I was curious to see if they did any projection on whether the ISS is shielded enough for a storm of that scale. This article from 2005 (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/27jan_solarflares.htm) seems to indicate ISS is heavily shielded. There was nothing in the OP's articles that indicated if the modeled storm would be strong enough to cause serious radiation damage to the residents.
There's nothing wrong about "going back" to the original editions. I've left a comment previous about the retroclones and the availability of the older versions. They definitely fit all 3 of your characteristics without reinventing the wheel - and the newer retroclones do organize things a bit better than the originals.
You'll be happy to hear that there's a lot of great games that aren't driven by the Hasbro/WotC machine and many of them hew faithfully to what made the old games so great - rules-light (compared to today's versions), tool-kit approach, "imagine the hell out of it" attitude. It's been mainly a niche of a niche, but in the last year or so, interest in the "Old School Renaissance" has really taken off.
If you liked AD&D 1e, the books are very easy to get off of Ebay/Craigslist, but OSRIC (http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/) is a retroclone that is free to download, and has promoted a few small publishers to continue releasing new 1e content.
If you liked Basic/Expert (the two book set from the early 80s) or the BECMI (the 5 "basic" books from the mid 80s) then Labyrinth Lord would be your thing: http://www.goblinoidgames.com/labyrinthlord.html - also free.
If you really want to go old school, back to the original 3 "Little Brown Books" printed in 1974, then Swords & Wizardry is a retroclone that simplifies an already simple game. http://www.swordsandwizardry.com/ - the Core Rules are the 3LBBs and the Greyhawk supplement (uses all the dice for HD and damage), while the "Whitebox" is a toolkit game that is strictly just the 3 books (d6s only for HD/damage)
There is a lot out there and there are tons of blogs, forums and groups that try to keep the flames alive on the old games. One of them is TARGA - http://www.traditionalgaming.org/ and in interest of full disclosure, I run an "old school" blog myself http://oldguyrpg.blogspot.com/ - I currently run a 3 group AD&D campaign setting and a solo OD&D campaign with my wife.
the invasion from the Hive will be delayed a few more months. Good! We can look for the Tunnel-Makers' signal a while longer... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_Bridge_(book))
So this boundary layer would cause that type of plume? That's really interesting - any "dense books" or good links where they talk about that kind of thing?
From HumanSpaceflight@yahoogroups.com and sci.space.shuttle:
Quoting DRLunsford :
> WB-57 chase plane video: > > wm.nasa-global.speedera.net/wm.nasa-global/RTF/WB5 7.wmv > > There appears to be a burn-through of the SRB, as in the Challenger > accident - first visible as a faint glow at about 1:28 and clearly > visible by 1:47, shortly before SRB separation. > > -drl
> Herb Schaltegger Jul 27, 9:22 am > Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle > From: Herb Schaltegger - Find messages by this author > Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:22:33 -0500 > Local: Wed,Jul 27 2005 9:22 am > Subject: Re: Burnthrough on SRB from WB57 video?
> It appears to be nothing more than recirculation of exhaust gases > around the base of the stack due to flow separation at the low ambient > pressure during that phase of flight prior to SRB sep, as seen on > previous flights, but examination of the recovered SRBs (and the film > from the SRB cams) will tell the full tale.
Now to my untrained eye, the plume that appears next to the lower segment on the SRB looks like a Challenger type plume. You can still see the glow after the SRB separates.
I'm waiting for the new book to go to paperback, but the bits I've read in the bookstore seem to lead to a really good start to the next series. It picks up a few years later after the second series ended.
True, that's a good point. The launch failed, but the mission might still be salvageable, depending on the orbit achieved. If it's not too low an orbit, would be interesting for them to use the sail to change their orbital characteristics, depending on if there's enough DV generated by the sails...
No, that's a legit contradiction. If you go to the Planetary Society's website, you'll find that they are still hunting and there are clear signs that something is screwed up, but the spacecraft may have made it to orbit:
I'm kind of suprised that the Russians are so quick to call "fail" on this, given the conflicting data, but they had a bad karma space day yesterday, what with their other launch of a military payload failing as well.
Dvorak didn't help keep the site from getting/.'ed - now we're seeing:
There is no website configured at this address.
You are seeing this page because there is nothing configured for the site you have requested. If you think you are seeing this page in error, please contact the site administrator or datacenter responsible for this site.
