N211 is the name of the hanger at the tarmac of Ames Research Center, not the same as the blimp hangers (1, 2, 3) or the Air Guard hanger on other side of the runways. Maybe they will end up buying it, NASA pretty much no longer has aircraft based at Ames. They used to back in the days, XV-15 Tilt Rotor, QSRA, U2s, AV8B, and some other experimental aircraft.
They use skinny models because they are all the same so when need to display a new clothing design, you can simply grab any of them and the outfit will fit. If the woman has curves, then the outfit needs to be fitted. Besides bust, waist, hips also need to consider shoulder width, torso length, etc. If all models are same stick women of size 0, then don't need to deal with fitting.
It comes down to productivity which is why sizes are small, medium, large and the material is stretchy so it really doesn't matter to get a good fit. Nowadays for fitted gowns (i.e. wedding dresses), they are ***all*** strapless which makes productivity much easier and don't have to deal with fitting the shoulders (not all women look good in strapless but they have no choice these days).
Same stupid mentality as programming of TV shows. It's either reality, law, medical, or a bankrupt remake. Instead of something new and creative, stick with something simple to maintain high productivity. So now they have virtual models which means they don't have to make the outfit at all!
However, as others have noted this is not exactly a new concept. They used virtual models back in the 1930s, 40s, 50s but those had to be handdrawn as computer graphics were not that great back then.
Excellent list, too bad TV execs will never see it as they are The High and Mighty in The Ivory Tower unlike ground-based smucks like you and me. Speaking of archives, I scored some DVDs of old shows (Skyking, few 50s Ed Sullivan shows, first episode of Groncho Marx "You Bet Your Life") I'm not sure if these are available anywhere else except from individuals that either taped during reruns of the 1980s or got a 16mm transfer. It is interesting to see some of this stuff as in 1950s they were on a learning curve. Ed Sullivan does a "dissertation" on the Mercury car (show's main advertiser), and various performers completely unknown nowadays (some of the female performers wore very beautiful dresses). While guest is answering question from Groncho, the soundman walks up and adjusts the mic, camera still rolling during commercial break of Groucho's show, he gets some notes from people, drinks some water. They have treasures in the archives but lots of luck getting them to release it. If you didn't make a copy for yourself in the 20th century, then no way to ever see it again (unless you find that person that just happens to have a copy and is willing to share "secrets" but fear of getting beatup by the goons from the "you know who."
About Kubrick doing his homework, this book also mentioned Kubrick had acquired truckloads of books about Napoleon implying that was going to be his next big movie. On his Dr. Strangelove movie, I talked to someone that was a B-52 navigator who said Kubrick must have got some assistance from SAC because procedures on arming the H-bomb was surprisingly realistic (much like the A models of the B-52), there all these things that have to be set and adjusted (i.e. barometric pressure). There is no digital readout that indicates when bomb will explode. In actual practice, it takes a lot to get it to explode. He said one time one of the bombs accidently fell off its bracket when aircraft was parked on the tarmac while being worked on. Bombdoors were open and this thing drops on the ground and slowly starts rolling away (it didn't get away obviously). I asked him about that one Gary Larsen "Farside" cartoon that has a labcoat scientist working on a H-bomb and another approaching from behind with inflated papersack ready to pop with the other hand. He said one time when he was helping airmen rig up a H-bomb to be winched up into the B-52 bombrack, another airman did that papersack explosion behind him. He turned around slugged the guy in the mouth.
>For your information, the most realistic Sci-Fi movie ever made, 2001: A Space Odyssey, did not used any CGI nor green screen.
