I have the same trouble. Soldering can look so easy when others do it, but years af abusing my wrists doing computer work has given me a nasty combination of carpel tunnel like weakness, and occult gangaleon cysts.
Handling the damn iron is a feat of dexterity I just don't have the patience for.
This is really sad, because I have my eyes set on a project that will require some soldering.:(
What I have decided I will do, is solder some terminal junction blocks down on the pcboard, then just mechanically bite wires, rather than deal with soldering and desoldering.
I don't care if it is less efficient, bigger, and eats more power. You try soldering when your hands shake more than christina agulera on talent night, because the tendons are fucked up.
Apple is just doing what it thinks it should. Patenting everything in a litany of the obvious, before somebody else can.
Next up, if it hasn't already been patented by somebody: sending a still to a call recipient in mid conversation by activating the phone's camera, or sending a live feed from the camera to the other party while talking.
Perfect for those times when your wife sends you to the store for "things" while she is busy attending to her aunt flo', and you need a little clarification about which one she needs again...
Or, for those moments when you are peacfully protesting in sanfransico, and the police forcibly disperse you. Multitasking by giving a statement to the press while simultaneously sending scoop footage to the reporter can sure come in handy.
Will this "ocean palace", which is built to "detect" these mysterious "neutrino" emminations inadvertantly rouse the mighty lavos before he's good and ready?
You know how it is with those quantum mechanical things- all kinds of consequences happen as a result of obervation!/joke
Ok, jokes aside, this is very awesome. The engineering lessons learned could be applied in a wide range of ocean construction projects.
While looking for documentation on catia's programmer interface, I stumbled upon an internal lhc website with truly terrible security set. I am positive that this web server is not meant to be publicly viewed, since it contains a fullblown and live installable copy of catia v5 64bit, as well as engineering plans for the atlas experiment.
It was the live catia install files that returned the google search result, since it seems google's search robot crawled and indexed it.
The server is "atlas-muonstructures". I don't want to give the full dns name. I want to be discrete about it. It DOES return in the top 10 search results for that string.
Could you talk to your IT people, and see about restricting it a little better?
I am a stickler for model quality. I've been called on to design tooling and fixturing for manufacturing purposes, and really, not constraining your sketches, or using sane build parameters is writing a recipie for disaster later on when you need to make a revision. Cad software these days can let you make some truly beautiful design models that are built to resist breaking in amazing ways. (Catia's knowledgeware comes instantly to mind. You can do some really crazy stuff with the knowledge workbenches.)
That said.....
I have seen some of the worst models in the history of aviation come out of gulfstream. For confidentiality reasons, I won't name my employer, or the part series, but the models for a series of wing support bulkheads they sent us for manufacture had the following things wrong with them:
They pencil whipped the floor fillet information into the parts list. They did not model the floor fillets into the digital models. The filletless models were used for the stress and weight metrics in other engineering depts.
The geometry that was supposed to be filleted would result in impossible geometric configurations with the fillets in place.
Full radius fillets in slots that have non-normal walls were done in such a way that the models had a jagged edge where two discrete fillets failed to propery merge.
Location authority for holes was not given to the solid model, but to a pencil whipped cad drawing going to two decimal places (inch), with tight tolerances beyond two places.
Geometry was "boolean split disco fever" in nature; featues that should be nominally parallel were angled by.000000X degrees instead, poor surface tangencies were extant everywhere, and surfaces did not align cleanly.
Long story short, I had to spend an entire month cleaning up and interpreting the data they sent us, just so I could ultimately rebuild their models in a sanitized and useful format for our CNC programmers.
Seeing shit like that makes me hope to god that I never have to fly in one of their planes.
Considering that I use an intermediate who is strictly professional, I find that unlikely. My angry tone comes about after years of habitual and institutional stonewalling tactics.
Sometimes I do end up talking to the customer's engineers directly, and I do my very best to be professional, and polite. Most of the time though, I have to deal with intractable beaurocracies, and stonewalling.
of course, I wouldn't expect a troll like yourself to consider that possibility.
Obviously I am bitter about it because I am just such an asshole that nobody likes me. Obviously.
Space nutters often cite fantasy stories as proof that their crackpot ideas will work.
Aerospace engineers simply refuse to admit that the real world can limit what they do, and that some things simply cannot be done. They refuse to accept the possibility that they could be wrong. (Not that they are wrong, just the mere possibility of it.)
More often than not, you get stonewalled rather than have your questions answered, of they direct you to a secretary that doesn't know her clevage from a hole in the ground (as far as reading and interpreting blueprints are concerned.)
As I said, occasionally I get a bite, and the guy on the other end is polite and helpful. "Oh, we did that because of FOO", etc. I always return the favor and thank him for his time. Most of the time though? "Not me!" And finger pointing.
