NASA Kennedy is 1,000 NASA employees and 15,000 contractors.
It's just a question of whether they contract out the vehicle support like they do now, or the entire vehicle.
Re:I'm all for science/technology/astronomy but...
on
Back to Moon in 2015?
·
· Score: 1
Nice to see that the schools quit teaching basic physics after I graduated.
The Laws Of Mechanics.
Every force will be balanced by an equal and opposite force. Thus, in order to provide propulsive force, you must expel an equal force in the opposite direction. So now we now how to propel ourselves, we just need something that will provide force.
F = MA. Force equals mass times acceleration. Neutrons have mass. If we accelerate neutrons in one direction, our vehicle mass will, necessarily, experience a force in opposite direction, providing an acceleration in that direction.
In other words, yes, you can derive thrust from a neutron stream without using a transfer mass a la NERVA-type vehicles. No clue on efficiency, or ease, but it is definitely within the possibility of physics to channel the neutron output of a reactor into a specific direction and use that output to provide thrust.
"The National Security Agency was created in November 1952."
And as far as is known, they may well have beaten GCHQ to it, but there's no verifiable record that they did - they say they did, but it's up to you whether you believe them.
Computer Numeric Control machining. Basically a catchall term for any machining process running off of a computer. Also known as CAM (Computer Aided/Assisted Manufacturing/Machining - pick your word depending on who you ask.)
Uhm... from TFA, iPhoto is a totally different sort of application from this, as is Picasa. Both of those are really archival/sort utilities, while this is a true edit utility.
I'd wonder if it's really any more efficient to do that direct convolution than the time-frequency transforms for large images, but again - 1D guy, 2D FFTs sort of confuse me and I definitely don't have an idea how much work is required to perform the DFT on an image of size MxN.
Kalman eliminates the necessity of doing anything in the frequency domain, as it's purely a state-space method. Still requires linearity, still requires white Gaussian noise, but it provides the provable best linear unbiased estimate (BLUE) for the systems it applies to, which is a reasonably broad class. It's a neat technique for providing a denoised estimate from a noisy signal. A lot of the literature on Kalman filtering is from control theory, as that's really where it was developed, although its seen a lot of use in the past couple decades in other signal processing domains.
Nah, simple sharpening kernels like PS does are quicker and easier to apply the spatial domain. Frequency space is overkill.
If they're convolving kernels (being a 1-d signals guy and never working with images, I have no idea if they are) it's pretty likely that it's faster to perform the sharpening in frequency space, where it becomes a multiplication operation instead of an integration operation.
I'd really recommend reading about Kalman filters, rather than Wiener; they're more broadly applicable, as they don't require a stationary system (though they still want white Gaussian noise). In addition, they have the nice benefit of not requiring any time-frequency transformations.
I do agree that the manufacturer has a perfectly legitimate interest in not making their design completely public. Courts DO understand that, and judges will accomodate it by sealing some records, effectively placing all parties under NDA where one of the penelties is contempt of court (much stronger in some senses than a simple NDA agreement).
Yes, but honestly, if I was a multi-million dollar company and my cashflow depended on other people not getting my schematics and source; I wouldn't trust to contempt of court as a restraint either. It's a lot easier to keep something secret if you never tell it to anyone.
Really, I suppose our disagreement comes down to the desired/required degree of certainty. When it comes to a criminal court where the outcome could literally change the course of the person's life, I desire a the highest possible degree of certainty. The defendant should have every opportinaty they can possibly be given to refute the prosecution's arguments.
The required degree of certainty is not a negotiable value; it is "beyond a reasonable doubt". Numerically this is not defined as a standard, but determined by local jurisprudence standards; but it is always (from what I've seen) greater than 90%, and rarely (from my experience, again) greater than 99%.
I support giving the defendant great opportunity, but not necessarily any opportunity; to argue from the extreme, I could prove my innocence of a crime by calling in every single person in the US until we found the one who did it. This is an unduly burdensome "opportunity" to prove my defense. There has to be a line, somewhere, between what the defense can and cannot have. I think that line is drawn at "enough information to prove accuracy of the equipment"; you seem to believe that the only way to gain that is to have the schematics and source, while I feel there's no need for that. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a good standard; we're not looking for certainty in court, we never have.
