A generally good answer... based on fact with enough humor to sink in. The truth is, though, that unit power supplies don't cost that much. Actually, DC-DC converters are pretty mature technology... thousands would be more accurate.
It is good to see the Slashdot crowd being so up on tin whiskers and willing to consider it. As I've commented in the past, when tin whiskers first emerged as a problem, the community didn't buy into it. Only as a result of extensive demonstrative testing were people convinced the problem was real. Real enough to spend a lot of money reworking hardware well into the manufacturing pipeline.
I think the lesson to take from tin whiskers is that one needs to keep an open mind as to the cause of problems of unknown origin. Resist the temptation to leap to conclusions and consider all the possibilities.
I work in the satellite industry. You are right that the two satellites were manufactured by two separate organizations. However, different companies's approved parts lists do share common vendor parts and various industry standard processes are more or less similar. So, it is possible that a common M&P issue is at the root of the problem. Tin whiskers is a good example of this.
It is also worth looking into workmanship.
Lockheed-Martin's root cause investigation will cover all the bases in its attempt to isolate the cause. Hopefully, if the cause does have industry reach-across, the word will get out to the rest of us.
How about a less-paranoid conspiracy theory -- the owner of the satellite knew it had a flaw, or was approaching the end of its usable life or something, and just had it "fail" to collect the insurance money.
From the article, "Intelsat expects to record a non-cash impairment charge of approximately $73 million to write off the value of the IS-804 satellite. The IS-804 was not insured, in accordance with Intelsat's practice of insuring only those satellites with a net book value greater than $150 million."
"Metal whiskers", vacuum deposition, etc. are well recognized issues in satellite construction. After a few thousand birds at many millions a pop the industry is quite savvy about avoiding these.
I've worked in the satellite business for over seventeen years (Boeing Satellite Systems, nee Hughes Space and Communications, Inc.). While I can't comment on what caused the I8 anomaly/loss (since I don't know), I would like to comment on your assertions.
Tin whiskers, a relatively recently discovered M&P problem, is reasonably understood at this point. However, satellites of the vintage of the subject bird (1997) were manufactured before this phenomenon was fully understood. Reachback issues might have prevented the I8 bird, and even more its I7 cousin, from being remedied, in the event that its design was susceptible, which it may or may not have been.
Building hardware for the space environment is non-trivial, to put it lightly. Many phenomena continue to reveal themselves to people who have been working in this business for over 40 years.
The "few thousand birds" comment is funny, though.
Thank you for this post; it is the first I have seen that mostly captures the intent of this technology. Moderators, please mod the parent up as insightful. Now, allow me to elaborate somewhat....
I work for Boeing Satellite Systems. While I won't comment on the specifics of this system, since it is in a competitive study phase, I will say that the whole point of this is to create a new, more dynamically configurable system for interconnecting users. A (hopefully) useful analogy is this: Traditional satcom systems set up user comm like you make phone calls or conference calls--detailed setup is required and finite resources limit the number of calls that can be active at any one time; this new approach promises to allow users to communicate as they do over the Internet--minimum setup with much higher capacity due to virtual circuits.
A lot of focus in this thread has been on latencies due to earth-space-earth links. These latencies exist for current systems and are worked around (or are relatively unimportant to begin with). It is the flexibility that packet routing offers that makes this new system so attractive.
Thanks for your reply--it looks like I guessed your problem correctly. Just so you know, I am an RF engineer (satellites), so I am somewhat familiar with coax cabling, termination issues, etc.
The optimum way to convey analog component video signals is via matched-length coax cable with a characteristic impedance of 75 ohms. Both the source and destination equipment connections will be suitably terminated to 75 ohms, since this is the video standard, so there are no concerns regarding impedance changes--only on the quality of your impedance matching.