A series of engineers argue over who's fault it was.
Was it engineer A, who had to make the emergency system require 40kilos of pull to activate, due to flak that it might engage accidentally if the craft hits stiff turbulence or is kicked while the pilot is entering the cockpit?
Was it engineer B, who designed the oxygen recirculation system, and had to work within the physical space and weight restrictions imposed by engineers C and D, resulting in a suboptimal implementation?
Was it engineer C, who designed the superstructure of the figher's cockpit, for failing to fully appreciate the downstream requirements of his peers?
Was it engineer D, who designed the aesthetic and aerodynamic form of the fighter, imposing limitations on engineers A through C, and many others, for continuing the trend of smaller, faster, sleeker, and more compact designs?
Or was it engineer E, who oversaw ergonomic annd human interaction studies that led to the requirements statements fed to engineers A through D?
Was it the beaurocracies involved in construction, telling the engineers to use cheaper, more easily sourced materials so that the fighter comes out underbudget?
With all these parties in the room, bickering over who's fault it was, is it any wonder that the dead pilot, who can't stand up for himself, is the one that got blamed to save face?
Really. I work in aerospace. Many of the people in the engineering depts of major companies act like their shit doesn't stink, even when it obviously does. I make inspection blueprints, and when the degrees of a circular pattern exceed 360 degrees, or when point to point dimensions exceed total part length, and you inform them of the impossibility of these design specs, more often than not your time would be better spent talking to a brick wall.
It's like trying to have an informed discussion on computing with an ardent member of the cult of mac. All you will get back is snide remarks, or pretentious silence. You can quote rules of geometry until you are blue in the face. Quote directly from the gd&t manual for geometric tolerancing, or even play dumb and ask politely what their intentions were... result is almost always the same.
Don't you know, they have degrees, make big salaries, and are important. They never make mistakes. Just ask them.
I have been surprised a few times by polite aerospace engineers that own up to drafting errors, omissions, and flat out screwups before, and I am always cordial and polite with them. But for the most part, all I get back is silence, and derision.
(Just to clarify what I do: I make manufacturing drawings used for internal QA processes. Often times the customer supplied data is a digital nurbs representation of a part with some datum features called out, hole sizes listed and annotated, an some geometric tolerancing frames tacked on. My job is to take this data and in conjunction with the customer's tolerancing guidelines and practices documentation, create drawings that inspectors can use to validate the part was properly manufactured. This requires that they accurately convey the engineering intent of their geometry and datum choices. This is why I sometimes have to ask seemingly silly questions when they break the rules for gd&t frames, or define impossible (mathematically so) tolerances. You would probably be stunned how often I catch insane engineering mistakes because they pencilwhipped shit, and have to figure out the fit form and function myself, because they won't own up to it.)
You misunderstand. I too play as either chaotic good, or chaotic neutral, and for exactly the reasons you stated. I believe that if a law is unjust, you are morally obligated to break it.
The problem I have stems from world designs created by dms that often conflate the two. An example I had was with the unrelenting dumbassness I have playing wizards of the coasts computer games, which defacto enforce the "party alignment" rules, which is why I brought up the abolishionist angle. WoC insists that a party with said abolishionist (CG) and the northern common person (LG) won't get along, and will threaten to abandon the party because of morality axis conflicts, even through in reality this would be unlikely to happen. In short, I dislike the implication that they embed in their scenarios and game frameworks that "chaotic" == "dirty criminal scum."
This is why I brought up gandhi. He is somebody that almost nobody would call "dirty criminal scum", despite the fact that he is basically the patriarch of nonviolent disobedience and lawbreaking for social reformation reasons.
Breaking the law does not immediately imply "immoral", that was the whole argument. In many WoC games, good old gandhi would constantly be fighting against the temple cleric. Had bs like that happen more than once playing the PC versions of baldur's gate, shadows of ahmn. Lawful goods get all snooty over piddly shit, concerning breaking laws they are morally opposed to upholding anyway. But you forced them the break the law, so they get bitchy. For that reason, I view lawful good as morally bankrupt, and the alignment of people giving lipservice, and hipocrites. "Oh, I am morally opposed to slavery, but I can't let you free those slaves! They are the legal property of the slave owner! That's stealing! If he refuses to sell them to us so we can let them go, then we just can't do anything about it. Don't even think about busting out that lockpick!"
Most software people are rules based system builders.
Many have issues violating the rules of systems, even if those rules are obviously defective. (Really? Your old boss wanted you to train people to ignore exception safe practices? How, other than "we can't be held liable, so why invest the time and energy?" Could he possibly justify that position? This is exactly what I meant when I said "personal responsibility." That man is personally responsible for the poor code practices at the firm he manages.)
Often, due to the obviously onesided nature of pretty much all employment contracts, software people accept the rulesets given to them, and do the best they can with them.
