Hopefully they know the lesson we've learned in aerospace (e.g. ARINC-653), to partition critical and non-critical assets into separate computing units (hardware and/or software). That way some yahoo can't hack your in-car Facebook app to disable your brakes. Don't these guys watch Battlestar Galactica?
As good a time as any to recommend my nominee for the most lively biography of one physicist written by another physicist, to wit "A Brilliant Darkness: The Extraordinary Life and Mysterious Disappearance of Ettore Majorana..." by Joao Magueijo. A bit of physics, a bit of scandal, a bit of gossip, just enough foul language, plus some honest, original biographical research.
Probably don't even need a CPU, there must be some kind of GPIO signal straight off the chip (Ring Indicator, anyone?). Should result in low cost and long battery life. Selling this to make life easier for terrorists seems like a bad idea.
Anyone who's ever read documentation written by an engineer should immediately realize that the Voynich Manuscript is the user's guide for the Antikythera Mechansim.
Yes, but for a geosynchronous vehicle to be in its station-kept orbit might be precision of something like 0.05 degrees (http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/S/station-keeping.html). Cygnus had to hold at 30m and again at 10m distance (see http://www.flickr.com/photos/nasa2explore/sets/72157635370456732/show/, slide #11) for go/no-go decisions prior to moving to the docking position. Totally different orders of magnitude.
Think you might want to check (and cite) those numbers again. I think you've confused launch mass with cargo mass.
http://www.spacex.com/news/2013/03/03/happy-berth-day - Dragon delivers 2300 lbs (1045 kg) cargo to ISS.
http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/Publications/Cygnus_fact.pdf - Cygnus delivers 2000 kg (standard) or 2700 kg (enhanced) to ISS.
The vehicles serve two very different purposes upon reentry. Dragon brings back garbage and recoverable cargo, Cygnus just takes out the trash. That's one of the reasons that Cyngus carries a much greater payload to the ISS. So if you are going to do any kind of back-of-the-envelope calculation about which one is a better value for NASA, then you have to include the value of bringing the wanted & unwanted cargo back versus disposal. Your argument reminds me of the old "which is better, Mac or PC" arguments we used to have in the 20th Century. The answer is "two players are always better than one." Now, how can we extend that analogy to SLS... "which is better, Mac, PC, or IBM/370 running MVS?" Hmm, IBM/370 may still be considered a lightweight compared to SLS...
And what exactly do you mean by "stuck in orbit?" A functioning space vehicle that maneuvers and allows another visiting vehicle (Soyuz) to rendezvous, before making its own approach, hardly sounds "stuck."
Not to denigrate the fine contribution of lobbying and paperwork to any successful endeavor, but you might find that turning a collection of components into an integrated system - even for something as trivial as a space launch - is a little more complicated than clicking Legos together. Besides, only the first and second stages were delivered as components. That still leaves the fairing, separation systems, launch vehicle interface to the ground systems, the ground systems themselves (1st stage is liquid), etc. etc. etc.
Slight correction to your "anything like the confidence" comment - that is actually irrelevant, all that sort of thing is specified in the contracts that Orbital and Space-X have with NASA. The next Antares launch will in fact carry a completed Cygnus vehicle, including cargo, with the intent to dock with the station. That's what they keep referring to as the "COTS demonstration mission." Space-X did the same thing under their COTS contract - the only difference is that after the Falcon's successful maiden voyage, Space-X talked NASA into dropping one of the two demo missions their contract originally called for (Orbital always had just one). So after Space-X's COTS demonstration flight - when Dragon docked with the station successfully - they immediately went into the CRS phase of the program and have flown one mission so far under that agreement. Orbital will enter the CRS phase once the COTS demonstration mission is successful, presumably this summer.
Your bot doesn't have to pass the Turing test, you just have to be more convincing than the other bots (and the human confederates, who sometimes pretend to be bots).
True - but where in the article does it say anything about making any code tweaks? All I saw was they want to do more hardware-in-the-loop testing and review the data. If all that passes muster, no code will change and presumably they will be go for launch. If it doesn't pass, THEN they may consider standing down to make code changes. Or, change operational procedures or ground software or ask for a waiver or any of a number of corrective actions. Maybe MSNBC updated the article after you read it... or maybe my browser hid page 2 or something? The only mention of "code tweaks" is in the incorrect/. headline.