For starters, Kubrick did his homework before shooting the movie. Along with teaming up with highly respected author (Clarke) he consulted with IBM (in early 60s their research team created a computer voice synthesizer which sang a song "Daisy"), anticipated contract workforce in LEO (Hilton on the Space Station) and (I read someplace) the Discovery spacecraft was designed by a aerospace consulting company in UK instead of movie studio model makers. He also had the characters (astronauts, Heywood Floyd and others) were kind of boring people (like most real engineers and astronauts) instead of flamboyant and expressive people like actors (compare the sequel 2010 to 2001 which was really painful for me to watch). Kubrick also consulted with fashion designers to see what they anticipate styles people would wear by 2001, that was a huge miss. But for techie things like glass cockpits, I say those consultants hit it right on. They missed the ipad by a few years (2001 had a similar wider and longer than the Apple product). For other things like procedures, 2001 portrayed tedious detail on spacewalk to replace AE35 unit and working computer based troubleshooting system, and realistically had mission control run simulations before actual space walk (in real life it would be much more tedious, only got so much time i the theatre). Unlike 2010 as other space movies where they just jump in the spaceship like a sports car and dash off to fix the problem.
However there was some major misses on prediction, i.e. Pan Am went bankrupt, USSR collapsed, Apple is a computer company (not a vinyl record company), and we never went back to moon. Because there was much work and planning of actual technology and people, the movie 2001 is highly admired by engineers. What I like about it is it is one of very few space movies that is not about alien space monsters and laser beam battles (which those plots have been overused like westerns). As other posters have said, it is not the CGI, it is lacking of story material which makes much of sci-fi suck these days.
In the 1990s at an engineers week banquet in San Francisco, a speaker (I cannot think of his name at the moment) talked about the tech in the movie 2001. In his possession is a frame for the HAL9000 which is one a just a few pieces of what is left of the props. Kubrick had everything destroyed to be sure there was not a sequel. Props made for 2010 were all done by model makers looking at the original movie. There was a book in early 70s about the movie, it had some photos of the stages. There was one letter by a young boy where him and some of his friends making a sequel with their 8mm, they sent some of their clips to Kubrick along with a letter about borrowing on of the 2001 spacesuits, "we are honest and will take good care of it."
Pan Am space shuttle was called the Orion and unlike the movie, the real thing is a capsule which has a dubious record so far.
Some years ago (late 90s) someone had a webpage on 1930s/1940s actors/actresses with tagline, "You wanna see some real movie stars?" One of the paragraphs, "There was a time when movie stars were movie stars. Finer and more noble than smucks like you and me. And they all had a great life and if their lives weren't that great, we'll give 'em a great life."
Hard, really hard. Especially when you have racks of D and E size engineering drawings, numerous calibration printouts, stress and analysis reports (handdrawn and typed) for a facility, i.e. NASA wind tunnels, and with not enough staff to do everything (and buyout notices sent to employees). First you need some scanners (big ones for for those large drawings) then some people to spend tons of time to scan, convert, store and organize all that material. By the time they are done, we will all be dead of old age!
Regarding Apollo 13, there was a 1974 TV movie "Houston, We've Got a Problem" which Sy Liebergot (EECOM) described as a terrible movie with awful amount of errors such as someone having a heart attack in Mission Control (no such thing happened) and portrayed Sy as cheating on his wife (that never occurred). They didn't think this movie would have so many things wrong when they did their film shots at Houston. After that, everyone (those that work the MOCR) said they need to be careful this kind of thing doesn't happen again. Sy said when Charles Murray and Catherine Cox were working on their book (Apollo: Race to the Moon, 1989), he got on their case, "don't you ever think about screwing up facts" (they ensured it will not happen, their book is considered the best on those that made Apollo program successful. it is not about astronauts). Later years when Jeff Kluger working with Lovell on the book "Lost Moon" Sy again stressed "don't you ever think about screwing up facts" which Jeff had to re-assure Sy and others they will not screwup like those that did the 1974 movie.
> if a soldier prays before going into battle he is going into battle with the wrong mind set.
According to Hollywood script writers, if a soldier shows a picture of his sweetheart to one of his buddies, he will die in the next firefight.
> A lot of the advancement in the west has been due to religion taking a back seat.
But we can lose it all as religious groups have become more political powerful. There are a lot of Christian groups trying to ban evolution (and typically anti-science in general, they were the ones that persecuted Galileo. And probably the same culprits that burned all the books at the Alexandria library).