The disobedent recognize the insanity of purposefully broken rules, and rightly ignore them. This is the essence of civil disobedience.
Personally, that you are willing to disobey convention tells me quite a bit about your character, and I expect that it is reflected in the software you write. In order to innovate, you have to break convention. It is a fundemental prerequisite. I have never seen any of your source, but I expect it to be "inventive". (I mean that in a good way.)
Another trait software people tend to have is the "efficiency" complex. Efficiency is often equated in product per unit time, rather than quality per unit time. That is to say, the number of applications you write in say, a week, vs the efficiency of an algorithm you are working on, concerning loop execution time against computations done. (Tight and efficient, vs quickly written, does the job, but slow.)
It sounds like your compatriots kuro5hin are of the former species. I suspect that a foray into embedded system design where you are working under extreme memory and processor restraints would teach them the error of their ways. (I actually lament that application software is often written with buggy, inefficient code because people in marketing couldn't set realistic release dates. That's why netbios over tcp/ip on windows more easily exploited than a recovering heroine addict. [As shown through the epically massive number of network worms that target this part of the windows networking system, qed.] I would much rather have software that actually works and is internally efficient and stable, than software hitting the market conveniently at christmas time. Then again, I am a dying breed.)
The only way this will happen in any meaningful way, is through personal responsibility for the software created, both in terms of direct consequences, and also of indirect ones.
Personal responsibility is exactly what corporations are created to avoid.
As such, only the systematic obliteration of software produced by corporations will have the desired effect.
The alternative, is to force the creators and marketers of abusive software products to bear unrelenting heat for their activities, and come clean. This is where the disobedience comes in.
Again, if you chose to be disobedient, then chose to be properly recalcitrant and obstinate in that disobedience. Be totally unreformable, unyeilding. Don't be a Friday night vigilante.
A DDoS is not an actual server intrusion. If is more what happens when you call 5000 friends to go loiter at the mall. You overload the server (stores) with traffic (people) beyond capacity. This results in people coming there to spend money being unable to.
You do this because the place you are DDoSing is engaged in not aboveboard antics.
This is exactly what happened with the "denail of service" attacks that king and other civil rights protesters engaged in with the rapid transit system, bathrooms, etc.
Malls, metropolitan transit hubs, and all kinds of places have anti loitering laws. This is the actual analog to the privacy and security laws you attempted to conflate.
Now, if you are hacking into the server, putting shopped pics of the ceo getting it up the ass by a jackhammer and making the "oh" face, that is totally different. That is vandalism. Not civil disobedience.
The only addendum I havee to this, is to practice the disobendience properly.
When you practice disobedience, you should expect to be caught. If you aren't caught, consider it a happy accident.
Don't ride high on the disobediencec, then grovel like a worm once caught. Own up to your disobediences, and be proud of them. Openly proclaim them, and why you did them.
I really hate dnd alignments. (And by proxy, analogies made with them.)
The whole "lawful" branch of the alignment system tries to make the false implication that just because somthing is legal, it is unjust to question or defy its practice. A good example is slavery. Many nations openly legalized it for centuries. A "lawful neutral" would not care about the slavery bit, only the legality bit.
It would also cast famous historical figures in disfavorable light, such as gandhi. Chaotic good. (Blatant disregard for established law and proceedure.) As a chaotic aligned char, good luck getting him to play nice with "lawful" aligned types, which are your usual goodie goodies in the dnd universes.
Sorry to derail like that, but I find the whole alignment system faulted and dumb. It discounts people from different legal systems getting along great, despite one being chaotic and the other lawful, because the chaotic one is rebelling against foriegn laws the lawful one doesn't ascribe to. (Think "underground railroad" abolishonists talking with northerners without institutionalised slavery. Dnd makes too much of the "oooh, you broke the law.... I'm telling!" Aspect. It fixates, and enforces conflicts between characters that would never actually happen.
Ok, rant over. Back to deepening this fbi tool's humilation.
Ahhh.. Slashdot. Where commenting about a misplaced apostrophe in an otherwise seemingly salient post is somehow more important than the subject the poster was writing about.
It doesn't matter that they were actually right or not. They dared to misuse an apostrophe. That makes them wrong.;)
We won't even get into what happens when someone misuses a coma, or uses the wrong phoneme... there might be children present!
Venus's atmosphere is very low in certain molecules. Nitrogen. Elemental oxygen. Water vapor Et al.
What it is high in, are comparatively dense gasses. Sulfuric acid Carbon dioxide Etc.