Cheers
I dug my venerable Kindle out and dusted it off, after working with a variety of tablets over the last few months. I'd forgotten how much smaller & lighter it is, with battery life in months, not days. It's hard to see how to preserve those good traits of a e-reader while also loading it down with features to make it a desktop/laptop/netbook replacement, which seems to be where the tablet market has to go (or has already gone?).
I had to laugh when I saw Microsoft described as "doing well" in terms of accessibility for the blind. It's simply not true; their attempts at accessibility are token at best and largely ignored by the blind community. I know lots of blind people and I don't know a single one who uses a Windows desktop or mobile product without a third-party application such as JAWS for Windows, ZoomText or Nuance. Oh and while we're on the subject: Adobe's accessibility "features" are non-functional - not only are they totally inadequate standing alone, they also prevent those 3rd party applications from doing their jobs. PDFs and Flash are pretty much inaccessible to blind users.
I am holding out hope for Pico on Android... though I have yet to get it working on anything but the emulator that comes with the SDK.
No, I am simply suggesting that your visibility is better when going forward than backwards. When you pull up to a parking space (forwards) you can see whether it's clear to back in, and whether that situation is likely to change in the amount of time it takes to back in (i.e. pedestrians that you can see walking towards your space). Not saying it's foolproof, nothing is. Just saying that when you back out of a parking space you have very limited visibility side-to-side, compared to pulling out forwards. I guess it's less about the straight-backwards view - that is provided by the backlight ("rear window") if your vehicle has one (mine doesn't) or mirrors, or camera - it doesn't seem to me this is the limiting factor, once you have a straight, clear shot at backing into the spot. Or maybe I'm overthinking/overexplaining this?
Yeah I'm going to have to side with "encroachment" this time. You can dramatically increase your safety in a parking lot simply by either backing into a space or pulling through two adjacent spaces when available. That way when you exit, you're going forward and have maximum visibility. When you approach the space to enter it (either backwards or pulling through) you again have much better visibility and can assess the presence of obstacles such as children and the elderly. Seems like better driving practices could cut that 292/18K number down with no bogus technology injection.
Letting people voluntarily make their web sites accessible certainly hasn't worked - for example, Flash content is the bane of visually impaired users but I don't see much of a movement to provide alternatives. I wonder if this means that popular OSs will have to provide real, working accessibility features and not bad jokes like Microsoft Narrator?
Accessibility accommodations for all those materials are well known and currently in use. Try running a touch-screen device with a blindfold on sometime.
... insert standard comment about mainstream vendors' lack of commitment to accessibility features for the differently abled...
Can't "force" it on students who can't use it.
Ever hear the expression "I'd rather write programs that help me write programs, than write programs?" Maybe you can get some enjoyment out of writing the code that helps you test the code you're writing. Write a perl script to test your C code, etc.
They have more than one Enigma - in fact they have several working machines out in the open (no pun) that you can operate yourself which is way cool. Several varieties in cases, including a Japanese model. Some displays about the Navaho code talkers; African-American code quilt; some antique books on cryptology; bunch of common networking cryptos (KG-46s and the like, including remnants of a space-based one that was recovered from a launch vehicle failure); crypto-enabled cell phones. And of course an instance of the Cryptologic Bombe - the enormous electromechanical WWII machine that was used for brute-force Enigma cracking (based on the work of Rejewski, Turing, and the others at Bletchley Park). And, in the gift shop, you can get some cool stuff with the NSA logo on it... walk into your next meeting with all your notes in a nice NSA folder and see what kind of comments you get!
Wait... you mean there are still companies that allow personally-owned devices and media to connect to their networks? I guess it saves the cost of hiring an IT staff - I can't imagine anyone taking that job.
Slashdot Mirror
Hopefully they know the lesson we've learned in aerospace (e.g. ARINC-653), to partition critical and non-critical assets into separate computing units (hardware and/or software). That way some yahoo can't hack your in-car Facebook app to disable your brakes. Don't these guys watch Battlestar Galactica?
