If there is one thing that DEC did better than just about any other company before or since, it is this: They knew how to write good documentation. The HELP command in VMS is a sample of what they did.
However, if you really wanted an even nicer CLI, try another OS from DEC: Twenex --I mean TOPS-20 (Send me a message if you know the history behind this).
Instead of Tab completion, they used the Escape key. I think the first place I ever saw auto completion was on a TOPS-20 system (Version 3, IIRC, and it was a long time ago). I have always liked auto-completion and I've always thought that it would make a comeback some day.
Meanwhile, grizzled old command line users like me have always found command lines to be places where we could get "real work" done. (What? You had command lines? In my day we had front panel switches, incandecent address and data lights, and paper tape readers!)
Given the overly rich and confusing numbers of icons, sounds, popups and flashy widgets on screens, maybe a minimalist approach to computing might help people understand what's going on. This industry often tries to make too many concepts in to abstractions. Perhaps it's time we went back and rediscovered our true hardware;-)
I always treat watchdog software with just a bit of skepticism. The problem, as pointed out by NERC, was that a process in the system was somehow present, but not communicating well.
The alarm subsystem is often a seperate process. It doesn't talk to the field. That's the job for other elements of the SCADA system. It was supposed to watch for semaphores, messages, or read shared memory somewhere. How do you watchdog something like that if it gets the message, but doesn't do what it's supposed to?
In a SCADA system near and dear to my career, we set alarm thresholds so low that the operators expect a certain amount of alarm traffic even for routine events. This helps to discover any misbehavior in the alarm system.
There is such a thing as a control center which is TOO quiet.
So what? You use a cell phone, don't you? The electrical energy exposure you get from that is substantially greater.
How about electric blankets or heating pads? How about a battery powered shaver?
You expose yourself to these fields every day to an extent far greater than what you may have received from that transmission line.
By the way, you can light a neon light with a bit of wire and very little power. You can also light it with a MW AM broadcast transmitter less than a mile away; you can light it with a CB radio; and with just a bit more wire, and a location closer to the poles of the earth, you can light it when the earth is hit by a solar flare. Many among the various eco-scare-monger groups like to make this demonstration as if it were an indicator of something dangerous. If it were, there would be no life anywhere near the Arctic Circle.
Aside of the poor maintainance for the clear-cut area, you really have no need to be concerned about this.
How did they measure the ozone in the cage? Since they're using strictly Voltage measurements, how do they know how much ozone should have been present?
Is this measurement truly independent of the presence of the rat? I read a claim that the conductive moisture present in the rat's body causes the Ozone: How do they know that? Did they also insert a dead, dessicated rat?
I still don't understand how an experiment like this has controls of any sort.
Goheen recalled an experiment done years ago by researchers in San Francisco.
Nowhere in the text did it say who did that study and whether it had review of any sort. They continued this silliness...
...three rats were exposed in close proximity to a device producing 10 kilovolts -- about what negative-ion air fresheners produce.
The ambient level of ozone in the air before the device was turned on was about 10-20 parts per billion (ppb).
When the electrical device was switched on, Goheen and his colleagues reported ozone levels spiked as high as 200 ppb -- about twice the "chronic" level allowed by federal regulators in a workplace setting.
First Dumb question: How large were the rats and how much space did they take up in cage with the ionized air? Ok, I know it wasn't that much space, but don't ignore the effect.
Second dumb question: they're writing a research paper about three rats? Did they mention controls?
Third dumb question: How do KiloVolts relate to Ozone production? Shouldn't current also be a part of this?
Ok, Now I have to ask the question I've been asking for a long time while reading so much research of this sort: Who reviews this stuff? Why do we let these jokers get away with publishing such irrelevant twaddle in the guise of honest research? I've seen better high school science fair projects. These folks ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Realistically, there is no way to prove that this system does anything at all. Weather pofiles are fickle things.
However, I have a much more relevant question. This device is supposed to have a supersonic flow leaving the nozzel. OK, I can see how that would be. Let's look at another supersonic nozzel we are all familiar with: Rocket Engines.
How far behind the Rocket Engine do the gasses go before they dissipate? Maybe a couple thousand feet? Clearly they're much more powerful than this anti-hail device. And this device is supposed to blast ionized air tens of thousands of feet in a mere few minutes? I smell something fishy here. Even if the ionized air trick works --the delivery system looks bogus to me.
Sadly, many graduated with degrees in Aerospace Engineering just before the Apollo program was killed. I remember some of the choice things they had to say.
If you're going to school to get a degree so that you can make money, you're going about it all wrong. Don't waste your money on an education, just go out there and make your damned money. There are many ways one can do this, and none of them require the expense or the tedious hours one spends trying to learn so many irrelevant things.
