finding it increasingly difficult to compete with Facebook and other advertising opportunities.
In the mid-late 1990's I had a side business doing photography and video. Our local paper had advertisement prices that were prohibitive of anything but million dollar per annum plus businesses. I could easily have spent a hundred K per year with small ads. So I advertised only enough so that people remembered the name of the business. A system like that is very vulnerable to economic downturns and especially the internet incursion.
The coders in this place mostly won't know about bending moments but it's a good concept to look up to get an idea as to why it was so insane to strap the shuttle onto the side of a rocket instead of on top. NASA did incredibly well to get it to fly at all.
Dunno if you recall, but Columbia came close to breaking off the stack in the first launch. .It's interesting to watch a shuttle leave the pad versus a Saturn 5. Because while the 5 looks like a leisurely takeoff - around 8 seconds to leave the launch tower -, the SRBs and main engine make for a real shit and git around 4 seconds. Tower height is less, but so is the stack. https://www.history.nasa.gov/s... A lot of pressure and inertia and placing the vehicle right in the middlle of it instead of on top.
Now all that being said, if you ever have the chance to get to KSC, their Atlantis Shuttle display and the entrance to is is breathtaking and stunning. I was left speechless for a good ten seconds, and I'm not rendered speechless easily. You could tell who the engineering types were, and it added to the moment the shuttle that was actually supposed to be there.
A free app, f.lux does the job, https://justgetflux.com/ Set the desired white balance/temperature at night time and you don't need any glasses.
I have it, and I eventually turned it off. Didn't make any difference at all, except make my screen dim and yellow, and nag me to go to bed.
You've hit the nail on the head with that line.
I'm skeptical about the actual effectiveness of advertising on consumers on the whole, but the ad industry has been extremely effective in selling advertising to companies. That is apparently where advertising actually works and I bet the ad mongers are just as unscrupulous in their dealings with their clients as they are with the public.
That reminds me of the old saying about fishing lures. Supposedly to catch fish, they are designed to catch fishermen.
If and when you choose to update
If your computer is connected to the Internet, and you choose not to update, and a computer intruder takes advantage of this choice to surreptitiously install a botnet worker on your computer, how shall users of computers other than yours be protected from attacks originating from your computer? Automatic updates provide the counterpart to herd immunity.
If your computer is so unsafe that one update missed makes it a menace to everyone on the internet, it is not even remotely the users fault. If many of the updates make your computer inoperative, or it stops doing what you bought it for, It isn't much of an operating system.
People buy computers to do thing on, and the main purpose is to do those things, not receive updates because the OS is inherently non-secure.
I update my Linux and MacOS machines soon after the updates are available. I hold off on Windows as long as possible.
The problem with comparing Apple with any other computer company is that Apple fully controls their product line. When Apple pushes an update they know exactly what the base hardware is (since they make it themselves). When Android and Microsoft push updates they have to worry that the update may adversely affect machines made by numerous hardware manufacturers. In Android's case the manufacturer of the device may not even make an updated OS for their older devices and loading Google's base Android OS isn't something many end users can/will do.
You know, once upon a time, Windows fans would brag About the great choice of hardware, as a much superior solution than that controlled Apple ecosystem.
Ironic how a mark of superiority is now used as an excuse for Windows breaking systems with every update.
Amazingly enough, Modern Linux doesn't have that problem. Just update, and don't even have to reboot 99 percent of the time.
I hate defending microsoft, however the problem is most users won't install an update. even today the average user is to stupid to understand how and why they should update.
Look at ios and Mac OS . iOS achieves something like an 75% updates installed within 3 months of it being released.
The reason isn't always stupidity. Its what happens when your computer hangs or otherwise gets screwed up when Microsoft updates it. I update my MacOS and Linux computers a week after I'm offered the update - just in case. Through Windows 7, it would be weeks before I updated it. Windows 10 only lets me delay it a little. Unfortunately, they don't often fix the problems the update caused, but there's no choice.
If they dodn't consistently bollix up the system, I'd update the same as the other OS's.
Microsoft has trained it's users well, which is why they often avoid updates.
I've "fixed" many people's computers by installing Adblock. They were ready to buy another computer because they though the dropoff in speed was due to age. Same result - Happy people.
Computers don't get slow with age. That is a mistake microsoft teach them . . .
You do know that many people think that they do. It is just a misinterpretation of Moore's Law.
In a lot of cases I'm probably telling people what they already know, but it's bound to be new to some people.
You have the situation correct. And yes, I suspect the engine gimbals got a workout to keep that thing flying straight up on launch.
I'd bet you're against life extension and the leisure society though. I got it, that wasn't covered in the pulp sci-fi you grew up reading...
I'll address those in reverse order. The leisure society is a fine idea. Having retired way early at 55, I have to say that it beats the shit out of working. I still keep busy but mostly doing what I want. We are truly entering a time when al most no one will need to work to survive. The alternative is either rejection of advancements or mass popucide, purposefully killing off most of humanity.
Life extension? That depends on where the extension comes from. The problem today is that it all comes on the old end. Which means we spend the last 20 years of our lives drawing down any omney e set aside, and are the healthiest demented people in the nursing home.
It shouldn't be collecting data of any kind unless you opt to submit crash reports
It should also know what version you are running so it can offer updates.
That you choose to install or not.
It's physics, it's hard to dump 80MWs of heat in space and wishing won't change that. Invent a better way to extract electricity from nuclear fuel, perfect fusion, or use solar panels seem to be the current choices. It would be nice to have some breakthroughs, especially a reaction less drive that uses little power.