Cerebus is really not a book I would bring up for trying to prove that not all comics contain ridiculous attitudes toward women; while Cerebus doesn't contain the ones with the chests, Dave Sim is a misogynist without compare. (I still enjoy the early part of the series, but damn that man needs therapy.)
Like I said above, Finder, Whiteout, anything by Daniel Clowes, Doom Patrol as penned by Grant Morrison, and The Filth all have women who just, you know, look like women.
We may be getting to the crux of things, or we may be in danger of going into an infinite loop:-)
Hopefully the former. I am trying to make the point that there are other options than releasing your entire design, and that that should not be a requirement; a manufacturer has a legitimate interest in not making their design completely public information. However, the public interest requires that some information be released; the scope of that information, even if it is not an actual design, is likely to be broader than any manufacturer wishes to release; test data sufficient to prove adequate coverage (when combined with a design overview stating mechanism, if necessary, but without recourse to schematic or source) is one way of doing it. Releasing schematic and source is another. Neither one should be specifically compelled; what should be required in court is that some form of proof of correct operation be furnished.
You can ensure adequate test coverage without being given the schematics. It is an alternate possibility, for manufacturers who don't wish to make their design public.
It may be that you don't consider design to imply things like schematics, but I would consider anything less to be an oberview rather than a design.
Again, you misread what I say. In fact, I'm stating the exact opposite - I'm saying that you do NOT need the detailed design to provide an adequate way to describe failure modes, as design analysis is useless without test validation. A proper test battery will include tests that SHOW your failure modes; with that test data, you don't need the design. Remember, you have to show that the design data is *necessary* to your defense to be able to legally force its release, whereas the manufacturer need only show that what they give you is *sufficient* in order to have a defense against release. My point is, and has been, that good test data is sufficient, and that the detailed design info is not necessary.
WRT the rest, IF the DUI charge hinges on the readout from the breathalyser (fairly common), and if the details of the thing aren't publically available (they're not), then refuting the breathalyser becomes central to the defense. It wouldn't be hard to meet the tests you stated. It's worth notinmg that Prosecutor and judge will want to err on the side of granting the defendants wish here since otherwise the door is open for a conviction to be overturned on that point later.
Again, I'm stating that detailed design documentation on the order of schematics and source code are NOT the only way to meet the burden. I think you're reading a lot into what I'm saying that isn't really there.
Further, apparently, the Judges in TFA disagree with your assertion that the details aren't necessary considering that they're throwing cases out on exactly that point.
From TFA, the company isn't meeting my standard either, so I can't argue with the judge, and it doesn't sound like he'd disagree with me. You want schematics; the judge just wants them to provide technical information sufficient to mount a defense. Schematics are NOT the only way to do that. He's throwing it out because they won't provide enough information to mount a reasonable defense; I have repeatedly stated that I believe this to be reasonable. I'm only taking issue with your assertion that you *need* detailed design information, things like schematics and source code. These things can be considered sufficient, but are not *necessary*. That's the whole point.
"Marvel" was really intended as a generic term for mass-market comic publishers like Marvel, DC, and (yes) even Image. A lot of the smaller books don't feel any pressure to sell with sex.
For large-publisher books that aren't quite so one-dimensional, look at Bendis' Alias series (totally unrelated to the TV show), Daniel Clowes' work (where everyone is ugly!), some of Warren Ellis' and Grant Morrison's output (hard to argue that the hero of The Filth is attractive, for example, but he's certainly not disfigured either - he's just a middle aged man, that's all), etc.
Smaller publishers:
Lightspeed Press. Finder. Sheer brilliance. Whoever is releasing Greg Rucka's books, I forget. Might even be a major. Not sure. But check out the Whiteout pair. Some of Brian Wood's work on PlanetLar; Couriers, Channel Zero. Haven't read Demo, but from what I know of it, it should also fit this mold.
It isn't a foregone conclusion that an unrealistic view of sex and sexuality is required for a comic; simply that, much like mass-market movies, music, and TV, mass-market comics sell to the lowest common denominator.