But if you're going to school to pursue interests you enjoy, then none of your education will be irrelevant. When you graduate, you won't spend a whole lot of time looking for work --you'll know exactly what you'll want to do and where you can do it. Money won't be much of an issue because you won't care about it except as a means to an end. You might end up making a small fortune, but even if you don't, you won't be disappointed.
So, which of the latter discriptions fits the folks here on Slashdot who complain about the evaporating job market? Hmmmm...
At best, this statistic only tells us where the US economy was, not where it is. I don't put much stock in tallies like this because it's like answering 42 to life the universe and everything.
Let's take a longer perspective, shall we? The computer industry has been white hot for many years now. Those of you who were working in it were riding that wave for a long time. Good work!
It couldn't last forever. Those wonderful salaries were not reflected in other parts of the industry. For the experience and training most Computer Science graduates have, an appropriate salary ought to be much closer to what most other engineers earn. That's why so many jobs are evaporating. We'll get them back eventually, at salaries more in line with what the rest of the engineering world is earning.
That's the way business works. The demand was white hot for nearly a decade. Now it's only red hot. It was a good wave while it lasted. Business Revolutions like that come along maybe once or twice per century. Be thankful you had the chance to ride this one.
Wow, it's been a long time since I read anything so utterly ignorant that didn't come from a politician (This being Slashdot, I have grave doubts you have anything to do with politics).
Most of the technologies we have today come from orthogonal discoveries in nearly unrelated areas. We're talking about basic science here. The exploration of our solar system is pretty close to being basic science.
For example, the study of other planets can yeild very useful information on our global climate. How do you think the notion of "Global Warming" got started?
Ultimately, this planet is a limited resource. If we don't spend at least a small fraction of national GDP for the exploration of space, we have no hope for the future. By the way, that's also an answer to WMD. Diversity of habitat will allow the human race to repopulate a planet damaged by the ignorance or stupidity of others.
I recommend you do some reading of real scientific exploration and the history of technology instead of Clark's latest feeble novel. He's done far better in the past.
Apparently, because President Bush is expected to be at the ceremonies at Kill Devil Hill, All aviation activities in the vicinity are going to ceace. A special exception had to be made for the Wright Flyer Replica so that it would be allowed to leave the ground. Gosh, those new-fangled flying machines might hurt someone!
This article gives details and links to the actual NOTAM text published by the FAA. The practical upshot of all this is that we private aviators of this country are not welcome to the event.
I wonder what Orville and Wilbur Wright would have thought of this.
AMEN! This was my experience too. I learned more about writing good C code from Koenig's book C Traps and Pit Falls than from any other programming book.
It's not enough to study success. One needs to study failures too. The problem is that leaders in particular are subject to a "Look Forward" mind-set and are loath to dwell on the past.
Business schools in particular are also like this. They spend all sorts of time on economic and business theories, and far too little time on practice and application. (Note: we're not talking about "case studies" because those are often used to illustrate a concept, not demonstrate how it falls apart) Given that mindset, it's hardly surprising that so many business leaders repeat the mistakes of their predecessors.
Contrast this to engineering: On the first day in my first year of engineering school we were introduced to the Tacoma Narrows bridge failure. Thereafter, although theory was heavily emphasized, we still had to be mindeful of where the theory broke down. This was particularly the case for my classes on Fluid Dynamics.
Yes, in Engineering, and I think in Computer Science as well, if you're not studying failure as well, you're not getting an education. It's high time those who study Business did the same.
Just out of curiosity then, where do these multiple variables defining risk come from?
Yes, this process may be mathematically optimal. However, the data going in to it may not be. Could this be why so many managers think the idea is nonsense?
And if this is what HP is chasing, is there any hope for them?
...are rarely ever computer savvy enough to maintain thier own systems.
Usually these systems were put together by some integrator consultant years ago. The consultant goes on to bigger and better jobs, but the system remains pretty much as it had been set up.
The problem, as we gentle slashdot readers know too well, is that nearly all computers need security patches or updates of some sort applied. In addition, there are often configuration changes, log files which need to be looked at, and a thousand other day to day tasks which need to be done.
But there is nobody to do those things. The company usually buys a packaged turnkey system and they run around with the belief that they don't have to do anything or spend any time to keep the system in good health.
And this is why First Energy's blackout happened. Hint: it could have been any of a number of other energy distribution system operators.
Let me reiterate one very important point: operating a distribution system via SCADA is a dull job. The people doing this sort of work aren't hired because they're bright. They're hired because they can take the boredom.
Homer Simpson the cartoon character is not nearly as far fetched as most people think.