The coax cable should be terminated with BNC connectors. Attempting to terminate coax cable with RCA connectors is unwise. Using an adapter to connect the BNC-terminated cable to RCA inputs and outputs is the way to go. The Monster Cable adapters I provided the link to are designed to mate 75 ohm connections. Further, they are high-quality machined parts with top-notch gold plating, ensuring snug fit, good connection quality, and resistance to corrosion.
I suggest you rethink your plan. Regardless, I wish you good luck.
Thanks for this post. I've read through quite a few on this topic and just wanted to add a little to yours.
For those who don't know, the "eye pattern" is what one sees on an oscilloscope or equivalent test equipment when measuring the output of a device or cable stimulated by a digital test pattern. The quality of the eye, in terms of the amount of openness both vertically and horizontally, reflects the quality of the signal in terms of amplitude noise (vertical openness) and jitter (horizontal openness). (More or less, anyway.)
As the eye closes up due to poor cabling, bit error rate (BER) increases, since the receiver has a tougher time discerning 1's from 0's due to the presence of noise and jitter. The eye closes up due to various factors, e.g., impedance mismatches/discontinuities that give rise to reflections, etc.
Poorer-quality cables can degrade signal quality to the point that BER increases beyond the error correction code's ability to ensure signal integrity. The results can range from picture degradation to link failure, depending on the severity of the problem.
Designing and manufacturing high-quality cables is not an inherently stratospherically expensive activity. However, without due attention to the details, inferior products can result. Higher-end products, in general, purport to have more attention paid to these details. The trick, in my mind, is to select products that reasonably balance design/manufacture quality and cost.
FWIW, and mind you, I am not a Monster Cable rep, I find Monster Cable products, in general, to provide a pretty good balance. Usually, a couple products up from the bottom provides decent quality vs. cost. Just my 2 cents worth.
While your post is informative, and interesting, I would like to warn folks that it describes technology (and implicitly techniques) that are in the professional domain and, therefore, are quite costly and non-trivial to implement.
On a technical note, 4:2:2 color sampling (or its equivalent at HD, 22:11:11) is considered "broadcast quality." 4:4:4 RGB (or 4:4:4:4 RGBA or 22:22:22 HD RGB or 22:22:22:22 HD RGBA) is used for effects, animation, etc., and is not used for final delivery. So, thinking 4:4:4 data will be better for "casual" use is misleading.
Anyway, the bottom line here is that uncompressed video capture and manipulation, especially at HD but even at SD, is a costly undertaking. Although pro technology is accessible to consumers in an unprecedented way today, it is far from trivial to implement for casual home use.
Still, it is very interesting to learn how the pros do their stuff behind the scenes.
Re: #4, I'll take a swing.... Mind you, I didn't work on Cassini-Huygens, but I do work in the space business (Boeing Satellite Systems), so I know how things are done, in general.
I assume the question is how Cassini's antenna is pointed to Earth. All spacecraft maintain knowledge of their attitude, i.e., their orientation in inertial space. This knowledge is really an estimate only, rather than an exact kind of knowledge, but it is quite precise. [It is based on specific reference measurements and inertial techniques using gyros, etc.] Similarly, spacecraft maintain knowledge of the pointing of any antennas they have. [Gimballed antennas have mechanisms--they form the gimbal--with motors and position feedback devices like resolvers.]
Using tracking stations, ground control has knowledge of the position of the spacecraft. [Alt-azimuth mounted tracking antennas and range estimation equipment produce data which are transformed to yield Earth-centric location data.]
All of this information is processed by the ground to produce pointing commands for the spacecraft antenna, which are uploaded to the spacecraft. The spacecraft antenna responds to these commands and positions itself accordingly. If all goes well, pointing is usually good enough for the ground to acquire a signal. From there, minor tracking adjustments can be made to optimize signal strength.
Remember, even ultra high gain antennas produce fairly broad wavefronts from long distances, so initial pointing usually has some margin for error. Scanning techniques are used to aid acquisition if initial pointing is off. The DSN's highly-sensitive receivers are a big part of making this all work.