The solar wind is highly energetic, but is comprised of small atomic mass particles. They lack the kinetic energy to strip away very heavy gasses with strong intermolecular forces. Water, while having strong intermolecular forces, is a very light molecule, and the high energy particles have sufficient energy to break the single covalent bonds that hold it together. This means the cosmic wind rips it apart, and then scours it out into space. Sulfuric acid and cabron dioxide, on the other hand, are very heavy, gravitate deeper into the gravity well, and in the case of co2, have double covalent bonds that are quite powerful. The solar wind doesn't have enough oomph to rip it apart, and the molecules are too heavy to easily blow away.
Mar's armosphere is actually sabotaged by a weak and incomplete magnetic field. It has many small and weak diploles extending from the surface. Under the influence of the solar wind, this actually pinches off large chunks of atmosphere during heavy flares from the sun. This is why mars has such a pronounced atmospheric loss, compared to venus, which doesn't have any discernable mgnetic field at all. If you note, the atmosphere mars does have is comprised of what? Co2.
In the hard vaccum of space, the powder won't stick together, so the sintering system won't be able to do its thing. Evaporation of some of the build material due to the laser energy would cause spalling, and in a vacuum, the spalling would disperse the build powder. Additionally, the vacuum is an awesome insulator. While this might help with annealing, the low melting temp of condition 0 2024 and 7075 (easily melts under an ordinary blowtorch...) would, in conjunction with constant heating from the laser sintering side and the insulating vacuum, prompt the product to want to sag, and otherwise be slushy. Also, such a slow cooling rate is undesirable for crystalographic reasons. A slow cooled alloy like that has very large grain structure, and is brittle. You want it to cool fairly quickly, so that tiny, random crystals are made.
Water has a small interatomic space due to hydrogen bonding, and is mostly hydrogen.
This makes it an ideal shielding material against cosmic rays.
If we somehow, miraculously, manage to get past the "50 years from now" benchmark on fusion energy, capitalizing on the cosmic ray radiation to make the water into heavy water over centuries of time (reactor fuel water being isolated from life support water reserves for human consumption) you get a 2 for 1 deal.
Agreed, but most "massive amounts of ram" capable desktop boards are multiprocessor cuda designs.
This means a cpu hit and cpu bus io bottleneck for disk io. This bottleneck will also be having to service exchanges between the videocards and system ram, and program execution requirements. (Most games are uniprocessor, even today.) The ram is present, but to get to it you have to talk to another processor/core.
The issue with disk io vs cpu involvement is important. It is the single most important feature of a bus mastering drive controller. You can watch an otherwise high end box grab its ass and moan like goatse by disabling bus mastering on the drive controller.
Agreed, mars, venus, titan, and europa are primary targets long before kepler22b and other distant bodies.
Mars, titan, and europa would all be subterene colonies though, because surface condition will never be suitable for terrestrial life.
Venus poses more challenge. Compositionally, it should have a magnetic field, and has plenty of internal energy to drive one. The problem is the smothering atmosphere. It keeps the crust so hot that it is just on the edge of melting. It is too hot at the surface for the mantle to convect, so no geomagnetic dynamo.
A colony on venus would have to be a "cloud city", or orbital, wit hardened landers scooping up atmosphere and metalic rock from the surface. It is likely the last place that would be colonized, due to the challenges.
Interesting ideas for it would be carbon fixation attempts, like engineering atmospheric microbes to precipitate the carbon out has high temperature plastics, like aramid. (Aramaid has a thermal breakdown temp of 500c. Just about right for venus's mean surface temp. Venus has mountains, which would be cooler. This means accumulation, and specific heat requirements to decompose "avalanches" that fall off, lowering the surface tempuratues just enough over time to really snow the shit out.)
Venusian orbit would be a great place for the superstructure colony ship to be built. It is high in radioactive metals, the squishy crust would allow fairly easy extraction (given suitable fabrication materials) and the high concentration of atmospheric carbon would help stock the biomass requirements for the vessel. Water would have to come from either earth or europa. Nitrogen supplies perhaps from titan.
It would be a mamoth construction project, and being closer to the sun would improve energy availability to enable such a task. (Doubtful it could be built in the outer solar system.)
Breakaway from the solar system perhaps from a gravity shot around the sun.
But yes, long before such a ship would be built, the local neighborhood would have to be fully populated.
The requirements I stated presumed a one-way trip, with no resupply.
Personally, I would take an initial crew of 1000, and over 5000 frozen embryos. This hedges bets against people chosing to be celebate, and against crew loss.
Slashdot Mirror
I have the same trouble. Soldering can look so easy when others do it, but years af abusing my wrists doing computer work has given me a nasty combination of carpel tunnel like weakness, and occult gangaleon cysts.
Handling the damn iron is a feat of dexterity I just don't have the patience for.
This is really sad, because I have my eyes set on a project that will require some soldering. :(
What I have decided I will do, is solder some terminal junction blocks down on the pcboard, then just mechanically bite wires, rather than deal with soldering and desoldering.