It may communicate with some MBAs but most techies won't have a clue. There isn't some specific technology that will give you an "adaptive enterprise". Even worse, most of what they are propose won't really do the job. However the vagueness is somewhat justified because what keeps most companies from being adaptive to changing market environments isn't technical or even financial, but rather sociological and psychological
Recognizing that you have experience I do not (no, I don't have an MBA), what sociological or psychological message are they sending? When MBAs talk to these folks, what do they understand that I, with my Electrical Engineering background, just don't get?
Re:Linux written to compete with SCO?
on
SCO News Roundup
·
· Score: 1
It should be enough to show that it DOES compete - which would be trivial.
Showing that before a court of law would be like trying to prove that building a car from a kit or designing and building your own car is direct competition with General Motors. That's not an easy thing to prove.
In no way can an amateur effort be labled as competition just because it produces the same product as those who work the assembly line.
(Note: I'm using the term "amateur" to mean "not paid". The quality of the work, as in many amateur endeavors, can be excellent.)
How about never seeing such a thing. Couple of points:
First, RamScoop practicality has been debated extensively. Many physicists who examine the problem and the energy expeditures have pointed out that given even an extremely small inefficiency, it would make a damned good brake instead of a propulsion system.
Second, if you're going anything like significant fractions of c you'd whiz right past the earth's and moon's orbits. Here's a sanity check: Low earth orbital speeds are about 2.5E-5 c.
Since you are a self described writer of science fiction, I shouldn't have to remind you about the importance of using reasonably realistic science...
That bit about NiCd batteries having "memory" but not NiMH? Not true. Yeah, they got the crystalization part right, but they ignored the usual cause. Too many people (manufacturers and users) used dumb chargers and overcharged the batteries causing them to release hydrogen and oxygen. The resulting charge/discharge curve led people to think this was the memory effect, when it really wasn't.
Battery chargers today are much more sensitive to the charge state of a battery and as a result they're much less likely to overcharge a battery.
According to the GE manual on NiCd batteries, there really is a "memory effect" on NiCd batteries, but it relates to their use on board spacecraft in orbit where charge and discharge cycles are very regular. This effect is slightly different from that which results from overcharging the pack. Most people don't charge and discharge their battery packs so regularly.
In the case of the batteries in orbit, the full capacity can be restored by one or two irregular charge/discharge cycles. However in the case where you overcharge the batteries, you actually lose capacity in the battery.
By the way, overcharging a NiCd battery is less damaging than overcharing a NiMH battery. The former can recover some of it's capacity by exposure to air to recover the hydrogen and oxygen gasses it released, but the latter generally doesn't.
...How much of global warming is due to human activity?
And the only honest answer you can get is "Gosh, we just don't know." Is the earth warming? There is a preponderance of evidence that it is. Yes, an argument could be made that global warming may be a statistical artifact. But I tend to think there is plenty of reason to be concerned.
The problem is that we don't know what to do about it. We can't just shut down our dirty industries and go live in caves. We can only work our way out of it. That is why I think the Kyoto accords were bad medicine.
Those who are really concerned for the environment will take care to build cleaner, and more effcient processes and put the dirty ones out of business. You can't regulate this problem away, folks. The fix has to be economically viable. And it can be.
It can. High doses of microwave radiation can make a vegetable out of you with no problem whatsoever. So it is not harmless at all. Actually, human brains will definitely go before properly shielded equipment.
Try again. Don't forget about the difference between energy and power. A high energy microwave weapon may not have enough total power to hurt you, but it probably will induce enough electrostatic voltage to pop a few gates in most new CMOS devices.
If you read the article, you'd notice that power supply issues are relevant here. The interest is in very high energy weapons, but relatively low power. We can't afford to power these things with the Hoover Dam, you know...
Long term exposure to high levels of ionizing radiation and RF radiation are generally agreed to be harmful to humans, but I don't know of any definitive studies that have been done.
Well, I don't know of any definitive studies, either, but I DO know of a shocking number of studies done with poor controls and later demonstrated as irreproducible.
Please understand, I don't disagree with your assessment of ionizing radiation. However, besides the well known and well defined effects of thermal heating from non-ionizing radiation, there is no hazard known. And if there were, it would be worthy of a Nobel Prize, not just in medicine, but probably in Physics and Chemistry as well.
There simply isn't any known theoretical basis to be seeking a link between Cancer (for example) and EMF. Now if hotter climates tended to cause more cancers than colder climates, I might tend to get concerned about RF radiation. But to my knowledge, there are no such links. Ergo, the risk, if indeed there is one, must be close to the statistical noise floor.
Gosh, people ought to find better things to worry about...
Life is at stake in everything you do every day. Choose your risks.
Let me put this risk in perspective: Do you use an electric shaver or a hair dryer? Do you use headphones? Do you use electric heaters? Do you ride a subway or electric train? Do you watch TV? Do you use a toaster or an electric stove? What these things have in common is that they all will present at least as much EMF as those power lines and in some cases orders of magnitude more.
