THey actually did calculate on this and the results weren't really devastating. The first nukes used for taking of would be extremely small - around equiv. of 20 tons of TNT, then up to a kiloton or more when out of the atmosphere. It was calculated that Orion would cause around 10 peoples death per mission. Hence they planned an alternative were they would use conventional rockets to get it of the ground. However, the problem is also that as long as the ship is inside the earths magnetospere bad stuff will spiral back onto earth. For a mars mission around a megaton in total would be used, about half of the fallout of that would come back. THey did calculations for cleaner bmbs as well and got the theoretical death rate per mission down to 1 person per mission. (source: Project Orion - George Dyson)
ok, true. Also that they did a redesign of the interior of the capsule, removing flammable materials, hence I see apollo 1 as more of a beta version of the apollos
ahem, you can read it all on nasa's site: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo1 info.html THe rest of the apollo program used a nitrogen-oxygen mixture after the apollo 1 incident.
However, the first model (apollo 1) used pure oxygen as atmosphere rather than normal air, which caused the fire to be uncontrollable. NASA did learn from this and swithed to air in the later apollos, I do see apollo 1 more as a beta version of the 'true' apollos, mind you, that just my point of view. Also thanks to apollo using a heat shield rather than a winged approach as the shuttle made it possible for the austronauts in apolla 13 to make it back alive. Wings has nothing to do on a spacecraft IMHO.
noone died on Apollo 13. Contrary to the shuttle program I do think Apollo was a marvelous successful example of the KISS paradigm. if something like what happened to 13 happened to a shuttle, the shuttle would be toast, 13 made it down in one piece.
it will not perform validation checking on dates correctly, inserting 29/02/2003 works! It allows you to insert 00/00/0000 when that doesn't even EXIST!
from the mySQL docs: "Note that MySQL allows you to store certain 'not strictly' legal date values, for example 1999-11-31. The reason for this is that we think it's the responsibility of the application to handle date checking, not the SQL servers. To make the date checking 'fast', MySQL only checks that the month is in the range of 0-12 and the day is in the range of 0-31."
yes, but did they *knowingly* distribute their own code under the GPL? if not then the GPL isn't valid for that part and that code has to be pulled out. Now SCO *did* however distribute their Linux *after* they 'knew' there was infringing code in there, so one could say that means they allowed that code to be GPL'ed
>Kinda puts a whole new spin on "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"....who is my enemy in this case?
definetly MS is the 'good guy' here (argh, thought I never say it!). We can beat (well, at least get even with) MS by just continuing as we do now, MS can't really fire anything at us that we can't handle fairly easily (possibly part from, that's right, patents), Software patents are far more scary and serious threat to the Open Source movement than MS, IMHO. So actually, as much as I like MS business methods etc, etc, I do hope they go winning from this one.
hmm, I though I read somewhere it actually happened on Columbia's maiden flight as well? Also from what I heard NASA was still allowed to use freon-based foam if it still wanted to, but it switched anyway.
huh? weird place. over here in London youy can count the number of.net jobs on the fingers of one of your hand. java jobs though are everywhere. Doubt sun has to worry that much. a *lot* of people has already done significant investments in java and they're not likely to change for quite some time.
Probably Japan just made use of esrange's facilities for launching the japanese test shuttle. Quite a good place to test things that are likely to crash, they got a 120 x 75 km large test area for things to crash in.
Ah, if it contained copyright disclaimers I really wonder *which* copyright disclaimers. If they're Linux or *BSD ones we're save but if they're SCO's ones I assume thing would look a bit tough. But I cannot believe anyone haven't already scanned the kernel source for any SCO copyrights? And why on earth would anyone leave the copyright disclaimer of the source if they are stealing from someones codebase? Just seems to be so dumb I cannot believe a kernel hacker would do that, even if the was stupid enough to steal code (doubt that happened though)
actually, from what I understand, clippy came out of the research they did with bob, so they're not really separate projects, more a continuation of one after another
I think it's not only that OS projects got access to the source that does it. Many closed source projects are rushed and products that really should have been released as a beta is release as a gold version because of companies trying to cut cost, et, al. (early netscape and ms springs to mind), whereas OS projects are more released after the motto 'it's released when it's done'. THink of the stuff NASA does for example, closed source but they are *really* making sure that as good as all bugs are gone before they use it in a craft - costs be damned (this might change now with the cheaper-faster approach NASA had lately).
Well, you got the headers at least even in closed source and hopefully someone put a decent comment explaining the function. (well, people really should do that IMHO). Otherwise I do agree that source is godsent when you have no decent docs. Actually, thinking of it, I do believe if you have a large project, module owners should really only have to worry about their own code and other groups modules should only be specified in docs, otherwise other module owners might start relying on implementation specific stuff in the other module. one must emphasise though that the module owners better keep their docs uptodate or get whipped in public.
um, dunno about GPG, but what is so non-standard about PGP? It's do very much use some of the big encryption schemes out there. and what on earth does PGP has to do with linux on the desktop??