You stated yourself a few messages back that analysis of the design is necessary to determine what would constitute adequate tests. Now you propose that I guess at how the thing works by looking at what tests were done? Notably, there are several mechanisms used by different breathalysers, each with their own failure modes. If the tests were adequate for one such mechanism, but not for the one used in the breathalyser in question, you will deduce the wrong mechanism and wrongly conclude that the tests are adequate.
I said no such thing, and happily invite you to show me where I said anything of the sort. I said general knowledge of method is necessary, but technical details are not. Given knowledge of general method (mechanism), the test data *is* sufficient. In some cases, even without knowledge of mechanism test data can be sufficient.
For example, knowing that a particular machine uses IR to read the sample, and further knowing that the particular single wavelength measured is absorbed by any molecule with a methyl group, you can immediatly deduce that it will tend to give false positives for anyone with ketylacidosis (from fasting or poorly controled insulin levels for example) as well as for anyone who has worked with common solvents.
Knowing that a machine uses IR to read the sample (method), and having available the engineering test results, it should be readily apparent what wavelength is being measured, and from that it is easy to determine things that will provide false positives. None of this requires detailed technical information beyond the engineering test information and a general knowledge of method.
In a criminal trial, the defendant is to be afforded every benefit of the doubt, so if there is any chance that the detailed specs might exhonorate the defendant, they MUST be provided.
Not even close. They are to be assumed innocent unless guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt; this does not place *any* obligation on the prosecution, or anyone else, to provide information to help in that aim. Even subpoena authority, used to compel information needed, is limited; the general tests are as follows:
(i) The underlying claim must be "meritorious"; i.e., it must not be frivolous or brought for the purpose of harassment.
(ii) The information sought must be necessary or critical to the cause of action or the defense pleaded. It must go "to the heart of the plaintiff's claim."
(iii) A reasonable effort must be made to acquire the desired information by other means. Even when the information is critical and necessary to the plaintiff's case, the plaintiff must exhaust reasonably available alternative sources before testimony can be compelled.
In other words, if you don't *need* the information, they don't have to provide it. Since a defense can be mounted based on general method and test results, detailed design information is not necessary, and as such cannot be compelled.
Yep. I don't ever *want* to do word processing, but sometimes I *have* to do word processing. That said, although I mostly do technical/engineering work, almost everything I work with regularly can be run on OS X; I know for a fact that some of it will not run on Linux. Of course, it all runs on Windows. Except when Windows doesn't run.
All that said, even if the market does not consist solely of people who need doghouses, if 90% of the market needs only doghouses, the doghouse machine will be successful and the hammer mostly won't (this would be, for the dumb people who read my comments, the home user desktop market). Likewise, if 90% of the market needs the ability to drive a stainless steel spike into a brick wall, as well as assemble a doghouse, treehouse, person house, or life size girl-shaped frame, the hammer is going to do quite well (server market).
Since the Ashkenazi make up the majority of the Jewish population, especially in the US where the Ashkenaz portion is something like 90+%, it's a pretty safe bet that the original poster is Ashkenazi.
I believe the GP was talking about the GGP remarks about the morality of Israel, which in this case he is correct, not the intelligence of Jews. You too are one of the people weighing down the average with your simple reading of comments.
Oh, is that so? Let's take a look at the GGP post. He says: "This has always been a touchy subject. It does seem that our friends and relatives seem to be pretty smart, but it is something you don't want to raise in public or even among friends, since it smacks of ethnocentrism. But along with the benefits, there seems to be a high prevalence of depression, cancer, and other ills. Whether or not this is true, Hitler, the Moral Majority, and other movements have made it even harder to talk about something sensitive like this that may, in fact, have a scientific basis after all."
There is not a *single* word in there about the morality of Israel.
Quit weighing down the average with your NOT EVEN READING THE GODDAMN COMMENTS.
Slashdot Mirror
No, 1+1 != 2i. i+i = 2i. i has a very specific definition; sqrt(-1)=i. As such, 1+1 does not, and will never, equal i.
Now, if you had said 2I, matrix mathematics-wise, you'd be correct for a 1x1 identity matrix, which is always represented as I.
NASA Kennedy is 1,000 NASA employees and 15,000 contractors.
It's just a question of whether they contract out the vehicle support like they do now, or the entire vehicle.
Nice to see that the schools quit teaching basic physics after I graduated.