In other words, the risk of close proximity to high power lines is swamped by the daily use of so many other electric devices. While we're at it, consider that if you're an ice skater and you decide to twirl around, you'll also get an exposure to EMF from nothing less than the earth's magnetic field.
Is there a risk to living near power lines? Sure. You can't prove conclusively that something is "safe." Someone will always think of a new "threat" and you'll have to prove conclusively that this "threat" is acceptable. However, you ought to put this risk in perspective of the daily exposure you receive from other sources.
People have been suspecting electric fields of having a biological effect of some sort for at least the last century or so. Besides RF heating effects (such as those exhibited by a microwave oven), no study has ever conclusively shown that such a link exists.
The most egregiously poor indicators of risks come from those who conduct Epidemiological studies. You have to look at epidemiological studies with at least some skepticism. Epidemiology is good for seeking new areas of investigation. But it does not prove cause and effect. In fact, it can have spurious associations of all sorts.
As for all those other houses you mention: they could just as easily be built on old landfill property, in an area with naturally occurring arsenic or asbestos, at higher elevations where cosmic radiation is stronger, or in an unknown or undocumented earthquake fault line.
In the scheme of things you could worry about, EMF shouldn't rate very high. I think your perspective on this issue is very lopsided and misinformed.
Very well, Dr. Sample. I accept your expertise in software. Now will you please pay attention to someone with a couple decades of experience as an electrical engineer?
Many researchers have been working since the very beginnings of radio, trying to see if there are any unknown effects that might be RF induced. To date, besides the well known thermal effects, there have been no repeatable experiments suggesting anything else.
Now I know you want to see proof this sort of thing is SAFE. But proof of safety is difficult because the very definition of safety is a political definition, not a scientifically certain group of conditions.
Because of this fuzzy and moving definition, you have to realize that safety is a very individual thing. For example, there are weather conditions in which I choose not to drive to work. However, others might. There are no absolutes in the business of safety.
If you feel, after reviewing at least five decades of serious research, that there are still a few unanswered questions regarding exposure to RF, then you are in a very small minority of experts on this subject. However, if you haven't read this research, and you still feel that there are things that aren't known well enough to make a decision, then I strongly encourage you to please do so before making such uninformed comments.
You have more to fear from your kid sticking these things in to the Microwave Oven than you do from casual use of a cell phone.
I am a father of three myself. Relax. Your child will be weird. All kids start off that way. If you're lucky, they'll get over it when they leave home and strike out on their own. Until then, if you're going to be concerned over trivial stuff like this, I've go this really cool bridge I want to sell to you...
The power limits come about because there are standing voltage wave and standing current wave limits. At voltage nodes, you run the risk of arcing. The arc itself is what ionizes the dielectric (usually air). At current nodes, you run the risk of heating the copper surface enough to damage the cable or waveguide.
Note that these limits involve power densities many orders of magnitude more than the ANSI limits for electromagnetic radiation in free space.
The only known and documented effect of non-ionizing low density radiation is thermal heating. People have been searching for some form of non-thermal effects for nearly as long as radio has been in common use. To date, no such effect has been demonstrated in a repeated experiment.
This is a difficult issue to work with because it's extremely difficult to construct a well controlled experiment. Most of the positive results in the past have been shown to have had poor controls.
Concerning these parents, however, I think they need an education on exposure to electromagnetic fields. One would get more exposure using an electric shaver or a cordless phone than in a class-room setting such as this school district has.
I know that school systems are there to teach our future citizenry, but clearly they need to teach these parents a lesson too. This is sort of poetic justic in a way. Those who are too ignorant to open a book and use their high school physics education are about to learn an expensive lesson. The irony would be complete if it turned out that these parents were educated by this same school system.
If the French can run a decent power grid for 60 million people, why can't the US ?
--Because they throw even more money and resources in to it than the US does?
Let's get real here: Deregulation, in and of itself, is not the issue. The issue is HOW it was deregulated: It was done in ignorance of the infrastructure, it was done with no understanding of how the niggling details in the system work. It was done, not by engineers, but by lawyers, and accountants.
Don't get me wrong, we need the lawyers and accountants to make a deregulated system work, but they can't be the ones laying down the demarcations of authority, and the rules of operation.
On the other hand, I have no reason to doubt that the French have a lovely distribution network. And believe me, they pay dearly for it in their electric bills and taxes. It damned well better not fail like the Niagra loop did.
Somewhere in the middle of this, is a happy medium.
Cities live on a lifeblood of water, electricity, and transportation infrastructure. Most people overlook this until it fails in some major way. Nobody gives a tinker's damn about any changes until something bad happens and then they throw money at it hoping something will stick.