I don't care if it is less efficient, bigger, and eats more power. You try soldering when your hands shake more than christina agulera on talent night, because the tendons are fucked up.
Socketed or shit ain't happenin.
Not good enough though.
NSIDC predicts that by 2025 arctic tundra will turn from carbon sink to carbon emmision source.
Yay for violent methane release! Better fill up that hummer! You're gonna need the gas considering how hard your AC is gonna be working.
Unfortunately, Larry Ellison's planet sized ego would survive, much like these burnt out planets the article mentions.
Only the burnt out planets didn't have golden parachutes.
Larry Ellison does.
Apple is just doing what it thinks it should. Patenting everything in a litany of the obvious, before somebody else can.
Next up, if it hasn't already been patented by somebody: sending a still to a call recipient in mid conversation by activating the phone's camera, or sending a live feed from the camera to the other party while talking.
Perfect for those times when your wife sends you to the store for "things" while she is busy attending to her aunt flo', and you need a little clarification about which one she needs again...
Or, for those moments when you are peacfully protesting in sanfransico, and the police forcibly disperse you. Multitasking by giving a statement to the press while simultaneously sending scoop footage to the reporter can sure come in handy.
Will this "ocean palace", which is built to "detect" these mysterious "neutrino" emminations inadvertantly rouse the mighty lavos before he's good and ready?
You know how it is with those quantum mechanical things- all kinds of consequences happen as a result of obervation! /joke
Ok, jokes aside, this is very awesome. The engineering lessons learned could be applied in a wide range of ocean construction projects.
You work with the lhc?
Great, somebody I can point this out to!
While looking for documentation on catia's programmer interface, I stumbled upon an internal lhc website with truly terrible security set. I am positive that this web server is not meant to be publicly viewed, since it contains a fullblown and live installable copy of catia v5 64bit, as well as engineering plans for the atlas experiment.
It was the live catia install files that returned the google search result, since it seems google's search robot crawled and indexed it.
The server is "atlas-muonstructures". I don't want to give the full dns name. I want to be discrete about it. It DOES return in the top 10 search results for that string.
Could you talk to your IT people, and see about restricting it a little better?
Sounds like you and I would get along great.
I am a stickler for model quality. I've been called on to design tooling and fixturing for manufacturing purposes, and really, not constraining your sketches, or using sane build parameters is writing a recipie for disaster later on when you need to make a revision. Cad software these days can let you make some truly beautiful design models that are built to resist breaking in amazing ways. (Catia's knowledgeware comes instantly to mind. You can do some really crazy stuff with the knowledge workbenches.)
That said.....
I have seen some of the worst models in the history of aviation come out of gulfstream. For confidentiality reasons, I won't name my employer, or the part series, but the models for a series of wing support bulkheads they sent us for manufacture had the following things wrong with them:
They pencil whipped the floor fillet information into the parts list. They did not model the floor fillets into the digital models. The filletless models were used for the stress and weight metrics in other engineering depts.
The geometry that was supposed to be filleted would result in impossible geometric configurations with the fillets in place.
Full radius fillets in slots that have non-normal walls were done in such a way that the models had a jagged edge where two discrete fillets failed to propery merge.
Location authority for holes was not given to the solid model, but to a pencil whipped cad drawing going to two decimal places (inch), with tight tolerances beyond two places.
Geometry was "boolean split disco fever" in nature; featues that should be nominally parallel were angled by .000000X degrees instead, poor surface tangencies were extant everywhere, and surfaces did not align cleanly.
Long story short, I had to spend an entire month cleaning up and interpreting the data they sent us, just so I could ultimately rebuild their models in a sanitized and useful format for our CNC programmers.
Seeing shit like that makes me hope to god that I never have to fly in one of their planes.
Considering that I use an intermediate who is strictly professional, I find that unlikely. My angry tone comes about after years of habitual and institutional stonewalling tactics.
Sometimes I do end up talking to the customer's engineers directly, and I do my very best to be professional, and polite. Most of the time though, I have to deal with intractable beaurocracies, and stonewalling.
of course, I wouldn't expect a troll like yourself to consider that possibility.
Obviously I am bitter about it because I am just such an asshole that nobody likes me. Obviously.
Space nutters often cite fantasy stories as proof that their crackpot ideas will work.
Aerospace engineers simply refuse to admit that the real world can limit what they do, and that some things simply cannot be done. They refuse to accept the possibility that they could be wrong. (Not that they are wrong, just the mere possibility of it.)
More often than not, you get stonewalled rather than have your questions answered, of they direct you to a secretary that doesn't know her clevage from a hole in the ground (as far as reading and interpreting blueprints are concerned.)
As I said, occasionally I get a bite, and the guy on the other end is polite and helpful. "Oh, we did that because of FOO", etc. I always return the favor and thank him for his time. Most of the time though? "Not me!" And finger pointing.