> Look at Turkey, flexing its wings because it thinks that massive growth when you came from nothing has meaning it KNOWS it is completely
> at the mercy of the west
Turkey could have been far worse, i.e. like Iran. I asked someone from that country why is it I can find Hayat magazine with provocative photos of women (or at least back in the 1950s, i.e. Gina Lollobrigida, Jayne Mansfield) even though it is a Islam country. He said their first president Atatürk after WWI made sure the country be secular not become a religious country or else it would be excruciatingly difficult to progress.
> We had Darwin on trial. It is just annoying to have to fight the same battle over and over again.
Evolution was not taught in schools until after launch of Sputnik, which curriculum changed because US was "falling behind the USSR in teaching science." But Sputnik occurred over a half a century so here we go to fight the same annoying battle over and over again.
Great discussion, someone mod the parent up for a full "5" rating.
In the early 1970s book "The Flight That Failed" by S.F. Cooper mentions as the spacecraft was approaching earth, someone (I think from the AEC) said they need to consider where the RTG will land. Ugh, there was already enough going on as crews were powering up the command module, a looming storm in the landing area, spacecraft attitude close to gimbal lock as it positions for re-entry. All this when many had very little sleep, then this guy brings up the RTG. Interesting book as it was written years before the fame brought on by the movie, also lots of esoteric details for techies.
Encryption ain't cheap, ok so I have not shopped around or even used it. But it seems to me it make look inexpensive but if it's digital that means it is computer/software meaning you have to pay and renew software licenses, upgrade to upgrade to meet the next upgrade, etc.
Then all this talk of interoperability (which I am thinking more of it as a bankrupt expression these days), but encryption not helpful in that regard unless you have everybody using same key (which doesn't seem to make much sense).
Regarding cost, I am seeing public safety agencies laying off cops and firemen and/or cutting pensions. Then these companies are pushing new radio systems which are ***very*** expensive. Sorry I don't buy that encryption is lowcost these days, kind of like cellphones that advertise lowcost but they will sock it to you with fees and locked-in monthly plans.
And now this interoperability thing, I think it is industry driven to make lotsa money by bleeding govt agencies for whizbang systems with short life like cellphone apps. Talk to a regular beat cop or fireman, interoperability... what does that mean? The cop wants to be able to talk to dispatch and talk to other officers in his department. The fireman wants clarity and versatility (meaning be able to scale up or down depending on the ICS). For multi-dept response, firefighters have established mutual aid frequencies (fire white, yellow, blue). Occasionally a senior police officer may want to talk to another department, and if they can't use BAYMACS or CLEMARS, they can use the Raytheon ACU-1000. Or use a cellphone or some other means at the ICS command post. We all hear about communications breakdown during 9-11 but also realize NYC did not use ICS and there is a city ordinance that prohibits chief of police and chief of fire to meet the mayor at same time. Incredible as it sounds, maybe they straighten themselves in past ten years (I doubt it), I remember seeing footage on news of several NYC police and firemen in a large fist fight. This occurred some time after the 9-11 attacks and they had to reduce rescue/recovery staff at ground zero (virtually dead bodies been recovered). Some did not want to leave and return to normal duties, others insisted they do so, high emotions resulted. OK, I have to admit I haven't followed up with this story but I could only think, good thing my city doesn't have such a rife between fire and police (and their dispatch offices are right next to each other, instant interoperability and their sneakers don't need software).
Sorry for the rant guys but that's my Gripe Of The Month.
>Here's the rule: A computer that controls industrial machinery should not be connected to the Internet.
I agree. I've not completely read the article and I have very little experience setting up networks but I've read enough to know that simply connecting something (can be any computer system) to "The Internet" and you will get all kinds of surfing/phishing/probing crap. Most likely hackers were simple thiefs or marketing types wanting to "find customers." It has been said, "stupidity before malice and ignorance before stupidity."