Slashdot Mirror
THey actually did calculate on this and the results weren't really devastating. The first nukes used for taking of would be extremely small - around equiv. of 20 tons of TNT, then up to a kiloton or more when out of the atmosphere. It was calculated that Orion would cause around 10 peoples death per mission. Hence they planned an alternative were they would use conventional rockets to get it of the ground. However, the problem is also that as long as the ship is inside the earths magnetospere bad stuff will spiral back onto earth. For a mars mission around a megaton in total would be used, about half of the fallout of that would come back. THey did calculations for cleaner bmbs as well and got the theoretical death rate per mission down to 1 person per mission.
(source: Project Orion - George Dyson)
hmmm, actually, thinking about it, nitogen-oxygen *IS* pretty much the same as air!
ok, true. Also that they did a redesign of the interior of the capsule, removing flammable materials, hence I see apollo 1 as more of a beta version of the apollos
ahem, you can read it all on nasa's site: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo1 info.html
THe rest of the apollo program used a nitrogen-oxygen mixture after the apollo 1 incident.
However, the first model (apollo 1) used pure oxygen as atmosphere rather than normal air, which caused the fire to be uncontrollable. NASA did learn from this and swithed to air in the later apollos, I do see apollo 1 more as a beta version of the 'true' apollos, mind you, that just my point of view. Also thanks to apollo using a heat shield rather than a winged approach as the shuttle made it possible for the austronauts in apolla 13 to make it back alive. Wings has nothing to do on a spacecraft IMHO.
noone died on Apollo 13. Contrary to the shuttle program I do think Apollo was a marvelous successful example of the KISS paradigm. if something like what happened to 13 happened to a shuttle, the shuttle would be toast, 13 made it down in one piece.
from the mySQL docs: "Note that MySQL allows you to store certain 'not strictly' legal date values, for example 1999-11-31. The reason for this is that we think it's the responsibility of the application to handle date checking, not the SQL servers. To make the date checking 'fast', MySQL only checks that the month is in the range of 0-12 and the day is in the range of 0-31."
The 0/0/0000 is the same as a NULL, IIRC
mind you, it's 1337, not 733t...
yes, but did they *knowingly* distribute their own code under the GPL? if not then the GPL isn't valid for that part and that code has to be pulled out. Now SCO *did* however distribute their Linux *after* they 'knew' there was infringing code in there, so one could say that means they allowed that code to be GPL'ed
...dont' forget to give Steve some maraccas as well... oh the sight.... *s*
>Kinda puts a whole new spin on "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"....who is my enemy in this case?
definetly MS is the 'good guy' here (argh, thought I never say it!). We can beat (well, at least get even with) MS by just continuing as we do now, MS can't really fire anything at us that we can't handle fairly easily (possibly part from, that's right, patents), Software patents are far more scary and serious threat to the Open Source movement than MS, IMHO.
So actually, as much as I like MS business methods etc, etc, I do hope they go winning from this one.
hmm, I though I read somewhere it actually happened on Columbia's maiden flight as well?
Also from what I heard NASA was still allowed to use freon-based foam if it still wanted to, but it switched anyway.
huh? weird place. over here in London youy can count the number of .net jobs on the fingers of one of your hand. java jobs though are everywhere. Doubt sun has to worry that much. a *lot* of people has already done significant investments in java and they're not likely to change for quite some time.
Probably Japan just made use of esrange's facilities for launching the japanese test shuttle. Quite a good place to test things that are likely to crash, they got a 120 x 75 km large test area for things to crash in.
Ah, if it contained copyright disclaimers I really wonder *which* copyright disclaimers. If they're Linux or *BSD ones we're save but if they're SCO's ones I assume thing would look a bit tough. But I cannot believe anyone haven't already scanned the kernel source for any SCO copyrights? And why on earth would anyone leave the copyright disclaimer of the source if they are stealing from someones codebase? Just seems to be so dumb I cannot believe a kernel hacker would do that, even if the was stupid enough to steal code (doubt that happened though)
oh, the blinkenlights has a long history!
check it out here!
actually, from what I understand, clippy came out of the research they did with bob, so they're not really separate projects, more a continuation of one after another
indeed think sgi allowed it to be downloaded from their site, but I cannot find the link :-(
MaxOS X got a bice one here!
I think it's not only that OS projects got access to the source that does it. Many closed source projects are rushed and products that really should have been released as a beta is release as a gold version because of companies trying to cut cost, et, al. (early netscape and ms springs to mind), whereas OS projects are more released after the motto 'it's released when it's done'. THink of the stuff NASA does for example, closed source but they are *really* making sure that as good as all bugs are gone before they use it in a craft - costs be damned (this might change now with the cheaper-faster approach NASA had lately).
Well, you got the headers at least even in closed source and hopefully someone put a decent comment explaining the function. (well, people really should do that IMHO). Otherwise I do agree that source is godsent when you have no decent docs. Actually, thinking of it, I do believe if you have a large project, module owners should really only have to worry about their own code and other groups modules should only be specified in docs, otherwise other module owners might start relying on implementation specific stuff in the other module. one must emphasise though that the module owners better keep their docs uptodate or get whipped in public.
um, dunno about GPG, but what is so non-standard about PGP? It's do very much use some of the big encryption schemes out there. and what on earth does PGP has to do with linux on the desktop??
indeed, 300 km between the sun and pluto...
Ah, stand corrected.
um, not really, france got mostly tactical nukes, no city-busters.
Well, since the french farmers will go on sympathy strike the germans will stay out of france, noone wants to fuck with the french farmers! ;-)