Wouldn't the better question be what does China expect as an apology? What would they benefit?
It might be an unfamilar concept, but try it anyway - it's called taking responsibility for one's own actions.
Japan (and a great many countries, my own USA as well) hasn't learned that lesson. Germany has taken, and their govt has demonstrated taking responsibility by their actions. Japan has failed to do so. That is what pisses China off.
The Eastern Asian mentality is one of responsibility, of family, of duty. They've had it drilled into their heads from since they were born. It's alien to Americans, because we don't have that same type of upbringing. From their cultural POV, their anger makes complete sense.
Here's the thing... maybe it's cultural evolution/Darwinism at work.
If we look at culture vs. technology like natural organisms vs. environments, then this picture starts to form. There can be long lasting organisms which eventually die, perhaps due to natural or unnatural environments. (dinosaurs, as example)
If we look at how cultures react to natural/unnatural technological advances, if a culture cannot adapt or integrate the technology, then perhaps it doesn't belong.
We are still animals subject to those processes that took millions of years to unfold (and still are) - is it any suprise that our concepts (culture) would be affected by our tools and technologies in similar fashion?
Yup - I'm seeing the same behavior - I've done the about:config try AND gone searching for network.enableIDN on my harddrive. Nothing seems to work on that setting.
I've been thinking about this subject for some time, and the best I can say is that the real art is not about the actual software construction, but about the art of dealing with people. At least that's my experience.
I would say the majority of problems stem from not having a process in place that recognizes change, mitigates risk and allows a system to evolve. Any methodology, XP, RUP, even waterfall, will produce good software and from an engineering standpoint, the methodologies provide, even in Internet time. The issue is people.
To me, negotiation is the art - and usually negotiation is required to manage scope, deal with change and perceptions and get the software done in Internet time.
I think the construction aspect will become easier and easier, as components proliferate. The hard part will continue to be managing expectations and teach people how software *should* be developed.
I've been through this discussion a few times, the "art" versus "engineering" debate. I'm sure back when people were first figuring out how to move water or build bridges, it seemed just as unobjective.
I disagree, and I think that's perpetuated by a number of bad habits, bad practices and simple job protectionism coming into play. It's much easier to keep a job if I'm seen as the only "craftsman" who can maintain a system.
As we move more into component architectures, I think you'll see less of this. I think that's becoming more true simply because of the complexity of the systems being written. The more complex, the more need for objectivity and the less that "craftsman" mentality can hold the line.
We've gone from about 25% of projects being "successful" (on time, on budget, meeting stated needs) to about 31%. So translated, that means 2/3ds of the time you get into your car or get on an elevator, it'll work as you want.
Consistently, the top reasons for projects failing, for the past 10 years? 1. Unclear, poor requirements 2. Lack of user involvement 3. Lack of buy-in and support by upper management
I have to agree with other comments made, this isn't rocket science. We just need some time and maturity as an industry. Civil and mechanical engineering have had thousands of years to work out their kinks. The software engineering science has had to deal with technology and implementation far outpacing our understanding of the basics and principles involved.
But we're getting better.
Honestly, if the world at large knew how brittle, fragile and reliant on heroism most of the critical financial and industrial software was, there would be a huge outcry. It's one of the shameful aspects of our industry.
An estimate is done based on assumptions and scope. If your client changes the scope, that should cash in your pocket the moment they say "Yes" to the proposed change and resultant cost.
Part of my job is process improvement. One of the first things I find useful to teach development teams is how to say "No" or "It'll cost this much and take this long. Do you still want it?"
Slashdot Mirror
I was curious to see if they did any projection on whether the ISS is shielded enough for a storm of that scale. This article from 2005 (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/27jan_solarflares.htm) seems to indicate ISS is heavily shielded. There was nothing in the OP's articles that indicated if the modeled storm would be strong enough to cause serious radiation damage to the residents.
There's nothing wrong about "going back" to the original editions. I've left a comment previous about the retroclones and the availability of the older versions. They definitely fit all 3 of your characteristics without reinventing the wheel - and the newer retroclones do organize things a bit better than the originals.