I know this because I work for a utility right now going through some pretty lean years. We're headed for a high profile disaster too. I can't say for certain where and when it will be, but I know it's coming. The last one was more than 25 years ago, and almost nobody remembers it.
Public utility regulation in North America is basically management by disaster. It sucks, but I don't know how it can be any different in a short sighted democracy. The alternative is to do what the French do and pay through the nose day in and day out.
Perhaps the real lesson here is that the technology of very large wide area distribution systems may be reaching its limits. Maybe we should find ways to bring these grids to a smaller scale and a more comprehensible level.
If that means building more power plants in your back yard, then maybe we'll just have to find a cleaner way to do it. That technology has changed quite a bit since we first began building these distribution grids. Perhaps it's time the public policy makers caught up with it...
Slashdot Mirror
Oh wow, does that bring back memories...
;-)
If there is one thing that DEC did better than just about any other company before or since, it is this: They knew how to write good documentation. The HELP command in VMS is a sample of what they did.
However, if you really wanted an even nicer CLI, try another OS from DEC: Twenex --I mean TOPS-20 (Send me a message if you know the history behind this).
Instead of Tab completion, they used the Escape key. I think the first place I ever saw auto completion was on a TOPS-20 system (Version 3, IIRC, and it was a long time ago). I have always liked auto-completion and I've always thought that it would make a comeback some day.
Meanwhile, grizzled old command line users like me have always found command lines to be places where we could get "real work" done. (What? You had command lines? In my day we had front panel switches, incandecent address and data lights, and paper tape readers!)
Given the overly rich and confusing numbers of icons, sounds, popups and flashy widgets on screens, maybe a minimalist approach to computing might help people understand what's going on. This industry often tries to make too many concepts in to abstractions. Perhaps it's time we went back and rediscovered our true hardware
I always treat watchdog software with just a bit of skepticism. The problem, as pointed out by NERC, was that a process in the system was somehow present, but not communicating well.
The alarm subsystem is often a seperate process. It doesn't talk to the field. That's the job for other elements of the SCADA system. It was supposed to watch for semaphores, messages, or read shared memory somewhere. How do you watchdog something like that if it gets the message, but doesn't do what it's supposed to?
In a SCADA system near and dear to my career, we set alarm thresholds so low that the operators expect a certain amount of alarm traffic even for routine events. This helps to discover any misbehavior in the alarm system.
There is such a thing as a control center which is TOO quiet.
So what? You use a cell phone, don't you? The electrical energy exposure you get from that is substantially greater.
How about electric blankets or heating pads? How about a battery powered shaver?
You expose yourself to these fields every day to an extent far greater than what you may have received from that transmission line.
By the way, you can light a neon light with a bit of wire and very little power. You can also light it with a MW AM broadcast transmitter less than a mile away; you can light it with a CB radio; and with just a bit more wire, and a location closer to the poles of the earth, you can light it when the earth is hit by a solar flare. Many among the various eco-scare-monger groups like to make this demonstration as if it were an indicator of something dangerous. If it were, there would be no life anywhere near the Arctic Circle.
Aside of the poor maintainance for the clear-cut area, you really have no need to be concerned about this.
But that still begs a fourth dumb question:
How did they measure the ozone in the cage? Since they're using strictly Voltage measurements, how do they know how much ozone should have been present?
Is this measurement truly independent of the presence of the rat? I read a claim that the conductive moisture present in the rat's body causes the Ozone: How do they know that? Did they also insert a dead, dessicated rat?
I still don't understand how an experiment like this has controls of any sort.
Nowhere in the text did it say who did that study and whether it had review of any sort. They continued this silliness... First Dumb question: How large were the rats and how much space did they take up in cage with the ionized air? Ok, I know it wasn't that much space, but don't ignore the effect.
Second dumb question: they're writing a research paper about three rats? Did they mention controls?
Third dumb question: How do KiloVolts relate to Ozone production? Shouldn't current also be a part of this?
Ok, Now I have to ask the question I've been asking for a long time while reading so much research of this sort: Who reviews this stuff? Why do we let these jokers get away with publishing such irrelevant twaddle in the guise of honest research? I've seen better high school science fair projects. These folks ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Realistically, there is no way to prove that this system does anything at all. Weather pofiles are fickle things.
However, I have a much more relevant question. This device is supposed to have a supersonic flow leaving the nozzel. OK, I can see how that would be. Let's look at another supersonic nozzel we are all familiar with: Rocket Engines.
How far behind the Rocket Engine do the gasses go before they dissipate? Maybe a couple thousand feet? Clearly they're much more powerful than this anti-hail device. And this device is supposed to blast ionized air tens of thousands of feet in a mere few minutes? I smell something fishy here. Even if the ionized air trick works --the delivery system looks bogus to me.