The Laws Of Mechanics.
Every force will be balanced by an equal and opposite force. Thus, in order to provide propulsive force, you must expel an equal force in the opposite direction. So now we now how to propel ourselves, we just need something that will provide force.
F = MA. Force equals mass times acceleration. Neutrons have mass. If we accelerate neutrons in one direction, our vehicle mass will, necessarily, experience a force in opposite direction, providing an acceleration in that direction.
In other words, yes, you can derive thrust from a neutron stream without using a transfer mass a la NERVA-type vehicles. No clue on efficiency, or ease, but it is definitely within the possibility of physics to channel the neutron output of a reactor into a specific direction and use that output to provide thrust.
I don't even think the NSA was around back in the 60's when this was going on.
Yes. They were.
"The National Security Agency was created in November 1952."
And as far as is known, they may well have beaten GCHQ to it, but there's no verifiable record that they did - they say they did, but it's up to you whether you believe them.
Computer Numeric Control machining. Basically a catchall term for any machining process running off of a computer. Also known as CAM (Computer Aided/Assisted Manufacturing/Machining - pick your word depending on who you ask.)
Is there a reason that the letters of the acronym are out of order?
They're not.
Best Linear Unbiased Estimate.
Did you pay for a right to access Showtime? No, you didn't. They owe you nothing, just like the BBC owes me nothing, which was my point.
Funny, every time I try to use the BBC's online website to watch BBC programming that UK residents can see with no problems, I get a similar error.
Damn the UK! Damn them!
Uhm... from TFA, iPhoto is a totally different sort of application from this, as is Picasa. Both of those are really archival/sort utilities, while this is a true edit utility.
I'd wonder if it's really any more efficient to do that direct convolution than the time-frequency transforms for large images, but again - 1D guy, 2D FFTs sort of confuse me and I definitely don't have an idea how much work is required to perform the DFT on an image of size MxN.
Kalman eliminates the necessity of doing anything in the frequency domain, as it's purely a state-space method. Still requires linearity, still requires white Gaussian noise, but it provides the provable best linear unbiased estimate (BLUE) for the systems it applies to, which is a reasonably broad class. It's a neat technique for providing a denoised estimate from a noisy signal. A lot of the literature on Kalman filtering is from control theory, as that's really where it was developed, although its seen a lot of use in the past couple decades in other signal processing domains.
Hey, the statement *is* true.
It's just not something you want to say in public.
For what it's worth, the correct conjugations are "convolving" and "deconvolving", even though the process is convolution and deconvolution.
Nah, simple sharpening kernels like PS does are quicker and easier to apply the spatial domain. Frequency space is overkill.
If they're convolving kernels (being a 1-d signals guy and never working with images, I have no idea if they are) it's pretty likely that it's faster to perform the sharpening in frequency space, where it becomes a multiplication operation instead of an integration operation.
I'd really recommend reading about Kalman filters, rather than Wiener; they're more broadly applicable, as they don't require a stationary system (though they still want white Gaussian noise). In addition, they have the nice benefit of not requiring any time-frequency transformations.
if(show == sitcom)
{
show_quality = bad;
}
Actually, Sports Night (which was also a hell of a good show) had Felicity Huffman, who was also both sexy and intelligent.
I do agree that the manufacturer has a perfectly legitimate interest in not making their design completely public. Courts DO understand that, and judges will accomodate it by sealing some records, effectively placing all parties under NDA where one of the penelties is contempt of court (much stronger in some senses than a simple NDA agreement).
Yes, but honestly, if I was a multi-million dollar company and my cashflow depended on other people not getting my schematics and source; I wouldn't trust to contempt of court as a restraint either. It's a lot easier to keep something secret if you never tell it to anyone.
Really, I suppose our disagreement comes down to the desired/required degree of certainty. When it comes to a criminal court where the outcome could literally change the course of the person's life, I desire a the highest possible degree of certainty. The defendant should have every opportinaty they can possibly be given to refute the prosecution's arguments.
The required degree of certainty is not a negotiable value; it is "beyond a reasonable doubt". Numerically this is not defined as a standard, but determined by local jurisprudence standards; but it is always (from what I've seen) greater than 90%, and rarely (from my experience, again) greater than 99%.