All of that said, I am continually amazed at what can be done. It's kinda like seeing a 747 fly directly overhead at LAX... I can explain why it stays up there, but I still think it's bloody amazing that it does.
Thanks for this. Working in the space business (I work at Boeing Satellite Systems as a comm engineer), I find this subject particularly interesting. Having read the IEEE Spectrum article, let me (hopefully) clarify for the layman what I think happened....
Changing range between the Cassini orbiter and the Huygens probe with the original mission trajectories would lead to Doppler shift of the signal from the probe to the orbiter. This shift either compresses or stretches the incoming signal in time, depending on whether the two are closing or moving apart. To accommodate this, one must, at a minimum, design the orbiter receiver's phase-lock loop (PLL) so that it has sufficient bandwidth to track the modulated carrier at it's shifted frequency.
If this is done (and it was), the receiver can lock on to the signal and demodulate it, retrieving the baseband signal as an analog waveform of voltages corresponding to 1's and 0's (BPSK, or binary phase shift keying--the modulation scheme used for the Cassini-Huygens data link--is a very basic digital modulation scheme and is relatively easily demodulated). This signal must then be processed by a bit synchronizer, which looks for voltage transitions (corresponding to individual bits) at specified intervals according to the design data rate. Here is where the problem appears to have crept in.
The nominal data rate for the Cassini-Huygens data link is 8192 bps. However, the Doppler shift that alters the carrier frequency doesn't alter it in isolation; the entire wave is compressed or stretched. As a result, the transitions between 1's and 0's are compressed or stretched in time, as well. Apparently, Alenia Spazio SpA, the Italian company that manufactured the Cassini-Huygens data link equipment, hard-coded (in firmware, not software) the bit synchronization processing to work at 8192 bps, with only a small tolerance for variation in data rate. The variations in data rate expected due to Doppler shift would have exceeded this design tolerance, causing the bit synchronizer to identify 1's and 0's incorrectly (producing gibberish).
Fortunately, due to the efforts of the Swedish engineer who discovered and spearheaded the look into the problem, and the rest of the ESA/NASA team, the problem was detected and a workaround was devised. By altering the trajectory of Cassini, the Doppler shift could be minimized and the system could be made to work within its design. At least that is the hope.
For all you open source advocates out there, it is further interesting to note that a contributor to this problem going undetected for so long was Alenia Spazio SpA's unwillingness to disclose the specific design details of their radio to the ESA/NASA, who might have detected the problem earlier on. Compounding the problem: apparently, an NDA could have been arranged, but it was largely deemed unnecessary due to the supposed simplicity of the radio design problem. Caveat emptor!
You know, normally I'd ignore an ignorant post such as yours, AC, but just so others don't get the wrong impression... I purchased the retail version of the game. So bugger off, a--hole!
I think the people getting mad at them don't have a legitimate reason, but they are mad.
As I indicated in an earlier post, I am one of many customers (I bought the retail game) who cannot play because I cannot log in via Steam; I cannot even log in to go offline. This, apparently, because of an overloaded Steam network.
Then Valve releases DM, further increasing Steam load. To those of us who can't play what we paid for, the prioritization of releasing a DM update over fixing an overloaded network is maddening.
You say that Steam has made it impossible for many people to play the game? Who, and how, I ask?
I, for one, cannot play the game. I have an always-on 3 Mbps Internet connection, but Steam won't log me on. Apparently this is due to overload on their network. Regardless, I cannot play the game I paid $60 for; I can't even log on to select offline play. Googling has turned up a lot of anecdotal evidence of this being a widespread problem.
I pursue CS interests as a hobby, but my degree is in EE and I work in the aerospace industry (satellites), so my situation is a little different. Nonetheless, I think there is some commonality in the work world.