As good a time as any to recommend my nominee for the most lively biography of one physicist written by another physicist, to wit "A Brilliant Darkness: The Extraordinary Life and Mysterious Disappearance of Ettore Majorana..." by Joao Magueijo. A bit of physics, a bit of scandal, a bit of gossip, just enough foul language, plus some honest, original biographical research.
Probably don't even need a CPU, there must be some kind of GPIO signal straight off the chip (Ring Indicator, anyone?). Should result in low cost and long battery life. Selling this to make life easier for terrorists seems like a bad idea.
The per-head fee should have been $32,767 ... whoever heard of a number like $32,400?
Anyone who's ever read documentation written by an engineer should immediately realize that the Voynich Manuscript is the user's guide for the Antikythera Mechansim.
Yes, but for a geosynchronous vehicle to be in its station-kept orbit might be precision of something like 0.05 degrees (http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/S/station-keeping.html). Cygnus had to hold at 30m and again at 10m distance (see http://www.flickr.com/photos/nasa2explore/sets/72157635370456732/show/, slide #11) for go/no-go decisions prior to moving to the docking position. Totally different orders of magnitude.
Think you might want to check (and cite) those numbers again. I think you've confused launch mass with cargo mass. http://www.spacex.com/news/2013/03/03/happy-berth-day - Dragon delivers 2300 lbs (1045 kg) cargo to ISS. http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/Publications/Cygnus_fact.pdf - Cygnus delivers 2000 kg (standard) or 2700 kg (enhanced) to ISS. The vehicles serve two very different purposes upon reentry. Dragon brings back garbage and recoverable cargo, Cygnus just takes out the trash. That's one of the reasons that Cyngus carries a much greater payload to the ISS. So if you are going to do any kind of back-of-the-envelope calculation about which one is a better value for NASA, then you have to include the value of bringing the wanted & unwanted cargo back versus disposal. Your argument reminds me of the old "which is better, Mac or PC" arguments we used to have in the 20th Century. The answer is "two players are always better than one." Now, how can we extend that analogy to SLS ... "which is better, Mac, PC, or IBM/370 running MVS?" Hmm, IBM/370 may still be considered a lightweight compared to SLS...
And what exactly do you mean by "stuck in orbit?" A functioning space vehicle that maneuvers and allows another visiting vehicle (Soyuz) to rendezvous, before making its own approach, hardly sounds "stuck."
Not to denigrate the fine contribution of lobbying and paperwork to any successful endeavor, but you might find that turning a collection of components into an integrated system - even for something as trivial as a space launch - is a little more complicated than clicking Legos together. Besides, only the first and second stages were delivered as components. That still leaves the fairing, separation systems, launch vehicle interface to the ground systems, the ground systems themselves (1st stage is liquid), etc. etc. etc.
Slight correction to your "anything like the confidence" comment - that is actually irrelevant, all that sort of thing is specified in the contracts that Orbital and Space-X have with NASA. The next Antares launch will in fact carry a completed Cygnus vehicle, including cargo, with the intent to dock with the station. That's what they keep referring to as the "COTS demonstration mission." Space-X did the same thing under their COTS contract - the only difference is that after the Falcon's successful maiden voyage, Space-X talked NASA into dropping one of the two demo missions their contract originally called for (Orbital always had just one). So after Space-X's COTS demonstration flight - when Dragon docked with the station successfully - they immediately went into the CRS phase of the program and have flown one mission so far under that agreement. Orbital will enter the CRS phase once the COTS demonstration mission is successful, presumably this summer.
Your bot doesn't have to pass the Turing test, you just have to be more convincing than the other bots (and the human confederates, who sometimes pretend to be bots).
True - but where in the article does it say anything about making any code tweaks? All I saw was they want to do more hardware-in-the-loop testing and review the data. If all that passes muster, no code will change and presumably they will be go for launch. If it doesn't pass, THEN they may consider standing down to make code changes. Or, change operational procedures or ground software or ask for a waiver or any of a number of corrective actions. Maybe MSNBC updated the article after you read it ... or maybe my browser hid page 2 or something? The only mention of "code tweaks" is in the incorrect /. headline.
