It seems an engine problem would be more worrisome than a guidance problem. If there are structural integrity or turbopump problems, then that's a more fundamental problem than debugging the guidance software.
I saw a show on the Discovery channel about the Tupolev. It was very similar to the Concorde b/c the Russians stole a lot of the plans the British/French were working up.
And when the Tupolev was finished, they unveiled it at the Paris air show, where it promptly crashed horribly, killing its crew. Downhill after that, I guess.
OK, next question....if the MCP and HAL went head to head, who would win?
That's a highly irregular question, Dave.:-)
MCP wins for more spectacular death, HAL wins for more memorable death. Though I guess the Daisy bit wasn't really his death, that came with the whole Jupiter ignition thing...
I totally agree. The Simpsons has not been funny for at least 3 years. And I can get into low-brow stuff sometimes, but their low-brow is not funny either.
Question: When will season 3 be coming out on dvd? I'll buy it in a SECOND...
It's obvious that a SAM couldn't do this. But: since the shuttle is controlled by autopilot most of the way down (down to 50,000 ft according to Bill Harwood on CBS) then what are the chances of someone sabotaging the flight program? If there were foul play, this would seem more likely.
btw, also according to Bill Harwood on CBS, the initial investigation is looking at the telemetry from the left wing, possibly pointing to big structural failure there--
Didn't they get around this in "Ocean's 11" by tricking the guard with the scrambling password to take their package in for them? I'm thinking of the scene where the two twins get the guard to take the cart with the little Chinese guy inside into the vault--
It IS rude, to be sure. But then again, if Europe is aiming to have a world-class rocket program of their own, then they should be prepared to take the heat.
(As an aside, I've always heard that Arianespace's press release are fairly aggressive as to how great their products are. Can't ask for pity if that's true. Sorry, no links available.)
Think of the Lockheed/NASA meters/feet screw-up on the Mars spacecraft. Can't tell how many people lost years of their lives/careers and were crushed by that development. But then again, fix the problem, and continue on to dare greatly yet more--
A random thought: The barn-raising example from Gilmour really seems to me like communism at its best: People in the community volunteering, without being forced, to a common project, because of the pride, etc. it gives them.
It's what always seemed to me flawed with other (arguably) noble Communist experiments, like the Soviet Union. Specifically, that all citizens were forced to participate in this system, in effect with a gun to their head. (You will help! We will be happy, dammit!) Over-simplifying possibly:-) but my main point is that the forced nature of many public-welfare-type projects seems to necessarily lead to resentment and division.
Given that volunteers to an Open Source project are just that: volunteers, it seems possible that these projects may come much closer to the spirit and the ideal of communism. So the article seems optimistic and hope-ful. And very cool.
I need to learn more about the precise circumstance in which links to Web sites that contain uncompiled code have been taken down pursuant to requests from the copyright owners. Unfortunately, I do not have sufficient information to answer this question of the present time.
A politician admitting there's something he doesn't know? Oh, this one's a keeper...;-)
Of course, one reason the EC was formed was that the people were not trusted to be able to make the proper decision.
I wouldn't say it's a case of the people not being trusted; I would say it's more a case of the system being a Republican form of government rather than a Democratic form.
I'm not referring to the political parties here. Instead I'm referring to the fact that it's a representative form of government, where you vote on people to make the decisions for you, rather than on the decisions themselves.
If the US were really a democracy, then new laws would only be passed by popular referendum. In fact, there's a very long, involved process to passing new laws for the lawmakers to carry out, not the people.
This is done, in order to provide a level of stability -- some kind of layer between the popular passion of the momnent, and changing of law -- so that in order to pass a law, you have to make really sure it's well thought out. And in the case of a Consitutional Ammendment -- which I believe would be required to change the EC system -- you really have to work hard.
This may be seen as degrading to the people. I'm planning on reading that book sometime, about "Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds." This is what I think the Framers were trying to guard against.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems an engine problem would be more worrisome than a guidance problem. If there are structural integrity or turbopump problems, then that's a more fundamental problem than debugging the guidance software.
I saw a show on the Discovery channel about the Tupolev. It was very similar to the Concorde b/c the Russians stole a lot of the plans the British/French were working up.
And when the Tupolev was finished, they unveiled it at the Paris air show, where it promptly crashed horribly, killing its crew. Downhill after that, I guess.
(matlab and mathematica are too slow for big computations).
Of course, you could just use the Matlab compiler to generate executables.
OK, next question....if the MCP and HAL went head to head, who would win?
:-)
That's a highly irregular question, Dave.