I went to M.I.T. I wouldn't say I had a lot of fun compared with what I expect ASU would've been like. However, I think it is telling that even now, 20 years into my career, (a) I still get "Wow, that's impressive" whenever someone learns I went to M.I.T., (b) it stands out on my resume, and (c) people regularly think I have a Master's degree even though I only have a B.S.
Granted, the latter item may be due to my experience and how I present myself, which, ultimately, will always make the biggest impression on prospective employers, but there's no disputing the positive of a higher-powered credential.
I think the bottom line is: If you have an opportunity to get the better credential, you may regret it later on in life if you forego it; I would recommend you go after it. If, on the other hand, money is an issue (or whatever), then go with the best you can afford and work from there.
That said, maybe I'll be pointing out the obvious here, but the problem stems from the fact that, in satellite coverage terminology at least, CONUS, or continental United States, coverage refers to coverage of the lower 48 states; AK and HI are usually excluded. This is because the lower 48 fit into a nicely-shaped coverage area. AK and HI, if covered, must usually be covered by separate spot beams (unless there is global coverage covering everything).
I agree that most commercial communications satellites are probably monitored on a regular, if not continuous, basis. I further agree that many anomalies have warning signs leading up to the failure that can give some indication of a pending problem. However, I have encountered many anomalies that provided no warning signs. In the power area, solar array degradation or degrading battery performance might show the signs you suggest, but there are critical failure modes associated with power distribution that can fail catastrophically with no notice. I am somewhat surprised that the design afforded no redundancy to mitigate such a failure, but you can't protect against everything. Sounds like a pretty freak occurrence to me.
Sorry, mods, but the parent post should not be moderated insightful (no offense to the poster). Proximity problems are not uncommon at all in the more densely populated areas of the geo belt. The USAF, for one, must routinely expend significant effort monitoring their fleet and coordinating with other agencies to ensure collisions do not occur. This is a real potential problem.
I'll bring this up a little since it was posted by an AC below my post and might not get noticed. It deals with the Goalkeeper, apparently a Dutch equivalent to the Phalanx system, though it's 30mm vs. the Phalanx's 20mm:
I know you're self-critiquing, JD, so here's a little extra:
1. You might want to debug your syntax checker; it's actually the "are" that's superfluous, I think.
2. The question remains as to whether or not one would still love Bullfighter after they've tried it.:-)
Interesting tool, though. Thanks for making me aware of it. It is also interesting that a firm like Deloitte would put such funny stuff on their web site. (I'm referring to the Bullfighter FAQs on the download page.)
It is further interesting that Deloitte's home page has content dealing with Sarbanes-Oxley, which was mentioned in this thread.
Well, I guess I have to admit that Camera Eye is a little repetetive, but it's just got some really nice themes to it....:-)
I can't see why they'd be embarassed by Lakeside Park; that's a really pretty song, too. Oh, well. The others I can't comment on because I don't know them well enough. I seem to remember "I Think I'm Going Bald" being kind of a joke song, but I'm not sure.
Yeah, the acoustic set was tres cool. I thought it was okay the first time I heard it (Hollywood Bowl), but I absolutely dug it the second time (Irvine Meadows). "Heart Full of Soul" really charged me up and I'm even starting to like "Resist". "Heart Full of Soul" is great on the EP, too. I hope you have and listen to the EP. It's really good listening; much better than you'd think from a cover album. (I think it's funny that a band releases it's only cover album after _30_ years of original music. I guess that's Rush for you.)
Slashdot Mirror
A generally good answer... based on fact with enough humor to sink in. The truth is, though, that unit power supplies don't cost that much. Actually, DC-DC converters are pretty mature technology... thousands would be more accurate.
It is good to see the Slashdot crowd being so up on tin whiskers and willing to consider it. As I've commented in the past, when tin whiskers first emerged as a problem, the community didn't buy into it. Only as a result of extensive demonstrative testing were people convinced the problem was real. Real enough to spend a lot of money reworking hardware well into the manufacturing pipeline.