Cheers
Yep, same old BS. Publish or perish.
I dug my venerable Kindle out and dusted it off, after working with a variety of tablets over the last few months. I'd forgotten how much smaller & lighter it is, with battery life in months, not days. It's hard to see how to preserve those good traits of a e-reader while also loading it down with features to make it a desktop/laptop/netbook replacement, which seems to be where the tablet market has to go (or has already gone?).
I had to laugh when I saw Microsoft described as "doing well" in terms of accessibility for the blind. It's simply not true; their attempts at accessibility are token at best and largely ignored by the blind community. I know lots of blind people and I don't know a single one who uses a Windows desktop or mobile product without a third-party application such as JAWS for Windows, ZoomText or Nuance. Oh and while we're on the subject: Adobe's accessibility "features" are non-functional - not only are they totally inadequate standing alone, they also prevent those 3rd party applications from doing their jobs. PDFs and Flash are pretty much inaccessible to blind users. I am holding out hope for Pico on Android ... though I have yet to get it working on anything but the emulator that comes with the SDK.
No, I am simply suggesting that your visibility is better when going forward than backwards. When you pull up to a parking space (forwards) you can see whether it's clear to back in, and whether that situation is likely to change in the amount of time it takes to back in (i.e. pedestrians that you can see walking towards your space). Not saying it's foolproof, nothing is. Just saying that when you back out of a parking space you have very limited visibility side-to-side, compared to pulling out forwards. I guess it's less about the straight-backwards view - that is provided by the backlight ("rear window") if your vehicle has one (mine doesn't) or mirrors, or camera - it doesn't seem to me this is the limiting factor, once you have a straight, clear shot at backing into the spot. Or maybe I'm overthinking/overexplaining this?
Yeah I'm going to have to side with "encroachment" this time. You can dramatically increase your safety in a parking lot simply by either backing into a space or pulling through two adjacent spaces when available. That way when you exit, you're going forward and have maximum visibility. When you approach the space to enter it (either backwards or pulling through) you again have much better visibility and can assess the presence of obstacles such as children and the elderly. Seems like better driving practices could cut that 292/18K number down with no bogus technology injection.
Exactly, I could use a little freelance work myself, and I have a Liberal Arts degree - where do I sign up?
Letting people voluntarily make their web sites accessible certainly hasn't worked - for example, Flash content is the bane of visually impaired users but I don't see much of a movement to provide alternatives. I wonder if this means that popular OSs will have to provide real, working accessibility features and not bad jokes like Microsoft Narrator?
Hey what's not exciting about an automatically-piloted people pod? Then I could get another hour of slashdot in every commute!
Accessibility accommodations for all those materials are well known and currently in use. Try running a touch-screen device with a blindfold on sometime.
... insert standard comment about mainstream vendors' lack of commitment to accessibility features for the differently abled ...
Can't "force" it on students who can't use it.
Their most recent direction has a decidedly "open source" feel to it ... and you still have a chance to submit proposals:
http://www.darpa.mil/news/2010/SystemF6NewsRelease.pdf
Ever hear the expression "I'd rather write programs that help me write programs, than write programs?" Maybe you can get some enjoyment out of writing the code that helps you test the code you're writing. Write a perl script to test your C code, etc.
They have more than one Enigma - in fact they have several working machines out in the open (no pun) that you can operate yourself which is way cool. Several varieties in cases, including a Japanese model. Some displays about the Navaho code talkers; African-American code quilt; some antique books on cryptology; bunch of common networking cryptos (KG-46s and the like, including remnants of a space-based one that was recovered from a launch vehicle failure); crypto-enabled cell phones. And of course an instance of the Cryptologic Bombe - the enormous electromechanical WWII machine that was used for brute-force Enigma cracking (based on the work of Rejewski, Turing, and the others at Bletchley Park). And, in the gift shop, you can get some cool stuff with the NSA logo on it ... walk into your next meeting with all your notes in a nice NSA folder and see what kind of comments you get!
Wait ... you mean there are still companies that allow personally-owned devices and media to connect to their networks? I guess it saves the cost of hiring an IT staff - I can't imagine anyone taking that job.