You'll be happy to hear that there's a lot of great games that aren't driven by the Hasbro/WotC machine and many of them hew faithfully to what made the old games so great - rules-light (compared to today's versions), tool-kit approach, "imagine the hell out of it" attitude. It's been mainly a niche of a niche, but in the last year or so, interest in the "Old School Renaissance" has really taken off.
If you liked AD&D 1e, the books are very easy to get off of Ebay/Craigslist, but OSRIC (http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/) is a retroclone that is free to download, and has promoted a few small publishers to continue releasing new 1e content.
If you liked Basic/Expert (the two book set from the early 80s) or the BECMI (the 5 "basic" books from the mid 80s) then Labyrinth Lord would be your thing: http://www.goblinoidgames.com/labyrinthlord.html - also free.
If you really want to go old school, back to the original 3 "Little Brown Books" printed in 1974, then Swords & Wizardry is a retroclone that simplifies an already simple game. http://www.swordsandwizardry.com/ - the Core Rules are the 3LBBs and the Greyhawk supplement (uses all the dice for HD and damage), while the "Whitebox" is a toolkit game that is strictly just the 3 books (d6s only for HD/damage)
There is a lot out there and there are tons of blogs, forums and groups that try to keep the flames alive on the old games. One of them is TARGA - http://www.traditionalgaming.org/ and in interest of full disclosure, I run an "old school" blog myself http://oldguyrpg.blogspot.com/ - I currently run a 3 group AD&D campaign setting and a solo OD&D campaign with my wife.
the invasion from the Hive will be delayed a few more months. Good! We can look for the Tunnel-Makers' signal a while longer... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_Bridge_(book))
One slight correction:
Viking 1 - orbiter + lander - dead and dead (out of gas, bad software update)
Viking 2 - orbiter + lander - dead and dead (fuel leak, battery)
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_2
Off topic comment - that is one great series! The only problem is that all of KA's books, he just goes on FOREVER!
So this boundary layer would cause that type of plume? That's really interesting - any "dense books" or good links where they talk about that kind of thing?
Regards,
Neurowiz
Try this link:
/ RTF/WB57.wmv
http://wm.nasa-global.speedera.net/wm.nasa-global
I just checked it and it works. The previous link had a space in it.
From HumanSpaceflight@yahoogroups.com and sci.space.shuttle:
5 7.wmv
Quoting DRLunsford :
> WB-57 chase plane video:
>
> wm.nasa-global.speedera.net/wm.nasa-global/RTF/WB
>
> There appears to be a burn-through of the SRB, as in the Challenger
> accident - first visible as a faint glow at about 1:28 and clearly
> visible by 1:47, shortly before SRB separation.
>
> -drl
> Herb Schaltegger Jul 27, 9:22 am
> Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
> From: Herb Schaltegger - Find
messages by this author
> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:22:33 -0500
> Local: Wed,Jul 27 2005 9:22 am
> Subject: Re: Burnthrough on SRB from WB57 video?
> It appears to be nothing more than recirculation of exhaust gases
> around the base of the stack due to flow separation at the low ambient
> pressure during that phase of flight prior to SRB sep, as seen on
> previous flights, but examination of the recovered SRBs (and the film
> from the SRB cams) will tell the full tale.
Now to my untrained eye, the plume that appears next to the lower segment on the SRB looks like a Challenger type plume. You can still see the glow after the SRB separates.
I'm waiting for the new book to go to paperback, but the bits I've read in the bookstore seem to lead to a really good start to the next series. It picks up a few years later after the second series ended.
True, that's a good point. The launch failed, but the mission might still be salvageable, depending on the orbit achieved. If it's not too low an orbit, would be interesting for them to use the sail to change their orbital characteristics, depending on if there's enough DV generated by the sails...
No, that's a legit contradiction. If you go to the Planetary Society's website, you'll find that they are still hunting and there are clear signs that something is screwed up, but the spacecraft may have made it to orbit:
h tml
http://planetary.org/solarsailblog
http://www.planetary.org/solarsail/latest_update.
I'm kind of suprised that the Russians are so quick to call "fail" on this, given the conflicting data, but they had a bad karma space day yesterday, what with their other launch of a military payload failing as well.
Dvorak didn't help keep the site from getting /.'ed - now we're seeing:
There is no website configured at this address.
You are seeing this page because there is nothing configured for the site you have requested. If you think you are seeing this page in error, please contact the site administrator or datacenter responsible for this site.