I think the lesson to take from tin whiskers is that one needs to keep an open mind as to the cause of problems of unknown origin. Resist the temptation to leap to conclusions and consider all the possibilities.
I work in the satellite industry. You are right that the two satellites were manufactured by two separate organizations. However, different companies's approved parts lists do share common vendor parts and various industry standard processes are more or less similar. So, it is possible that a common M&P issue is at the root of the problem. Tin whiskers is a good example of this.
It is also worth looking into workmanship.
Lockheed-Martin's root cause investigation will cover all the bases in its attempt to isolate the cause. Hopefully, if the cause does have industry reach-across, the word will get out to the rest of us.
How about a less-paranoid conspiracy theory -- the owner of the satellite knew it had a flaw, or was approaching the end of its usable life or something, and just had it "fail" to collect the insurance money.
From the article, "Intelsat expects to record a non-cash impairment charge of approximately $73 million to write off the value of the IS-804 satellite. The IS-804 was not insured, in accordance with Intelsat's practice of insuring only those satellites with a net book value greater than $150 million."
There goes that theory....
No, it's not likely, reasonably or otherwise.
"Metal whiskers", vacuum deposition, etc. are well recognized issues in satellite construction. After a few thousand birds at many millions a pop the industry is quite savvy about avoiding these.
I've worked in the satellite business for over seventeen years (Boeing Satellite Systems, nee Hughes Space and Communications, Inc.). While I can't comment on what caused the I8 anomaly/loss (since I don't know), I would like to comment on your assertions.
Tin whiskers, a relatively recently discovered M&P problem, is reasonably understood at this point. However, satellites of the vintage of the subject bird (1997) were manufactured before this phenomenon was fully understood. Reachback issues might have prevented the I8 bird, and even more its I7 cousin, from being remedied, in the event that its design was susceptible, which it may or may not have been.
Building hardware for the space environment is non-trivial, to put it lightly. Many phenomena continue to reveal themselves to people who have been working in this business for over 40 years.
The "few thousand birds" comment is funny, though.
Thank you for this post; it is the first I have seen that mostly captures the intent of this technology. Moderators, please mod the parent up as insightful. Now, allow me to elaborate somewhat....
I work for Boeing Satellite Systems. While I won't comment on the specifics of this system, since it is in a competitive study phase, I will say that the whole point of this is to create a new, more dynamically configurable system for interconnecting users. A (hopefully) useful analogy is this: Traditional satcom systems set up user comm like you make phone calls or conference calls--detailed setup is required and finite resources limit the number of calls that can be active at any one time; this new approach promises to allow users to communicate as they do over the Internet--minimum setup with much higher capacity due to virtual circuits.
A lot of focus in this thread has been on latencies due to earth-space-earth links. These latencies exist for current systems and are worked around (or are relatively unimportant to begin with). It is the flexibility that packet routing offers that makes this new system so attractive.
Thanks for your reply--it looks like I guessed your problem correctly. Just so you know, I am an RF engineer (satellites), so I am somewhat familiar with coax cabling, termination issues, etc.
The optimum way to convey analog component video signals is via matched-length coax cable with a characteristic impedance of 75 ohms. Both the source and destination equipment connections will be suitably terminated to 75 ohms, since this is the video standard, so there are no concerns regarding impedance changes--only on the quality of your impedance matching.
The coax cable should be terminated with BNC connectors. Attempting to terminate coax cable with RCA connectors is unwise. Using an adapter to connect the BNC-terminated cable to RCA inputs and outputs is the way to go. The Monster Cable adapters I provided the link to are designed to mate 75 ohm connections. Further, they are high-quality machined parts with top-notch gold plating, ensuring snug fit, good connection quality, and resistance to corrosion.
I suggest you rethink your plan. Regardless, I wish you good luck.
Thanks for this post. I've read through quite a few on this topic and just wanted to add a little to yours.