Thanks for writing this message and providing links. Is this being discussed in the House? To contact the House, find your representative at http://house.gov/#feature2 click on your state and will get list of names and districts. For California, http://house.gov/representatives/#state_ca which has names, phone numbers, and links to specific representatives i.e. http://pelosi.house.gov/
come to think of it, this situation occurred in the book "2010," not the movie. Like in Clarke's 2001 book, he was suspicious of the Chinese. Situation was while the Leonov was enroute to Jupiter, the Chinese had a spacecraft that made a mad dash and landed on Europa (ugh, it has been more than 20 years since I read the book so I may have missed some details). Chinese spacecraft and crew perished but they brought very powerful latest technology drilling rigs. (continuing on with the fictional story by Clarke) Apparently China purchased high tech drilling equipment from US and European countries in guise of doing drilling in remote areas of China. However, they were gathering equipment, modifying it with intent to beat the US and USSR in drilling expeditions on Europa. And considering all things, this doesn't seem to be as fictional for these current times.
A panel discussion at one of the SETI presentations, one of them said, "Go where the water is." and there's a lot more water on Europa than Mars. Though the ice is thick and radiation is intense, then there is streaming the data back to the surface from the robot submarine through all that water. But just imagine... direct observation of life forms. Most likely microbes, it would be exciting to see lots of fishes. Imagine all the posts on slashdot, those wanting to name the first fish, marine biologists having to constantly correct people's statements, on going jokes of "All These Worlds..." from the movie (incidently remember also in the movie 2010 is where the Chinese made a mad dash to this area before the Americans and Russians).
and (from the wiki bio).... one of the X-15 rocketplane pilots has the name Bill Dana. I wonder how often he was ragged on that one during the 1960s (or unless he imitated the comedian from the X15 cockpit).
I remember this from the 1983 movie, couldn't recall from the Ed Sullivan show (was very young, didn't remember this specific person). This comedian is probably not shown on DVDs of Ed Sullivan show. But I have seen him on old VHS made from 16mm film by a person that has a huge collection of videos, including shows no longer available from commercial sources.
Some years ago an article described candidates going through the final interview stages. A candidate would sit in front of a panel who would ask various questions, i.e. aircraft programs they worked, their research projects, etc. Candidates describe their activties... then one of the panel members pops the question, "So, why do you want to be an astronaut?" This question typically catches the candidates flatfooted, they usually stumble for an answer. There was one candidate, didn't really know what to say answered, "uhmm, my dad was an astronaut, my granddad was an astronaut. It just runs in the family!" He was chosen (I forgot the name).
It has been mentioned all astronauts are military pilots (70% including mission specialists) so unless you already have chosen that route, then other option is researcher/engineer (the other 30%). Of the latter group, they were already working for NASA (or as a contractor at a Center). Very few, i.e. Mae Jemison, from the "outside" were selected. So if you are rejected but if they offer you a job at NASA, ***take it*** because they are interested in you and want to look at you more closely. This was written about 10 years ago so maybe much has changed. A recent slashdot discussion talked about astronauts probably don't need to be military pilots having fast reaction skills like in a fighter jet these days, much of the spaceflight are very long (i.e. ISS) so a different kind of person is needed.
I haven't pursued an astronaut position as many/. readers know it requires much passion. Steve Hawley (flew on HST deployment) said they look at candidate's records for kinds of work they do, does it focus and lead to astronaut position? A candidate said he has always wanted to be an astronaut but they asked why did he spend seven years with Shell Oil? However, some positions could lead to astronaut. A Navy diver, an officer, observed spacewalking was much like underwater (heck they even train in water!) so she focused her efforts, applied and got accepted (though I'd not be surprised she was first rejected, most accepted have been rejected before).
> What is happening? Lots of posts were just modded down...
probably some shills with mod points, I got dinged for disagreeing with the judge's decision (I was getting multiple troll awards but now back into "insightful").