If you're going to school to get a degree so that you can make money, you're going about it all wrong. Don't waste your money on an education, just go out there and make your damned money. There are many ways one can do this, and none of them require the expense or the tedious hours one spends trying to learn so many irrelevant things.
But if you're going to school to pursue interests you enjoy, then none of your education will be irrelevant. When you graduate, you won't spend a whole lot of time looking for work --you'll know exactly what you'll want to do and where you can do it. Money won't be much of an issue because you won't care about it except as a means to an end. You might end up making a small fortune, but even if you don't, you won't be disappointed.
So, which of the latter discriptions fits the folks here on Slashdot who complain about the evaporating job market? Hmmmm...
At best, this statistic only tells us where the US economy was, not where it is. I don't put much stock in tallies like this because it's like answering 42 to life the universe and everything.
Let's take a longer perspective, shall we? The computer industry has been white hot for many years now. Those of you who were working in it were riding that wave for a long time. Good work!
It couldn't last forever. Those wonderful salaries were not reflected in other parts of the industry. For the experience and training most Computer Science graduates have, an appropriate salary ought to be much closer to what most other engineers earn. That's why so many jobs are evaporating. We'll get them back eventually, at salaries more in line with what the rest of the engineering world is earning.
That's the way business works. The demand was white hot for nearly a decade. Now it's only red hot. It was a good wave while it lasted. Business Revolutions like that come along maybe once or twice per century. Be thankful you had the chance to ride this one.
Hey you too can play the part of a Vogon Poet
I miss Douglas Adams' wit...
Wow, it's been a long time since I read anything so utterly ignorant that didn't come from a politician (This being Slashdot, I have grave doubts you have anything to do with politics).
Most of the technologies we have today come from orthogonal discoveries in nearly unrelated areas. We're talking about basic science here. The exploration of our solar system is pretty close to being basic science.
For example, the study of other planets can yeild very useful information on our global climate. How do you think the notion of "Global Warming" got started?
Ultimately, this planet is a limited resource. If we don't spend at least a small fraction of national GDP for the exploration of space, we have no hope for the future. By the way, that's also an answer to WMD. Diversity of habitat will allow the human race to repopulate a planet damaged by the ignorance or stupidity of others.
I recommend you do some reading of real scientific exploration and the history of technology instead of Clark's latest feeble novel. He's done far better in the past.
Apparently, because President Bush is expected to be at the ceremonies at Kill Devil Hill, All aviation activities in the vicinity are going to ceace. A special exception had to be made for the Wright Flyer Replica so that it would be allowed to leave the ground. Gosh, those new-fangled flying machines might hurt someone!
This article gives details and links to the actual NOTAM text published by the FAA. The practical upshot of all this is that we private aviators of this country are not welcome to the event.
I wonder what Orville and Wilbur Wright would have thought of this.
AMEN! This was my experience too. I learned more about writing good C code from Koenig's book C Traps and Pit Falls than from any other programming book.
It's not enough to study success. One needs to study failures too. The problem is that leaders in particular are subject to a "Look Forward" mind-set and are loath to dwell on the past.
Business schools in particular are also like this. They spend all sorts of time on economic and business theories, and far too little time on practice and application. (Note: we're not talking about "case studies" because those are often used to illustrate a concept, not demonstrate how it falls apart) Given that mindset, it's hardly surprising that so many business leaders repeat the mistakes of their predecessors.
Contrast this to engineering: On the first day in my first year of engineering school we were introduced to the Tacoma Narrows bridge failure. Thereafter, although theory was heavily emphasized, we still had to be mindeful of where the theory broke down. This was particularly the case for my classes on Fluid Dynamics.
Yes, in Engineering, and I think in Computer Science as well, if you're not studying failure as well, you're not getting an education. It's high time those who study Business did the same.
Just out of curiosity then, where do these multiple variables defining risk come from?
Yes, this process may be mathematically optimal. However, the data going in to it may not be. Could this be why so many managers think the idea is nonsense?
And if this is what HP is chasing, is there any hope for them?
...are rarely ever computer savvy enough to maintain thier own systems.
Usually these systems were put together by some integrator consultant years ago. The consultant goes on to bigger and better jobs, but the system remains pretty much as it had been set up.
The problem, as we gentle slashdot readers know too well, is that nearly all computers need security patches or updates of some sort applied. In addition, there are often configuration changes, log files which need to be looked at, and a thousand other day to day tasks which need to be done.
But there is nobody to do those things. The company usually buys a packaged turnkey system and they run around with the belief that they don't have to do anything or spend any time to keep the system in good health.
And this is why First Energy's blackout happened. Hint: it could have been any of a number of other energy distribution system operators.
Let me reiterate one very important point: operating a distribution system via SCADA is a dull job. The people doing this sort of work aren't hired because they're bright. They're hired because they can take the boredom.