MCP wins for more spectacular death, HAL wins for more memorable death. Though I guess the Daisy bit wasn't really his death, that came with the whole Jupiter ignition thing...
...in fees etc. to the checking accounts, for the ``privilege'' of having more than a limited number of transactions per month?
I could go completely cashless, if I didn't mind losing 5% of my income to bank fees...
I totally agree. The Simpsons has not been funny for at least 3 years. And I can get into low-brow stuff sometimes, but their low-brow is not funny either.
Question: When will season 3 be coming out on dvd? I'll buy it in a SECOND...
It's obvious that a SAM couldn't do this. But: since the shuttle is controlled by autopilot most of the way down (down to 50,000 ft according to Bill Harwood on CBS) then what are the chances of someone sabotaging the flight program? If there were foul play, this would seem more likely.
btw, also according to Bill Harwood on CBS, the initial investigation is looking at the telemetry from the left wing, possibly pointing to big structural failure there--
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...
:-)
Didn't they get around this in "Ocean's 11" by tricking the guard with the scrambling password to take their package in for them? I'm thinking of the scene where the two twins get the guard to take the cart with the little Chinese guy inside into the vault--
It IS rude, to be sure. But then again, if Europe is aiming to have a world-class rocket program of their own, then they should be prepared to take the heat.
(As an aside, I've always heard that Arianespace's press release are fairly aggressive as to how great their products are. Can't ask for pity if that's true. Sorry, no links available.)
Think of the Lockheed/NASA meters/feet screw-up on the Mars spacecraft. Can't tell how many people lost years of their lives/careers and were crushed by that development. But then again, fix the problem, and continue on to dare greatly yet more--
Well, I guess not *every* captured satellite has to end up like Shoemaker/Levy back in 1994. (Or Galileo later on next year, for that matter.) :-)
Also, please see the previous comment by mbone for more elaboration--
A random thought: The barn-raising example from Gilmour really seems to me like communism at its best: People in the community volunteering, without being forced, to a common project, because of the pride, etc. it gives them.
:-) but my main point is that the forced nature of many public-welfare-type projects seems to necessarily lead to resentment and division.
It's what always seemed to me flawed with other (arguably) noble Communist experiments, like the Soviet Union. Specifically, that all citizens were forced to participate in this system, in effect with a gun to their head. (You will help! We will be happy, dammit!) Over-simplifying possibly
Given that volunteers to an Open Source project are just that: volunteers, it seems possible that these projects may come much closer to the spirit and the ideal of communism. So the article seems optimistic and hope-ful. And very cool.
Just my $.02--
Is anyone else reminded of the scene from "Real Genius" ?
Kent.
This is God.
You've been a very naughty boy.
...
I want you to think about what you've done. And until then, STOP PLAYING WITH YOURSELF.
:-)
Also maybe we can get The Drop Squad guys to do some additional testing. :-)
So, this justifies holy wars when it comes to questions of programming?
BILL GATES!!!
NO!!!!!
of course, that would explain why humans are so insecure and unstable....
What's a CKO? Chief KDE officer? Chief Krap Officer?
Apologies for my lack of knowledge, but what's the big deal about 4:20?
Rep. Boucher:
I need to learn more about the precise circumstance in which links to Web sites that contain uncompiled code have been taken down pursuant to requests from the copyright owners. Unfortunately, I do not have sufficient information to answer this question of the present time.
A politician admitting there's something he doesn't know? Oh, this one's a keeper... ;-)
someone has an axe to grind ... ;-)
It sounds more like the suit should be against Credit Suisee, not VA, unless they were colluding somehow.
Of course, once you work your way through this stuff, and you aren't satisfied, then the Open Source answer would be to write one yourself ;-)
I wouldn't say it's a case of the people not being trusted; I would say it's more a case of the system being a Republican form of government rather than a Democratic form.
I'm not referring to the political parties here. Instead I'm referring to the fact that it's a representative form of government, where you vote on people to make the decisions for you, rather than on the decisions themselves.
If the US were really a democracy, then new laws would only be passed by popular referendum. In fact, there's a very long, involved process to passing new laws for the lawmakers to carry out, not the people.
This is done, in order to provide a level of stability -- some kind of layer between the popular passion of the momnent, and changing of law -- so that in order to pass a law, you have to make really sure it's well thought out. And in the case of a Consitutional Ammendment -- which I believe would be required to change the EC system -- you really have to work hard.
This may be seen as degrading to the people. I'm planning on reading that book sometime, about "Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds." This is what I think the Framers were trying to guard against.