I support giving the defendant great opportunity, but not necessarily any opportunity; to argue from the extreme, I could prove my innocence of a crime by calling in every single person in the US until we found the one who did it. This is an unduly burdensome "opportunity" to prove my defense. There has to be a line, somewhere, between what the defense can and cannot have. I think that line is drawn at "enough information to prove accuracy of the equipment"; you seem to believe that the only way to gain that is to have the schematics and source, while I feel there's no need for that. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a good standard; we're not looking for certainty in court, we never have.
Cerebus is really not a book I would bring up for trying to prove that not all comics contain ridiculous attitudes toward women; while Cerebus doesn't contain the ones with the chests, Dave Sim is a misogynist without compare. (I still enjoy the early part of the series, but damn that man needs therapy.)
Like I said above, Finder, Whiteout, anything by Daniel Clowes, Doom Patrol as penned by Grant Morrison, and The Filth all have women who just, you know, look like women.
We may be getting to the crux of things, or we may be in danger of going into an infinite loop :-)
Hopefully the former. I am trying to make the point that there are other options than releasing your entire design, and that that should not be a requirement; a manufacturer has a legitimate interest in not making their design completely public information. However, the public interest requires that some information be released; the scope of that information, even if it is not an actual design, is likely to be broader than any manufacturer wishes to release; test data sufficient to prove adequate coverage (when combined with a design overview stating mechanism, if necessary, but without recourse to schematic or source) is one way of doing it. Releasing schematic and source is another. Neither one should be specifically compelled; what should be required in court is that some form of proof of correct operation be furnished.
You can ensure adequate test coverage without being given the schematics. It is an alternate possibility, for manufacturers who don't wish to make their design public.
It may be that you don't consider design to imply things like schematics, but I would consider anything less to be an oberview rather than a design.
Again, you misread what I say. In fact, I'm stating the exact opposite - I'm saying that you do NOT need the detailed design to provide an adequate way to describe failure modes, as design analysis is useless without test validation. A proper test battery will include tests that SHOW your failure modes; with that test data, you don't need the design. Remember, you have to show that the design data is *necessary* to your defense to be able to legally force its release, whereas the manufacturer need only show that what they give you is *sufficient* in order to have a defense against release. My point is, and has been, that good test data is sufficient, and that the detailed design info is not necessary.
WRT the rest, IF the DUI charge hinges on the readout from the breathalyser (fairly common), and if the details of the thing aren't publically available (they're not), then refuting the breathalyser becomes central to the defense. It wouldn't be hard to meet the tests you stated. It's worth notinmg that Prosecutor and judge will want to err on the side of granting the defendants wish here since otherwise the door is open for a conviction to be overturned on that point later.
Again, I'm stating that detailed design documentation on the order of schematics and source code are NOT the only way to meet the burden. I think you're reading a lot into what I'm saying that isn't really there.
Further, apparently, the Judges in TFA disagree with your assertion that the details aren't necessary considering that they're throwing cases out on exactly that point.
From TFA, the company isn't meeting my standard either, so I can't argue with the judge, and it doesn't sound like he'd disagree with me. You want schematics; the judge just wants them to provide technical information sufficient to mount a defense. Schematics are NOT the only way to do that. He's throwing it out because they won't provide enough information to mount a reasonable defense; I have repeatedly stated that I believe this to be reasonable. I'm only taking issue with your assertion that you *need* detailed design information, things like schematics and source code. These things can be considered sufficient, but are not *necessary*. That's the whole point.
"Marvel" was really intended as a generic term for mass-market comic publishers like Marvel, DC, and (yes) even Image. A lot of the smaller books don't feel any pressure to sell with sex.
For large-publisher books that aren't quite so one-dimensional, look at Bendis' Alias series (totally unrelated to the TV show), Daniel Clowes' work (where everyone is ugly!), some of Warren Ellis' and Grant Morrison's output (hard to argue that the hero of The Filth is attractive, for example, but he's certainly not disfigured either - he's just a middle aged man, that's all), etc.
Smaller publishers:
Lightspeed Press. Finder. Sheer brilliance.
Whoever is releasing Greg Rucka's books, I forget. Might even be a major. Not sure. But check out the Whiteout pair.