Breakthroughs are nice, but seldom achieved without increments. I worked on some "breakthroughs" that appeared to most people like venus rising from the sea fully formed. They were actually based on a lot of incremental steps over a surprising amount of time. We have to let them do the work, and try stuff. Iron out the problems such as it were. The Saturn V was the result of decades of work. Present day rockets are incrementally better, but so far, not much of a breakthrough.
Now will we get that breakthrough? I suspect. I don't believe it will be this reaction-less motor though The present levels of "thrust" show both a remarkably awful efficiency as well as the "thrust" can be explained adequately by differential thermal heating and energy transfer to the particles bouncing off the thruster side. Cold fusion-ish, but with a plausible explanation for the effect.
Now, if I were to put on my prognostication hat, I wouldn't be too surprised that if we get to the point of working on actual starships, we may need to do the proof of concept well outside the orbit of earth and the inner planets. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there might be some serious space time warping happening that we might not want to happen in the neighborhood. There we use the robotic option. Then if warping the crap out of the local spacetime doesn't cause problems (and works) we can start building the starships near earth. I suspect the source will be something dealing with both magnetism and gravity. I'm doubting ZPE will work, but not ready to articulate that doubt.
Anyhow, don't hold me to that stuff, as it is what we call a wild-ass guess. I don't often bring this stuff up in a world where one is expected to make up their mind before puberty and never change it.
I asked a question. a rhetorical one. Seriously if you don't understand that asking a question isn't accusing someone of something, then I hope you are merely a troll, because I hate to call people stupid, but that's your two choices
Well no, obviously you don't even know what a rhetorical question is, you aren't expecting an answer but rather insinuating the belief of the OP.
I read what you wronte and I don't believe it, I mean I read it, I believe you wrote it. But it beggars the imagination that you included the very definition of rhetorical in what you said I wrote.
But since we are going pedantic, allow me to clear this up a little. Rhetorical is an adjective
of, relating to, or concerned with the art of rhetoric:
"repetition is a common rhetorical device"
synonyms: stylistic oratorical linguistic verbal
expressed in terms intended to persuade or impress:
"the rhetorical commitment of the government to give priority to primary education"
synonyms: extravagant grandiloquent magniloquent
(of a question) asked in order to produce an effect or to make a statement rather than to elicit information.
Bold and italics mine. Well there you have it. Thanks for playing, and come back when I don't have to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man. Ciao, me hearty! This conversation is ended.
So I said, "Hey, wanna see something cool? There's this thing called 'Adblock', I think you'll like it...."
It's been over a year now and my friend still hasn't stopped thanking me.
I've "fixed" many people's computers by installing Adblock. They were ready to buy another computer because they though the dropoff in speed was due to age. Same result - Happy people.
Nonsense. As I stated, the only time NASA launched people on the first flight of a launch system was the Shuttle, and that was only because the Shuttle couldn't be flown and landed remotely.
The Saturn V, for example, was flown unmanned twice before it was deemed safe enough to put people on it.
When was the first successful unmanned launch of a Saturn V rocket? Those first two had some likely mission ending problems.
No it wasn't. They tested it unmanned. Then they tested it in LEO multiple times. Only then did they send it around the moon. Apollo 8 most likely would have been a failure if not for the earlier testing.
It wasn't a Saturn V they tested it on. Apollo 8 was the first manned launch of a Saturn V rocket. https://www.theguardian.com/sc... Here's a nice story on the matter. They were taking a pretty big gamble.
Regardless it was a time when we didn't cower in our closets and saferooms because a UPS man was at the door. We did stuff.
We've done it (sent a manned ship to at least loop around the Moon) nine times already, almost 50 years ago.
At this point, it's not impressive or useful to replicate Apollo VIII.
I suspect a shakedown of sending people to Mars will indeed be a trip around the moon. If not, it's a good idea to have a shakedown.
p>It's also insane to send a manned crew on untested hardware. The only time they did that before was for the STS, and that was only because the STS was unable to fly or land without pilots. That was a serious design flaw. This is just a stunt, forced upon NASA due to the obscene cost of the new launch system.
You kind sir, need to go back and read about Apollo 8. It fits your definition of insanity quite well. The Saturn V had 2 problem filled missions and was questionably ready - very questionably - to launch humans. The earlier Apollo flights were not capable of sending humans to the moon, so they took a gamble.
We were not all weak willed pussies once upon a time.
IIf the Shuttle hadn't been a bus misused as a tractor trailer needing all the weight-savings that could be achieved then they could've kept that latex coating over the main fuel tank and its insulation, such that the insulation wouldn't have been directly subjected to the forces that break it apart and that ultimately led to the destruction of Columbia.
I skwacked about that one for a long time. The actual solution to a problem that was caused by the solution's removal. I fear that painting the tank again would have opened a political can of worms.
Maybe $23 billion could answer these questions.
I don't believe not knowing the answer has ever stopped us from trying.
Someone will try. As America cedes the technological high ground to other countries, other countries will take up the relay.
We'll be in a closet selling our hats to each other and pretending to make money.
See number 1, how the hell are you going to power it as steam engines don't work that well in space.
We get it. Much too hard. Just like most everything.
Robots should be part of it for the dangerous work but we need to send people too. What's life without risk? There's no shortage of volunteers willing to risk all for the opportunity. I'd like to see a serious effort to build a serious ship designed for system exploration that would hold at least a dozen people and sustain them for 10 years. To go to Mars and other places and orbit there and conduct experiments and explore. It's crazy that we put people on the moon over 4 decades ago and haven't done shit since. It's like we got there, looked around and said okay, that's it! Then went back home to stay.
This. If we aren't going to send people at some point, there is no point. The science is all well and good, but I want people as the main focus.
To the point that a full fledged rocket slut such as myself supports unlimited assets to be applied if human meatbags are in the mix, and if no human presence, I support exactly $0.00.