Slashdot Mirror
N211 is the name of the hanger at the tarmac of Ames Research Center, not the same as the blimp hangers (1, 2, 3) or the Air Guard hanger on other side of the runways. Maybe they will end up buying it, NASA pretty much no longer has aircraft based at Ames. They used to back in the days, XV-15 Tilt Rotor, QSRA, U2s, AV8B, and some other experimental aircraft.
and no Canucks, http://www.avro-arrow.org/Arrow/employees.html
They use skinny models because they are all the same so when need to display a new clothing design, you can simply grab any of them and the outfit will fit. If the woman has curves, then the outfit needs to be fitted. Besides bust, waist, hips also need to consider shoulder width, torso length, etc. If all models are same stick women of size 0, then don't need to deal with fitting.
It comes down to productivity which is why sizes are small, medium, large and the material is stretchy so it really doesn't matter to get a good fit. Nowadays for fitted gowns (i.e. wedding dresses), they are ***all*** strapless which makes productivity much easier and don't have to deal with fitting the shoulders (not all women look good in strapless but they have no choice these days).
Same stupid mentality as programming of TV shows. It's either reality, law, medical, or a bankrupt remake. Instead of something new and creative, stick with something simple to maintain high productivity. So now they have virtual models which means they don't have to make the outfit at all!
However, as others have noted this is not exactly a new concept. They used virtual models back in the 1930s, 40s, 50s but those had to be handdrawn as computer graphics were not that great back then.
That is a the day which the giant Microsoft was awaken and launched IE.
...you don't own it.
Excellent list, too bad TV execs will never see it as they are The High and Mighty in The Ivory Tower unlike ground-based smucks like you and me. Speaking of archives, I scored some DVDs of old shows (Skyking, few 50s Ed Sullivan shows, first episode of Groncho Marx "You Bet Your Life") I'm not sure if these are available anywhere else except from individuals that either taped during reruns of the 1980s or got a 16mm transfer. It is interesting to see some of this stuff as in 1950s they were on a learning curve. Ed Sullivan does a "dissertation" on the Mercury car (show's main advertiser), and various performers completely unknown nowadays (some of the female performers wore very beautiful dresses). While guest is answering question from Groncho, the soundman walks up and adjusts the mic, camera still rolling during commercial break of Groucho's show, he gets some notes from people, drinks some water. They have treasures in the archives but lots of luck getting them to release it. If you didn't make a copy for yourself in the 20th century, then no way to ever see it again (unless you find that person that just happens to have a copy and is willing to share "secrets" but fear of getting beatup by the goons from the "you know who."
About Kubrick doing his homework, this book also mentioned Kubrick had acquired truckloads of books about Napoleon implying that was going to be his next big movie. On his Dr. Strangelove movie, I talked to someone that was a B-52 navigator who said Kubrick must have got some assistance from SAC because procedures on arming the H-bomb was surprisingly realistic (much like the A models of the B-52), there all these things that have to be set and adjusted (i.e. barometric pressure). There is no digital readout that indicates when bomb will explode. In actual practice, it takes a lot to get it to explode. He said one time one of the bombs accidently fell off its bracket when aircraft was parked on the tarmac while being worked on. Bombdoors were open and this thing drops on the ground and slowly starts rolling away (it didn't get away obviously). I asked him about that one Gary Larsen "Farside" cartoon that has a labcoat scientist working on a H-bomb and another approaching from behind with inflated papersack ready to pop with the other hand. He said one time when he was helping airmen rig up a H-bomb to be winched up into the B-52 bombrack, another airman did that papersack explosion behind him. He turned around slugged the guy in the mouth.
>For your information, the most realistic Sci-Fi movie ever made, 2001: A Space Odyssey, did not used any CGI nor green screen.