For those who don't know, the "eye pattern" is what one sees on an oscilloscope or equivalent test equipment when measuring the output of a device or cable stimulated by a digital test pattern. The quality of the eye, in terms of the amount of openness both vertically and horizontally, reflects the quality of the signal in terms of amplitude noise (vertical openness) and jitter (horizontal openness). (More or less, anyway.)
As the eye closes up due to poor cabling, bit error rate (BER) increases, since the receiver has a tougher time discerning 1's from 0's due to the presence of noise and jitter. The eye closes up due to various factors, e.g., impedance mismatches/discontinuities that give rise to reflections, etc.
Poorer-quality cables can degrade signal quality to the point that BER increases beyond the error correction code's ability to ensure signal integrity. The results can range from picture degradation to link failure, depending on the severity of the problem.
Designing and manufacturing high-quality cables is not an inherently stratospherically expensive activity. However, without due attention to the details, inferior products can result. Higher-end products, in general, purport to have more attention paid to these details. The trick, in my mind, is to select products that reasonably balance design/manufacture quality and cost.
FWIW, and mind you, I am not a Monster Cable rep, I find Monster Cable products, in general, to provide a pretty good balance. Usually, a couple products up from the bottom provides decent quality vs. cost. Just my 2 cents worth.
While your post is informative, and interesting, I would like to warn folks that it describes technology (and implicitly techniques) that are in the professional domain and, therefore, are quite costly and non-trivial to implement.
On a technical note, 4:2:2 color sampling (or its equivalent at HD, 22:11:11) is considered "broadcast quality." 4:4:4 RGB (or 4:4:4:4 RGBA or 22:22:22 HD RGB or 22:22:22:22 HD RGBA) is used for effects, animation, etc., and is not used for final delivery. So, thinking 4:4:4 data will be better for "casual" use is misleading.
Anyway, the bottom line here is that uncompressed video capture and manipulation, especially at HD but even at SD, is a costly undertaking. Although pro technology is accessible to consumers in an unprecedented way today, it is far from trivial to implement for casual home use.
Still, it is very interesting to learn how the pros do their stuff behind the scenes.
(I haven't busted out the RG-6/U yet since I can't find good RCA connectors, why we're not using BNC is beyond me though).
3 62
I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly or not, but this might be of interest to you....
http://www.monstercable.com/productPage.asp?pin=1
Re: #4, I'll take a swing.... Mind you, I didn't work on Cassini-Huygens, but I do work in the space business (Boeing Satellite Systems), so I know how things are done, in general.
I assume the question is how Cassini's antenna is pointed to Earth. All spacecraft maintain knowledge of their attitude, i.e., their orientation in inertial space. This knowledge is really an estimate only, rather than an exact kind of knowledge, but it is quite precise. [It is based on specific reference measurements and inertial techniques using gyros, etc.] Similarly, spacecraft maintain knowledge of the pointing of any antennas they have. [Gimballed antennas have mechanisms--they form the gimbal--with motors and position feedback devices like resolvers.]
Using tracking stations, ground control has knowledge of the position of the spacecraft. [Alt-azimuth mounted tracking antennas and range estimation equipment produce data which are transformed to yield Earth-centric location data.]
All of this information is processed by the ground to produce pointing commands for the spacecraft antenna, which are uploaded to the spacecraft. The spacecraft antenna responds to these commands and positions itself accordingly. If all goes well, pointing is usually good enough for the ground to acquire a signal. From there, minor tracking adjustments can be made to optimize signal strength.
Remember, even ultra high gain antennas produce fairly broad wavefronts from long distances, so initial pointing usually has some margin for error. Scanning techniques are used to aid acquisition if initial pointing is off. The DSN's highly-sensitive receivers are a big part of making this all work.
All of that said, I am continually amazed at what can be done. It's kinda like seeing a 747 fly directly overhead at LAX... I can explain why it stays up there, but I still think it's bloody amazing that it does.