A series of engineers argue over who's fault it was.
Was it engineer A, who had to make the emergency system require 40kilos of pull to activate, due to flak that it might engage accidentally if the craft hits stiff turbulence or is kicked while the pilot is entering the cockpit?
Was it engineer B, who designed the oxygen recirculation system, and had to work within the physical space and weight restrictions imposed by engineers C and D, resulting in a suboptimal implementation?
Was it engineer C, who designed the superstructure of the figher's cockpit, for failing to fully appreciate the downstream requirements of his peers?
Was it engineer D, who designed the aesthetic and aerodynamic form of the fighter, imposing limitations on engineers A through C, and many others, for continuing the trend of smaller, faster, sleeker, and more compact designs?
Or was it engineer E, who oversaw ergonomic annd human interaction studies that led to the requirements statements fed to engineers A through D?
Was it the beaurocracies involved in construction, telling the engineers to use cheaper, more easily sourced materials so that the fighter comes out underbudget?
With all these parties in the room, bickering over who's fault it was, is it any wonder that the dead pilot, who can't stand up for himself, is the one that got blamed to save face?
Really. I work in aerospace. Many of the people in the engineering depts of major companies act like their shit doesn't stink, even when it obviously does. I make inspection blueprints, and when the degrees of a circular pattern exceed 360 degrees, or when point to point dimensions exceed total part length, and you inform them of the impossibility of these design specs, more often than not your time would be better spent talking to a brick wall.
It's like trying to have an informed discussion on computing with an ardent member of the cult of mac. All you will get back is snide remarks, or pretentious silence. You can quote rules of geometry until you are blue in the face. Quote directly from the gd&t manual for geometric tolerancing, or even play dumb and ask politely what their intentions were... result is almost always the same.
Don't you know, they have degrees, make big salaries, and are important. They never make mistakes. Just ask them.
I have been surprised a few times by polite aerospace engineers that own up to drafting errors, omissions, and flat out screwups before, and I am always cordial and polite with them. But for the most part, all I get back is silence, and derision.
(Just to clarify what I do: I make manufacturing drawings used for internal QA processes. Often times the customer supplied data is a digital nurbs representation of a part with some datum features called out, hole sizes listed and annotated, an some geometric tolerancing frames tacked on. My job is to take this data and in conjunction with the customer's tolerancing guidelines and practices documentation, create drawings that inspectors can use to validate the part was properly manufactured. This requires that they accurately convey the engineering intent of their geometry and datum choices. This is why I sometimes have to ask seemingly silly questions when they break the rules for gd&t frames, or define impossible (mathematically so) tolerances. You would probably be stunned how often I catch insane engineering mistakes because they pencilwhipped shit, and have to figure out the fit form and function myself, because they won't own up to it.)
You misunderstand. I too play as either chaotic good, or chaotic neutral, and for exactly the reasons you stated. I believe that if a law is unjust, you are morally obligated to break it.
The problem I have stems from world designs created by dms that often conflate the two. An example I had was with the unrelenting dumbassness I have playing wizards of the coasts computer games, which defacto enforce the "party alignment" rules, which is why I brought up the abolishionist angle. WoC insists that a party with said abolishionist (CG) and the northern common person (LG) won't get along, and will threaten to abandon the party because of morality axis conflicts, even through in reality this would be unlikely to happen. In short, I dislike the implication that they embed in their scenarios and game frameworks that "chaotic" == "dirty criminal scum."
This is why I brought up gandhi. He is somebody that almost nobody would call "dirty criminal scum", despite the fact that he is basically the patriarch of nonviolent disobedience and lawbreaking for social reformation reasons.
Breaking the law does not immediately imply "immoral", that was the whole argument. In many WoC games, good old gandhi would constantly be fighting against the temple cleric. Had bs like that happen more than once playing the PC versions of baldur's gate, shadows of ahmn. Lawful goods get all snooty over piddly shit, concerning breaking laws they are morally opposed to upholding anyway. But you forced them the break the law, so they get bitchy. For that reason, I view lawful good as morally bankrupt, and the alignment of people giving lipservice, and hipocrites. "Oh, I am morally opposed to slavery, but I can't let you free those slaves! They are the legal property of the slave owner! That's stealing! If he refuses to sell them to us so we can let them go, then we just can't do anything about it. Don't even think about busting out that lockpick!"
Most software people are rules based system builders.
Many have issues violating the rules of systems, even if those rules are obviously defective. (Really? Your old boss wanted you to train people to ignore exception safe practices? How, other than "we can't be held liable, so why invest the time and energy?" Could he possibly justify that position? This is exactly what I meant when I said "personal responsibility." That man is personally responsible for the poor code practices at the firm he manages.)
Often, due to the obviously onesided nature of pretty much all employment contracts, software people accept the rulesets given to them, and do the best they can with them.