For starters, Kubrick did his homework before shooting the movie. Along with teaming up with highly respected author (Clarke) he consulted with IBM (in early 60s their research team created a computer voice synthesizer which sang a song "Daisy"), anticipated contract workforce in LEO (Hilton on the Space Station) and (I read someplace) the Discovery spacecraft was designed by a aerospace consulting company in UK instead of movie studio model makers. He also had the characters (astronauts, Heywood Floyd and others) were kind of boring people (like most real engineers and astronauts) instead of flamboyant and expressive people like actors (compare the sequel 2010 to 2001 which was really painful for me to watch). Kubrick also consulted with fashion designers to see what they anticipate styles people would wear by 2001, that was a huge miss. But for techie things like glass cockpits, I say those consultants hit it right on. They missed the ipad by a few years (2001 had a similar wider and longer than the Apple product). For other things like procedures, 2001 portrayed tedious detail on spacewalk to replace AE35 unit and working computer based troubleshooting system, and realistically had mission control run simulations before actual space walk (in real life it would be much more tedious, only got so much time i the theatre). Unlike 2010 as other space movies where they just jump in the spaceship like a sports car and dash off to fix the problem.
However there was some major misses on prediction, i.e. Pan Am went bankrupt, USSR collapsed, Apple is a computer company (not a vinyl record company), and we never went back to moon. Because there was much work and planning of actual technology and people, the movie 2001 is highly admired by engineers. What I like about it is it is one of very few space movies that is not about alien space monsters and laser beam battles (which those plots have been overused like westerns). As other posters have said, it is not the CGI, it is lacking of story material which makes much of sci-fi suck these days.
In the 1990s at an engineers week banquet in San Francisco, a speaker (I cannot think of his name at the moment) talked about the tech in the movie 2001. In his possession is a frame for the HAL9000 which is one a just a few pieces of what is left of the props. Kubrick had everything destroyed to be sure there was not a sequel. Props made for 2010 were all done by model makers looking at the original movie. There was a book in early 70s about the movie, it had some photos of the stages. There was one letter by a young boy where him and some of his friends making a sequel with their 8mm, they sent some of their clips to Kubrick along with a letter about borrowing on of the 2001 spacesuits, "we are honest and will take good care of it."
Pan Am space shuttle was called the Orion and unlike the movie, the real thing is a capsule which has a dubious record so far.
Good advice on lighting, thanks for the post.
Some years ago (late 90s) someone had a webpage on 1930s/1940s actors/actresses with tagline, "You wanna see some real movie stars?" One of the paragraphs, "There was a time when movie stars were movie stars. Finer and more noble than smucks like you and me. And they all had a great life and if their lives weren't that great, we'll give 'em a great life."
Hard, really hard. Especially when you have racks of D and E size engineering drawings, numerous calibration printouts, stress and analysis reports (handdrawn and typed) for a facility, i.e. NASA wind tunnels, and with not enough staff to do everything (and buyout notices sent to employees). First you need some scanners (big ones for for those large drawings) then some people to spend tons of time to scan, convert, store and organize all that material. By the time they are done, we will all be dead of old age!
Regarding Apollo 13, there was a 1974 TV movie "Houston, We've Got a Problem" which Sy Liebergot (EECOM) described as a terrible movie with awful amount of errors such as someone having a heart attack in Mission Control (no such thing happened) and portrayed Sy as cheating on his wife (that never occurred). They didn't think this movie would have so many things wrong when they did their film shots at Houston. After that, everyone (those that work the MOCR) said they need to be careful this kind of thing doesn't happen again. Sy said when Charles Murray and Catherine Cox were working on their book (Apollo: Race to the Moon, 1989), he got on their case, "don't you ever think about screwing up facts" (they ensured it will not happen, their book is considered the best on those that made Apollo program successful. it is not about astronauts). Later years when Jeff Kluger working with Lovell on the book "Lost Moon" Sy again stressed "don't you ever think about screwing up facts" which Jeff had to re-assure Sy and others they will not screwup like those that did the 1974 movie.
> if a soldier prays before going into battle he is going into battle with the wrong mind set.
According to Hollywood script writers, if a soldier shows a picture of his sweetheart to one of his buddies, he will die in the next firefight.
> A lot of the advancement in the west has been due to religion taking a back seat.
But we can lose it all as religious groups have become more political powerful. There are a lot of Christian groups trying to ban evolution (and typically anti-science in general, they were the ones that persecuted Galileo. And probably the same culprits that burned all the books at the Alexandria library).