Homer Simpson the cartoon character is not nearly as far fetched as most people think.
Recognizing that you have experience I do not (no, I don't have an MBA), what sociological or psychological message are they sending? When MBAs talk to these folks, what do they understand that I, with my Electrical Engineering background, just don't get?
Showing that before a court of law would be like trying to prove that building a car from a kit or designing and building your own car is direct competition with General Motors. That's not an easy thing to prove.
In no way can an amateur effort be labled as competition just because it produces the same product as those who work the assembly line.
(Note: I'm using the term "amateur" to mean "not paid". The quality of the work, as in many amateur endeavors, can be excellent.)
How about never seeing such a thing. Couple of points:
First, RamScoop practicality has been debated extensively. Many physicists who examine the problem and the energy expeditures have pointed out that given even an extremely small inefficiency, it would make a damned good brake instead of a propulsion system.
Second, if you're going anything like significant fractions of c you'd whiz right past the earth's and moon's orbits. Here's a sanity check: Low earth orbital speeds are about 2.5E-5 c.
Since you are a self described writer of science fiction, I shouldn't have to remind you about the importance of using reasonably realistic science...
That bit about NiCd batteries having "memory" but not NiMH? Not true. Yeah, they got the crystalization part right, but they ignored the usual cause. Too many people (manufacturers and users) used dumb chargers and overcharged the batteries causing them to release hydrogen and oxygen. The resulting charge/discharge curve led people to think this was the memory effect, when it really wasn't.
Battery chargers today are much more sensitive to the charge state of a battery and as a result they're much less likely to overcharge a battery.
According to the GE manual on NiCd batteries, there really is a "memory effect" on NiCd batteries, but it relates to their use on board spacecraft in orbit where charge and discharge cycles are very regular. This effect is slightly different from that which results from overcharging the pack. Most people don't charge and discharge their battery packs so regularly.
In the case of the batteries in orbit, the full capacity can be restored by one or two irregular charge/discharge cycles. However in the case where you overcharge the batteries, you actually lose capacity in the battery.
By the way, overcharging a NiCd battery is less damaging than overcharing a NiMH battery. The former can recover some of it's capacity by exposure to air to recover the hydrogen and oxygen gasses it released, but the latter generally doesn't.
...How much of global warming is due to human activity?
And the only honest answer you can get is "Gosh, we just don't know." Is the earth warming? There is a preponderance of evidence that it is. Yes, an argument could be made that global warming may be a statistical artifact. But I tend to think there is plenty of reason to be concerned.
The problem is that we don't know what to do about it. We can't just shut down our dirty industries and go live in caves. We can only work our way out of it. That is why I think the Kyoto accords were bad medicine.
Those who are really concerned for the environment will take care to build cleaner, and more effcient processes and put the dirty ones out of business. You can't regulate this problem away, folks. The fix has to be economically viable. And it can be.
So STFU and get to work.
Try again. Don't forget about the difference between energy and power. A high energy microwave weapon may not have enough total power to hurt you, but it probably will induce enough electrostatic voltage to pop a few gates in most new CMOS devices.
If you read the article, you'd notice that power supply issues are relevant here. The interest is in very high energy weapons, but relatively low power. We can't afford to power these things with the Hoover Dam, you know...
Well, I don't know of any definitive studies, either, but I DO know of a shocking number of studies done with poor controls and later demonstrated as irreproducible.
Please understand, I don't disagree with your assessment of ionizing radiation. However, besides the well known and well defined effects of thermal heating from non-ionizing radiation, there is no hazard known. And if there were, it would be worthy of a Nobel Prize, not just in medicine, but probably in Physics and Chemistry as well.
There simply isn't any known theoretical basis to be seeking a link between Cancer (for example) and EMF. Now if hotter climates tended to cause more cancers than colder climates, I might tend to get concerned about RF radiation. But to my knowledge, there are no such links. Ergo, the risk, if indeed there is one, must be close to the statistical noise floor.
Gosh, people ought to find better things to worry about...
Life is at stake in everything you do every day. Choose your risks.
Let me put this risk in perspective: Do you use an electric shaver or a hair dryer? Do you use headphones? Do you use electric heaters? Do you ride a subway or electric train? Do you watch TV? Do you use a toaster or an electric stove? What these things have in common is that they all will present at least as much EMF as those power lines and in some cases orders of magnitude more.
In other words, the risk of close proximity to high power lines is swamped by the daily use of so many other electric devices. While we're at it, consider that if you're an ice skater and you decide to twirl around, you'll also get an exposure to EMF from nothing less than the earth's magnetic field.