Thanks for this. Working in the space business (I work at Boeing Satellite Systems as a comm engineer), I find this subject particularly interesting. Having read the IEEE Spectrum article, let me (hopefully) clarify for the layman what I think happened....
Changing range between the Cassini orbiter and the Huygens probe with the original mission trajectories would lead to Doppler shift of the signal from the probe to the orbiter. This shift either compresses or stretches the incoming signal in time, depending on whether the two are closing or moving apart. To accommodate this, one must, at a minimum, design the orbiter receiver's phase-lock loop (PLL) so that it has sufficient bandwidth to track the modulated carrier at it's shifted frequency.
If this is done (and it was), the receiver can lock on to the signal and demodulate it, retrieving the baseband signal as an analog waveform of voltages corresponding to 1's and 0's (BPSK, or binary phase shift keying--the modulation scheme used for the Cassini-Huygens data link--is a very basic digital modulation scheme and is relatively easily demodulated). This signal must then be processed by a bit synchronizer, which looks for voltage transitions (corresponding to individual bits) at specified intervals according to the design data rate. Here is where the problem appears to have crept in.
The nominal data rate for the Cassini-Huygens data link is 8192 bps. However, the Doppler shift that alters the carrier frequency doesn't alter it in isolation; the entire wave is compressed or stretched. As a result, the transitions between 1's and 0's are compressed or stretched in time, as well. Apparently, Alenia Spazio SpA, the Italian company that manufactured the Cassini-Huygens data link equipment, hard-coded (in firmware, not software) the bit synchronization processing to work at 8192 bps, with only a small tolerance for variation in data rate. The variations in data rate expected due to Doppler shift would have exceeded this design tolerance, causing the bit synchronizer to identify 1's and 0's incorrectly (producing gibberish).
Fortunately, due to the efforts of the Swedish engineer who discovered and spearheaded the look into the problem, and the rest of the ESA/NASA team, the problem was detected and a workaround was devised. By altering the trajectory of Cassini, the Doppler shift could be minimized and the system could be made to work within its design. At least that is the hope.
For all you open source advocates out there, it is further interesting to note that a contributor to this problem going undetected for so long was Alenia Spazio SpA's unwillingness to disclose the specific design details of their radio to the ESA/NASA, who might have detected the problem earlier on. Compounding the problem: apparently, an NDA could have been arranged, but it was largely deemed unnecessary due to the supposed simplicity of the radio design problem. Caveat emptor!
All quite cool, really.
You know, normally I'd ignore an ignorant post such as yours, AC, but just so others don't get the wrong impression... I purchased the retail version of the game. So bugger off, a--hole!
I think the people getting mad at them don't have a legitimate reason, but they are mad.
As I indicated in an earlier post, I am one of many customers (I bought the retail game) who cannot play because I cannot log in via Steam; I cannot even log in to go offline. This, apparently, because of an overloaded Steam network.
Then Valve releases DM, further increasing Steam load. To those of us who can't play what we paid for, the prioritization of releasing a DM update over fixing an overloaded network is maddening.
You say that Steam has made it impossible for many people to play the game? Who, and how, I ask?
I, for one, cannot play the game. I have an always-on 3 Mbps Internet connection, but Steam won't log me on. Apparently this is due to overload on their network. Regardless, I cannot play the game I paid $60 for; I can't even log on to select offline play. Googling has turned up a lot of anecdotal evidence of this being a widespread problem.
This is very annoying to a large class of users.
I second this post wholeheartedly.
I pursue CS interests as a hobby, but my degree is in EE and I work in the aerospace industry (satellites), so my situation is a little different. Nonetheless, I think there is some commonality in the work world.
I went to M.I.T. I wouldn't say I had a lot of fun compared with what I expect ASU would've been like. However, I think it is telling that even now, 20 years into my career, (a) I still get "Wow, that's impressive" whenever someone learns I went to M.I.T., (b) it stands out on my resume, and (c) people regularly think I have a Master's degree even though I only have a B.S.