The disobedent recognize the insanity of purposefully broken rules, and rightly ignore them. This is the essence of civil disobedience.
Personally, that you are willing to disobey convention tells me quite a bit about your character, and I expect that it is reflected in the software you write. In order to innovate, you have to break convention. It is a fundemental prerequisite. I have never seen any of your source, but I expect it to be "inventive". (I mean that in a good way.)
Another trait software people tend to have is the "efficiency" complex. Efficiency is often equated in product per unit time, rather than quality per unit time. That is to say, the number of applications you write in say, a week, vs the efficiency of an algorithm you are working on, concerning loop execution time against computations done. (Tight and efficient, vs quickly written, does the job, but slow.)
It sounds like your compatriots kuro5hin are of the former species. I suspect that a foray into embedded system design where you are working under extreme memory and processor restraints would teach them the error of their ways. (I actually lament that application software is often written with buggy, inefficient code because people in marketing couldn't set realistic release dates. That's why netbios over tcp/ip on windows more easily exploited than a recovering heroine addict. [As shown through the epically massive number of network worms that target this part of the windows networking system, qed.] I would much rather have software that actually works and is internally efficient and stable, than software hitting the market conveniently at christmas time. Then again, I am a dying breed.)
The only way this will happen in any meaningful way, is through personal responsibility for the software created, both in terms of direct consequences, and also of indirect ones.
Personal responsibility is exactly what corporations are created to avoid.
As such, only the systematic obliteration of software produced by corporations will have the desired effect.
The alternative, is to force the creators and marketers of abusive software products to bear unrelenting heat for their activities, and come clean. This is where the disobedience comes in.
Again, if you chose to be disobedient, then chose to be properly recalcitrant and obstinate in that disobedience. Be totally unreformable, unyeilding. Don't be a Friday night vigilante.
That's all I was trying to say.
A DDoS is not an actual server intrusion. If is more what happens when you call 5000 friends to go loiter at the mall. You overload the server (stores) with traffic (people) beyond capacity. This results in people coming there to spend money being unable to.
You do this because the place you are DDoSing is engaged in not aboveboard antics.
This is exactly what happened with the "denail of service" attacks that king and other civil rights protesters engaged in with the rapid transit system, bathrooms, etc.
Malls, metropolitan transit hubs, and all kinds of places have anti loitering laws. This is the actual analog to the privacy and security laws you attempted to conflate.
Now, if you are hacking into the server, putting shopped pics of the ceo getting it up the ass by a jackhammer and making the "oh" face, that is totally different. That is vandalism. Not civil disobedience.
The only addendum I havee to this, is to practice the disobendience properly.
When you practice disobedience, you should expect to be caught. If you aren't caught, consider it a happy accident.
Don't ride high on the disobediencec, then grovel like a worm once caught. Own up to your disobediences, and be proud of them. Openly proclaim them, and why you did them.
That is the correct way to be disobedient.
I really hate dnd alignments. (And by proxy, analogies made with them.)
The whole "lawful" branch of the alignment system tries to make the false implication that just because somthing is legal, it is unjust to question or defy its practice. A good example is slavery. Many nations openly legalized it for centuries. A "lawful neutral" would not care about the slavery bit, only the legality bit.
It would also cast famous historical figures in disfavorable light, such as gandhi. Chaotic good. (Blatant disregard for established law and proceedure.) As a chaotic aligned char, good luck getting him to play nice with "lawful" aligned types, which are your usual goodie goodies in the dnd universes.
Sorry to derail like that, but I find the whole alignment system faulted and dumb. It discounts people from different legal systems getting along great, despite one being chaotic and the other lawful, because the chaotic one is rebelling against foriegn laws the lawful one doesn't ascribe to. (Think "underground railroad" abolishonists talking with northerners without institutionalised slavery. Dnd makes too much of the "oooh, you broke the law.... I'm telling!" Aspect. It fixates, and enforces conflicts between characters that would never actually happen.
Ok, rant over. Back to deepening this fbi tool's humilation.
Ahhh.. Slashdot. Where commenting about a misplaced apostrophe in an otherwise seemingly salient post is somehow more important than the subject the poster was writing about.
It doesn't matter that they were actually right or not. They dared to misuse an apostrophe. That makes them wrong. ;)
We won't even get into what happens when someone misuses a coma, or uses the wrong phoneme... there might be children present!
Total mass, yes. Percentage wise, not even close.
The vast majority of interaction will be with the resilient and heavy co2 molecule, and not the much ligher n2 molecule.
That does not mean venus is not losing nitrogen to solar wind, it means the heavy percentage of c02 greatly reduces rate of loss.
Look at the composition.
Venus's atmosphere is very low in certain molecules.
Nitrogen.
Elemental oxygen.