Maybe they need a third new layout?
Wouldn't the better question be what does China expect as an apology? What would they benefit?
It might be an unfamilar concept, but try it anyway - it's called taking responsibility for one's own actions.
Japan (and a great many countries, my own USA as well) hasn't learned that lesson. Germany has taken, and their govt has demonstrated taking responsibility by their actions. Japan has failed to do so. That is what pisses China off.
The Eastern Asian mentality is one of responsibility, of family, of duty. They've had it drilled into their heads from since they were born. It's alien to Americans, because we don't have that same type of upbringing. From their cultural POV, their anger makes complete sense.
Here's the thing... maybe it's cultural evolution/Darwinism at work.
If we look at culture vs. technology like natural organisms vs. environments, then this picture starts to form. There can be long lasting organisms which eventually die, perhaps due to natural or unnatural environments. (dinosaurs, as example)
If we look at how cultures react to natural/unnatural technological advances, if a culture cannot adapt or integrate the technology, then perhaps it doesn't belong.
We are still animals subject to those processes that took millions of years to unfold (and still are) - is it any suprise that our concepts (culture) would be affected by our tools and technologies in similar fashion?
Best.comment.of.the.day!
Nope. Did exactly that. about:config, clear cache, restart Firefox, test at secuna - wham. The spoof still works.
The Adblock method of stopping this (mentioned earlier) is a nice workaround. Adblock has become quite a useful tool.
Yup - I'm seeing the same behavior - I've done the about:config try AND gone searching for network.enableIDN on my harddrive. Nothing seems to work on that setting.
You must mean this:
National Museum of the United States Air Force
And this:
The National Museum of the United States Army
And this:
Welcome to the Naval Historical Center
I've been thinking about this subject for some time, and the best I can say is that the real art is not about the actual software construction, but about the art of dealing with people. At least that's my experience.
I would say the majority of problems stem from not having a process in place that recognizes change, mitigates risk and allows a system to evolve. Any methodology, XP, RUP, even waterfall, will produce good software and from an engineering standpoint, the methodologies provide, even in Internet time. The issue is people.
To me, negotiation is the art - and usually negotiation is required to manage scope, deal with change and perceptions and get the software done in Internet time.
I think the construction aspect will become easier and easier, as components proliferate. The hard part will continue to be managing expectations and teach people how software *should* be developed.
I've been through this discussion a few times, the "art" versus "engineering" debate. I'm sure back when people were first figuring out how to move water or build bridges, it seemed just as unobjective.
I disagree, and I think that's perpetuated by a number of bad habits, bad practices and simple job protectionism coming into play. It's much easier to keep a job if I'm seen as the only "craftsman" who can maintain a system.
As we move more into component architectures, I think you'll see less of this. I think that's becoming more true simply because of the complexity of the systems being written. The more complex, the more need for objectivity and the less that "craftsman" mentality can hold the line.
... since 1994, the Standish Group has been publishing the results and reasons of IT projects. Go here for the original report.
We've gone from about 25% of projects being "successful" (on time, on budget, meeting stated needs) to about 31%. So translated, that means 2/3ds of the time you get into your car or get on an elevator, it'll work as you want.
Consistently, the top reasons for projects failing, for the past 10 years?
1. Unclear, poor requirements
2. Lack of user involvement
3. Lack of buy-in and support by upper management
I have to agree with other comments made, this isn't rocket science. We just need some time and maturity as an industry. Civil and mechanical engineering have had thousands of years to work out their kinks. The software engineering science has had to deal with technology and implementation far outpacing our understanding of the basics and principles involved.
But we're getting better.
Honestly, if the world at large knew how brittle, fragile and reliant on heroism most of the critical financial and industrial software was, there would be a huge outcry. It's one of the shameful aspects of our industry.
You should be doing that anyway.
An estimate is done based on assumptions and scope. If your client changes the scope, that should cash in your pocket the moment they say "Yes" to the proposed change and resultant cost.
Part of my job is process improvement. One of the first things I find useful to teach development teams is how to say "No" or "It'll cost this much and take this long. Do you still want it?"
All of Opportunity's instruments are functioning normally. Amazing, considering they gave it 90 days as an optimum mission length.
Do you have a source to data on that? I haven't seen that reported.