Some of Brian Wood's work on PlanetLar; Couriers, Channel Zero. Haven't read Demo, but from what I know of it, it should also fit this mold.
It isn't a foregone conclusion that an unrealistic view of sex and sexuality is required for a comic; simply that, much like mass-market movies, music, and TV, mass-market comics sell to the lowest common denominator.
Of course, vanilla Linux isn't really any better at doing well-timed interrupts.
You stated yourself a few messages back that analysis of the design is necessary to determine what would constitute adequate tests. Now you propose that I guess at how the thing works by looking at what tests were done? Notably, there are several mechanisms used by different breathalysers, each with their own failure modes. If the tests were adequate for one such mechanism, but not for the one used in the breathalyser in question, you will deduce the wrong mechanism and wrongly conclude that the tests are adequate.
I said no such thing, and happily invite you to show me where I said anything of the sort. I said general knowledge of method is necessary, but technical details are not. Given knowledge of general method (mechanism), the test data *is* sufficient. In some cases, even without knowledge of mechanism test data can be sufficient.
For example, knowing that a particular machine uses IR to read the sample, and further knowing that the particular single wavelength measured is absorbed by any molecule with a methyl group, you can immediatly deduce that it will tend to give false positives for anyone with ketylacidosis (from fasting or poorly controled insulin levels for example) as well as for anyone who has worked with common solvents.
Knowing that a machine uses IR to read the sample (method), and having available the engineering test results, it should be readily apparent what wavelength is being measured, and from that it is easy to determine things that will provide false positives. None of this requires detailed technical information beyond the engineering test information and a general knowledge of method.
In a criminal trial, the defendant is to be afforded every benefit of the doubt, so if there is any chance that the detailed specs might exhonorate the defendant, they MUST be provided.
Not even close. They are to be assumed innocent unless guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt; this does not place *any* obligation on the prosecution, or anyone else, to provide information to help in that aim. Even subpoena authority, used to compel information needed, is limited; the general tests are as follows:
(i) The underlying claim must be "meritorious"; i.e., it must not be frivolous or brought for the purpose of harassment.
(ii) The information sought must be necessary or critical to the cause of action or the defense pleaded. It must go "to the heart of the plaintiff's claim."
(iii) A reasonable effort must be made to acquire the desired information by other means. Even when the information is critical and necessary to the plaintiff's case, the plaintiff must exhaust reasonably available alternative sources before testimony can be compelled.
In other words, if you don't *need* the information, they don't have to provide it. Since a defense can be mounted based on general method and test results, detailed design information is not necessary, and as such cannot be compelled.
Yep. I don't ever *want* to do word processing, but sometimes I *have* to do word processing. That said, although I mostly do technical/engineering work, almost everything I work with regularly can be run on OS X; I know for a fact that some of it will not run on Linux. Of course, it all runs on Windows. Except when Windows doesn't run.
All that said, even if the market does not consist solely of people who need doghouses, if 90% of the market needs only doghouses, the doghouse machine will be successful and the hammer mostly won't (this would be, for the dumb people who read my comments, the home user desktop market). Likewise, if 90% of the market needs the ability to drive a stainless steel spike into a brick wall, as well as assemble a doghouse, treehouse, person house, or life size girl-shaped frame, the hammer is going to do quite well (server market).
Since the Ashkenazi make up the majority of the Jewish population, especially in the US where the Ashkenaz portion is something like 90+%, it's a pretty safe bet that the original poster is Ashkenazi.
I believe the GP was talking about the GGP remarks about the morality of Israel, which in this case he is correct, not the intelligence of Jews. You too are one of the people weighing down the average with your simple reading of comments.
Oh, is that so? Let's take a look at the GGP post. He says:
"This has always been a touchy subject. It does seem that our friends and relatives seem to be pretty smart, but it is something you don't want to raise in public or even among friends, since it smacks of ethnocentrism. But along with the benefits, there seems to be a high prevalence of depression, cancer, and other ills. Whether or not this is true, Hitler, the Moral Majority, and other movements have made it even harder to talk about something sensitive like this that may, in fact, have a scientific basis after all."
There is not a *single* word in there about the morality of Israel.
Quit weighing down the average with your NOT EVEN READING THE GODDAMN COMMENTS.