Granted, the latter item may be due to my experience and how I present myself, which, ultimately, will always make the biggest impression on prospective employers, but there's no disputing the positive of a higher-powered credential.
I think the bottom line is: If you have an opportunity to get the better credential, you may regret it later on in life if you forego it; I would recommend you go after it. If, on the other hand, money is an issue (or whatever), then go with the best you can afford and work from there.
Funny.
That said, maybe I'll be pointing out the obvious here, but the problem stems from the fact that, in satellite coverage terminology at least, CONUS, or continental United States, coverage refers to coverage of the lower 48 states; AK and HI are usually excluded. This is because the lower 48 fit into a nicely-shaped coverage area. AK and HI, if covered, must usually be covered by separate spot beams (unless there is global coverage covering everything).
I agree that most commercial communications satellites are probably monitored on a regular, if not continuous, basis. I further agree that many anomalies have warning signs leading up to the failure that can give some indication of a pending problem. However, I have encountered many anomalies that provided no warning signs. In the power area, solar array degradation or degrading battery performance might show the signs you suggest, but there are critical failure modes associated with power distribution that can fail catastrophically with no notice. I am somewhat surprised that the design afforded no redundancy to mitigate such a failure, but you can't protect against everything. Sounds like a pretty freak occurrence to me.
Sorry, mods, but the parent post should not be moderated insightful (no offense to the poster). Proximity problems are not uncommon at all in the more densely populated areas of the geo belt. The USAF, for one, must routinely expend significant effort monitoring their fleet and coordinating with other agencies to ensure collisions do not occur. This is a real potential problem.
I just wish the Spacetec IMC SpaceOrb 360 was more viable on Windows 2000/XP. That was a great controller.
I'll bring this up a little since it was posted by an AC below my post and might not get noticed. It deals with the Goalkeeper, apparently a Dutch equivalent to the Phalanx system, though it's 30mm vs. the Phalanx's 20mm:
e r/goalkeeper.htm
m l
http://www.gdatp.com/products/protection/goalkeep
Here's a link I found on Goalkeeper:
http://www.free-definition.com/Goalkeeper-CIWS.ht
Thanks, nameless AC! I didn't know about this.
Sort of a poor man's version of this?: http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/weapo ns/wep-phal.html
I know you're self-critiquing, JD, so here's a little extra:
:-)
:-)
1. You might want to debug your syntax checker; it's actually the "are" that's superfluous, I think.
2. The question remains as to whether or not one would still love Bullfighter after they've tried it.
Interesting tool, though. Thanks for making me aware of it. It is also interesting that a firm like Deloitte would put such funny stuff on their web site. (I'm referring to the Bullfighter FAQs on the download page.)
It is further interesting that Deloitte's home page has content dealing with Sarbanes-Oxley, which was mentioned in this thread.
Take it easy.
The worse case scenerio is that we can only detect particles that are unique to the study area.
:-)
I guess you didn't see (or read) "The Andromeda Strain."
Just kidding, of course.
abuse of the english language
:-)
Hmm.
Just kidding, man. Take it easy.
Well, I guess I have to admit that Camera Eye is a little repetetive, but it's just got some really nice themes to it.... :-)
I can't see why they'd be embarassed by Lakeside Park; that's a really pretty song, too. Oh, well. The others I can't comment on because I don't know them well enough. I seem to remember "I Think I'm Going Bald" being kind of a joke song, but I'm not sure.
Yeah, the acoustic set was tres cool. I thought it was okay the first time I heard it (Hollywood Bowl), but I absolutely dug it the second time (Irvine Meadows). "Heart Full of Soul" really charged me up and I'm even starting to like "Resist". "Heart Full of Soul" is great on the EP, too. I hope you have and listen to the EP. It's really good listening; much better than you'd think from a cover album. (I think it's funny that a band releases it's only cover album after _30_ years of original music. I guess that's Rush for you.)
Sepatown, my damie.