Water vapor
Et al.
What it is high in, are comparatively dense gasses.
Sulfuric acid
Carbon dioxide
Etc.
The solar wind is highly energetic, but is comprised of small atomic mass particles. They lack the kinetic energy to strip away very heavy gasses with strong intermolecular forces. Water, while having strong intermolecular forces, is a very light molecule, and the high energy particles have sufficient energy to break the single covalent bonds that hold it together. This means the cosmic wind rips it apart, and then scours it out into space. Sulfuric acid and cabron dioxide, on the other hand, are very heavy, gravitate deeper into the gravity well, and in the case of co2, have double covalent bonds that are quite powerful. The solar wind doesn't have enough oomph to rip it apart, and the molecules are too heavy to easily blow away.
Mar's armosphere is actually sabotaged by a weak and incomplete magnetic field. It has many small and weak diploles extending from the surface. Under the influence of the solar wind, this actually pinches off large chunks of atmosphere during heavy flares from the sun. This is why mars has such a pronounced atmospheric loss, compared to venus, which doesn't have any discernable mgnetic field at all. If you note, the atmosphere mars does have is comprised of what? Co2.
In the hard vaccum of space, the powder won't stick together, so the sintering system won't be able to do its thing. Evaporation of some of the build material due to the laser energy would cause spalling, and in a vacuum, the spalling would disperse the build powder. Additionally, the vacuum is an awesome insulator. While this might help with annealing, the low melting temp of condition 0 2024 and 7075 (easily melts under an ordinary blowtorch...) would, in conjunction with constant heating from the laser sintering side and the insulating vacuum, prompt the product to want to sag, and otherwise be slushy. Also, such a slow cooling rate is undesirable for crystalographic reasons. A slow cooled alloy like that has very large grain structure, and is brittle. You want it to cool fairly quickly, so that tiny, random crystals are made.
Water has a small interatomic space due to hydrogen bonding, and is mostly hydrogen.
This makes it an ideal shielding material against cosmic rays.
If we somehow, miraculously, manage to get past the "50 years from now" benchmark on fusion energy, capitalizing on the cosmic ray radiation to make the water into heavy water over centuries of time (reactor fuel water being isolated from life support water reserves for human consumption) you get a 2 for 1 deal.
Neat idea, but could be tricky with the colony ship in active rotation to maintain artificial gravity.
Perhaps a detachable module?
Agreed, but most "massive amounts of ram" capable desktop boards are multiprocessor cuda designs.
This means a cpu hit and cpu bus io bottleneck for disk io.
This bottleneck will also be having to service exchanges between the videocards and system ram, and program execution requirements. (Most games are uniprocessor, even today.) The ram is present, but to get to it you have to talk to another processor/core.
The issue with disk io vs cpu involvement is important. It is the single most important feature of a bus mastering drive controller. You can watch an otherwise high end box grab its ass and moan like goatse by disabling bus mastering on the drive controller.
Agreed, mars, venus, titan, and europa are primary targets long before kepler22b and other distant bodies.
Mars, titan, and europa would all be subterene colonies though, because surface condition will never be suitable for terrestrial life.
Venus poses more challenge. Compositionally, it should have a magnetic field, and has plenty of internal energy to drive one. The problem is the smothering atmosphere. It keeps the crust so hot that it is just on the edge of melting. It is too hot at the surface for the mantle to convect, so no geomagnetic dynamo.
A colony on venus would have to be a "cloud city", or orbital, wit hardened landers scooping up atmosphere and metalic rock from the surface. It is likely the last place that would be colonized, due to the challenges.
Interesting ideas for it would be carbon fixation attempts, like engineering atmospheric microbes to precipitate the carbon out has high temperature plastics, like aramid. (Aramaid has a thermal breakdown temp of 500c. Just about right for venus's mean surface temp. Venus has mountains, which would be cooler. This means accumulation, and specific heat requirements to decompose "avalanches" that fall off, lowering the surface tempuratues just enough over time to really snow the shit out.)
Venusian orbit would be a great place for the superstructure colony ship to be built. It is high in radioactive metals, the squishy crust would allow fairly easy extraction (given suitable fabrication materials) and the high concentration of atmospheric carbon would help stock the biomass requirements for the vessel. Water would have to come from either earth or europa. Nitrogen supplies perhaps from titan.
It would be a mamoth construction project, and being closer to the sun would improve energy availability to enable such a task. (Doubtful it could be built in the outer solar system.)
Breakaway from the solar system perhaps from a gravity shot around the sun.
But yes, long before such a ship would be built, the local neighborhood would have to be fully populated.
The requirements I stated presumed a one-way trip, with no resupply.
Personally, I would take an initial crew of 1000, and over 5000 frozen embryos. This hedges bets against people chosing to be celebate, and against crew loss.