> Look at Turkey, flexing its wings because it thinks that massive growth when you came from nothing has meaning it KNOWS it is completely
> at the mercy of the west
Turkey could have been far worse, i.e. like Iran. I asked someone from that country why is it I can find Hayat magazine with provocative photos of women (or at least back in the 1950s, i.e. Gina Lollobrigida, Jayne Mansfield) even though it is a Islam country. He said their first president Atatürk after WWI made sure the country be secular not become a religious country or else it would be excruciatingly difficult to progress.
> We had Darwin on trial. It is just annoying to have to fight the same battle over and over again.
Evolution was not taught in schools until after launch of Sputnik, which curriculum changed because US was "falling behind the USSR in teaching science." But Sputnik occurred over a half a century so here we go to fight the same annoying battle over and over again.
Great discussion, someone mod the parent up for a full "5" rating.
When I sold digital cameras back in the bad old days (mostly pre-y2k) I observed that most people fall into one of two categories of photographers:
And these people need significantly different kinds of cameras.
[ snip ] There are small cameras with good zoom but they are nowhere near being equals to DSLRs, and no DSLR is ever going to fit into your pocket.
Good summary, probably as others mention to not first blow lotsa money on a expensive camera and later find out photog is not your thing.
In the early 1970s book "The Flight That Failed" by S.F. Cooper mentions as the spacecraft was approaching earth, someone (I think from the AEC) said they need to consider where the RTG will land. Ugh, there was already enough going on as crews were powering up the command module, a looming storm in the landing area, spacecraft attitude close to gimbal lock as it positions for re-entry. All this when many had very little sleep, then this guy brings up the RTG. Interesting book as it was written years before the fame brought on by the movie, also lots of esoteric details for techies.
Encryption ain't cheap, ok so I have not shopped around or even used it. But it seems to me it make look inexpensive but if it's digital that means it is computer/software meaning you have to pay and renew software licenses, upgrade to upgrade to meet the next upgrade, etc.
Then all this talk of interoperability (which I am thinking more of it as a bankrupt expression these days), but encryption not helpful in that regard unless you have everybody using same key (which doesn't seem to make much sense).
Regarding cost, I am seeing public safety agencies laying off cops and firemen and/or cutting pensions. Then these companies are pushing new radio systems which are ***very*** expensive. Sorry I don't buy that encryption is lowcost these days, kind of like cellphones that advertise lowcost but they will sock it to you with fees and locked-in monthly plans.
And now this interoperability thing, I think it is industry driven to make lotsa money by bleeding govt agencies for whizbang systems with short life like cellphone apps. Talk to a regular beat cop or fireman, interoperability... what does that mean? The cop wants to be able to talk to dispatch and talk to other officers in his department. The fireman wants clarity and versatility (meaning be able to scale up or down depending on the ICS). For multi-dept response, firefighters have established mutual aid frequencies (fire white, yellow, blue). Occasionally a senior police officer may want to talk to another department, and if they can't use BAYMACS or CLEMARS, they can use the Raytheon ACU-1000. Or use a cellphone or some other means at the ICS command post. We all hear about communications breakdown during 9-11 but also realize NYC did not use ICS and there is a city ordinance that prohibits chief of police and chief of fire to meet the mayor at same time. Incredible as it sounds, maybe they straighten themselves in past ten years (I doubt it), I remember seeing footage on news of several NYC police and firemen in a large fist fight. This occurred some time after the 9-11 attacks and they had to reduce rescue/recovery staff at ground zero (virtually dead bodies been recovered). Some did not want to leave and return to normal duties, others insisted they do so, high emotions resulted. OK, I have to admit I haven't followed up with this story but I could only think, good thing my city doesn't have such a rife between fire and police (and their dispatch offices are right next to each other, instant interoperability and their sneakers don't need software).
Sorry for the rant guys but that's my Gripe Of The Month.
I agree. I've not completely read the article and I have very little experience setting up networks but I've read enough to know that simply connecting something (can be any computer system) to "The Internet" and you will get all kinds of surfing/phishing/probing crap. Most likely hackers were simple thiefs or marketing types wanting to "find customers." It has been said, "stupidity before malice and ignorance before stupidity."