Is there a risk to living near power lines? Sure. You can't prove conclusively that something is "safe." Someone will always think of a new "threat" and you'll have to prove conclusively that this "threat" is acceptable. However, you ought to put this risk in perspective of the daily exposure you receive from other sources.
People have been suspecting electric fields of having a biological effect of some sort for at least the last century or so. Besides RF heating effects (such as those exhibited by a microwave oven), no study has ever conclusively shown that such a link exists.
The most egregiously poor indicators of risks come from those who conduct Epidemiological studies. You have to look at epidemiological studies with at least some skepticism. Epidemiology is good for seeking new areas of investigation. But it does not prove cause and effect. In fact, it can have spurious associations of all sorts.
As for all those other houses you mention: they could just as easily be built on old landfill property, in an area with naturally occurring arsenic or asbestos, at higher elevations where cosmic radiation is stronger, or in an unknown or undocumented earthquake fault line.
In the scheme of things you could worry about, EMF shouldn't rate very high. I think your perspective on this issue is very lopsided and misinformed.
Very well, Dr. Sample. I accept your expertise in software. Now will you please pay attention to someone with a couple decades of experience as an electrical engineer?
Many researchers have been working since the very beginnings of radio, trying to see if there are any unknown effects that might be RF induced. To date, besides the well known thermal effects, there have been no repeatable experiments suggesting anything else.
Now I know you want to see proof this sort of thing is SAFE. But proof of safety is difficult because the very definition of safety is a political definition, not a scientifically certain group of conditions.
Because of this fuzzy and moving definition, you have to realize that safety is a very individual thing. For example, there are weather conditions in which I choose not to drive to work. However, others might. There are no absolutes in the business of safety.
If you feel, after reviewing at least five decades of serious research, that there are still a few unanswered questions regarding exposure to RF, then you are in a very small minority of experts on this subject. However, if you haven't read this research, and you still feel that there are things that aren't known well enough to make a decision, then I strongly encourage you to please do so before making such uninformed comments.
You have more to fear from your kid sticking these things in to the Microwave Oven than you do from casual use of a cell phone.
I am a father of three myself. Relax. Your child will be weird. All kids start off that way. If you're lucky, they'll get over it when they leave home and strike out on their own. Until then, if you're going to be concerned over trivial stuff like this, I've go this really cool bridge I want to sell to you...
Note that these limits involve power densities many orders of magnitude more than the ANSI limits for electromagnetic radiation in free space.
The only known and documented effect of non-ionizing low density radiation is thermal heating. People have been searching for some form of non-thermal effects for nearly as long as radio has been in common use. To date, no such effect has been demonstrated in a repeated experiment.
This is a difficult issue to work with because it's extremely difficult to construct a well controlled experiment. Most of the positive results in the past have been shown to have had poor controls.
Concerning these parents, however, I think they need an education on exposure to electromagnetic fields. One would get more exposure using an electric shaver or a cordless phone than in a class-room setting such as this school district has.
I know that school systems are there to teach our future citizenry, but clearly they need to teach these parents a lesson too. This is sort of poetic justic in a way. Those who are too ignorant to open a book and use their high school physics education are about to learn an expensive lesson. The irony would be complete if it turned out that these parents were educated by this same school system.
--Because they throw even more money and resources in to it than the US does?
Let's get real here: Deregulation, in and of itself, is not the issue. The issue is HOW it was deregulated: It was done in ignorance of the infrastructure, it was done with no understanding of how the niggling details in the system work. It was done, not by engineers, but by lawyers, and accountants.
Don't get me wrong, we need the lawyers and accountants to make a deregulated system work, but they can't be the ones laying down the demarcations of authority, and the rules of operation.
On the other hand, I have no reason to doubt that the French have a lovely distribution network. And believe me, they pay dearly for it in their electric bills and taxes. It damned well better not fail like the Niagra loop did.
Somewhere in the middle of this, is a happy medium.
Cities live on a lifeblood of water, electricity, and transportation infrastructure. Most people overlook this until it fails in some major way. Nobody gives a tinker's damn about any changes until something bad happens and then they throw money at it hoping something will stick.
I know this because I work for a utility right now going through some pretty lean years. We're headed for a high profile disaster too. I can't say for certain where and when it will be, but I know it's coming. The last one was more than 25 years ago, and almost nobody remembers it.
Public utility regulation in North America is basically management by disaster. It sucks, but I don't know how it can be any different in a short sighted democracy. The alternative is to do what the French do and pay through the nose day in and day out.
Perhaps the real lesson here is that the technology of very large wide area distribution systems may be reaching its limits. Maybe we should find ways to bring these grids to a smaller scale and a more comprehensible level.
If that means building more power plants in your back yard, then maybe we'll just have to find a cleaner way to do it. That technology has changed quite a bit since we first began building these distribution grids. Perhaps it's time the public policy makers caught up with it...