Thanks for writing this message and providing links. Is this being discussed in the House? To contact the House, find your representative at http://house.gov/#feature2 click on your state and will get list of names and districts. For California, http://house.gov/representatives/#state_ca which has names, phone numbers, and links to specific representatives i.e. http://pelosi.house.gov/
come to think of it, this situation occurred in the book "2010," not the movie. Like in Clarke's 2001 book, he was suspicious of the Chinese. Situation was while the Leonov was enroute to Jupiter, the Chinese had a spacecraft that made a mad dash and landed on Europa (ugh, it has been more than 20 years since I read the book so I may have missed some details). Chinese spacecraft and crew perished but they brought very powerful latest technology drilling rigs. (continuing on with the fictional story by Clarke) Apparently China purchased high tech drilling equipment from US and European countries in guise of doing drilling in remote areas of China. However, they were gathering equipment, modifying it with intent to beat the US and USSR in drilling expeditions on Europa. And considering all things, this doesn't seem to be as fictional for these current times.
A panel discussion at one of the SETI presentations, one of them said, "Go where the water is." and there's a lot more water on Europa than Mars. Though the ice is thick and radiation is intense, then there is streaming the data back to the surface from the robot submarine through all that water. But just imagine... direct observation of life forms. Most likely microbes, it would be exciting to see lots of fishes. Imagine all the posts on slashdot, those wanting to name the first fish, marine biologists having to constantly correct people's statements, on going jokes of "All These Worlds..." from the movie (incidently remember also in the movie 2010 is where the Chinese made a mad dash to this area before the Americans and Russians).
and (from the wiki bio).... one of the X-15 rocketplane pilots has the name Bill Dana. I wonder how often he was ragged on that one during the 1960s (or unless he imitated the comedian from the X15 cockpit).
I remember this from the 1983 movie, couldn't recall from the Ed Sullivan show (was very young, didn't remember this specific person). This comedian is probably not shown on DVDs of Ed Sullivan show. But I have seen him on old VHS made from 16mm film by a person that has a huge collection of videos, including shows no longer available from commercial sources.
Some years ago an article described candidates going through the final interview stages. A candidate would sit in front of a panel who would ask various questions, i.e. aircraft programs they worked, their research projects, etc. Candidates describe their activties... then one of the panel members pops the question, "So, why do you want to be an astronaut?" This question typically catches the candidates flatfooted, they usually stumble for an answer. There was one candidate, didn't really know what to say answered, "uhmm, my dad was an astronaut, my granddad was an astronaut. It just runs in the family!" He was chosen (I forgot the name).
It has been mentioned all astronauts are military pilots (70% including mission specialists) so unless you already have chosen that route, then other option is researcher/engineer (the other 30%). Of the latter group, they were already working for NASA (or as a contractor at a Center). Very few, i.e. Mae Jemison, from the "outside" were selected. So if you are rejected but if they offer you a job at NASA, ***take it*** because they are interested in you and want to look at you more closely. This was written about 10 years ago so maybe much has changed. A recent slashdot discussion talked about astronauts probably don't need to be military pilots having fast reaction skills like in a fighter jet these days, much of the spaceflight are very long (i.e. ISS) so a different kind of person is needed.
I haven't pursued an astronaut position as many /. readers know it requires much passion. Steve Hawley (flew on HST deployment) said they look at candidate's records for kinds of work they do, does it focus and lead to astronaut position? A candidate said he has always wanted to be an astronaut but they asked why did he spend seven years with Shell Oil? However, some positions could lead to astronaut. A Navy diver, an officer, observed spacewalking was much like underwater (heck they even train in water!) so she focused her efforts, applied and got accepted (though I'd not be surprised she was first rejected, most accepted have been rejected before).
probably some shills with mod points, I got dinged for disagreeing with the judge's decision (I was getting multiple troll awards but now back into "insightful").
eom