All waste goes into the Progress resupply craft after it has been emptied. Progress is then separated and set to reenter ialong a path that would cause it to burn up. My definition, you can only shit what you eat, so the solution works well. as long the waste seals are intact. Ventilation on the ISS is somewhat worse than a submarine, so the place must stink after a while.
They really need to get the shuttles flying again this summer to avoid issues with the ISS. OTOH, they may decide to leave the ISS unmanned for a while.
When does the ISS next need an orbital adjustment? This is the critical issue as the Soyuz engines aren't really suitable.
The iin addition to the usual telemetry, the critical info for Ariane 5 is stored in a CMOS memory buffer that can be recovered in most cases. This was used to diagnose the first problem when the computer had an incorrectly ported guidance program from Ariane 4.
Whether such a board could stand a break-up on reentry is anybody's guess. However it does survive a self-destruct.
Blame USAF - they compromised the shuttle design
on
Latest Columbia News
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The design of the Shuttle was compromised by the USAF requirements for a vehicle that could be launched, orbit once and land. the problem is that the USAF launched from Vandenburg for the polar orbits, which has a lot of water in the vicinity.
The original design that NASA were gunning for was for a vehicle that would come in steeper and then glide over a limited range to its target with two real wings. The advantage being that the vehicle would only be exposed for a short period of time to the heating effect. The shuttle would also land a lot slower with this design.
The USAF needed a longer glide range to operate from Vandenburg, so they could always get back to land, even after a single orbit. They pressed for a delta wing which allowed them to glive for about 2,500 miles. This disadvantge is that the shuttle must fly through reentry (rather than a controlled stall, that NASA wanted). This meant that reentry took a lot longer, with much greater exposure to heat.
The Gnu Privacy Guard works quite adequately for the standard stuff. Some of the more advanced stuff in PGP isn't there yet such as secret sharing with a quorum, but for file based signature and encryption from the command line, GPG works very well.
I don't really understand why Phil is doing this. Perhaps some commercial customers feel more comfortable with a commercial package. However, GPG has had (German) government money funding its development and is thought to be quite good. The German Govt liked PGP as well, but it was complicated to licence. The old PGP commercial licence only permitted you to use the supplied binary, not to compile from source. The Germans supported the rewrite and AFAIK it is a standard there.
To me this seems like another of the recnt/. advertorials. An article about a product that isn't really newsworthy and there is a good Open Software and free equivalent.
A lot depends on the speakers themselves as some are very inefficient to get their sound quality. I remember some time ago driving a pair of Bose speakers with a Crown DC-300 (300 watts RMS) to get a reasonable result. The DC on the Crown means that it is DC coupled, giving a relatively flat response.
However for disco use, the base was inadequate at louder volumes so we would add a pair of bass-bins driven at around 100 watts each.
A denial of service attack ocurrs when a system becomes overloaded with useless traffic. A little like the Shrub in the Whitehouse, coming up with hopeless ideas to prevent anything usefule
First, the Internet infrastructure in Iraq will be minimal and the government will not trust it enough. Individuals in such a STalinist society are continully looking over their shoulders, anything written down can and will be held against them. If it is written down it must be on physical paper, stamped and then signed. This is not Western Europe.
Second, one of the few outside sources of information is the Internet along with Satellite TV.
Lastly, the regime usually can switch off all international access very quickly. Do they really want to encourage this if this is where the potential revolutionaries are getting information.
So far existing heat pipes are not much more than a novelty.
On notebooks, heatpipes are very common and have been for many years now. They are also in use on some of the 'brick' PCs. The problem is that the subassemblies in a are too close, so you have to move the heat to another area which you can then cool with the fan.
The longer a heat pipe is, the less efficient it is and it only moves heat, so you still need somewhere to dump it, whether convection, conduction or radiation.
The military procurement process is closed. This means that it is often corrupt and inefficient. Money spent on open research programmes is likely to be spent more efficiently as there is better oversight. If the ESA would allow US companies to bid on components for their program, NASA should open up for the equivalent level bids in their program. The wider spread development is, then the faster it will happen.
Space research is pretty open, or at least it should be as long as the programme remains in public hands. As work becomes routine, then private industry should take it over. For example, sattelite launch should be privatised. All of it. If the US military can use commercial transportation for logistics, they should be able to do the same for sattelite launch.
The result would be a massive increase in the space industry, not just a few thousand jobs.
It was the motto of the hugely successful complaints division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation in the Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams. The corporation produced robots for domestic use and with the marketing motto "Your Plastic Friend who's Fun to Be With"
The song of the complaints department went something like this:
Share and Enjoy
Share and Enjoy
Journey through life
With a plastic boy
Or girl at your side
Let your pal be your guide
And when it breaks down
Or starts to annoy
Or grinds when it moves
And gives you no joy
Cos it's eaten your hat
Or had sex with your cat
Bled oil on the floor
Or ripped off your door
And you get to the point
You can't stand any more
Bring it to us, we wont't give a fig
We'll tell you 'Go stick your head in a pig'
(to be a sung by a choir of two million robots, a flattened fith out of tune).
We hope that Mitsibushi's attempt is somewhat better. However, thanks to the late Douglas Adams for warning us!!!!!
Who here built their own car? Cars are definitely closed. It would definitely be cheaper to build your own, because labor is 60% of a car, remove marketing, factory costs, overhead, you could build probably a nice car for a few thousand dollars. Has anyone constructed their own car?
A couple of friends constructed their own car, however, the main reason for "Open" cars isn't the small home-build market, but the much larger self-maintenance thing. Taking an automobile to the workshop even for regular maintenance can have a traumatic effect on the wallet. The workshop tends to be time focused so they swp out subassemblies rather than attempting real repairs. If I have the time, I can do most of the work that the professionals do at a fractio of the price.
The writers of home maintenance manuals have new cars in pieces the moment they get their hand on them. They photograph evrything explaing how to disassemble and reassemble it yourself. Every so often a manufacturer tries to withold information for the benefit of their own dealers, but more often than not, they are slapped on the wrists.
Ok, why can't I hack around with software in the same way? If I disassemble something and publish the information for the benfit of others, I will be DMCA'ed from here to eternity. If I try to fix something myself, again I can be sued.
Very good point. By dropping prices, MS could raise sales volume by quite a degree. The problem is that Joe Blow's Mother may not have a 1GHz machine. She may have Joe Blow's hand-me-down 500MHz or slower with limited memory. It would be nice to upgrade everyone to XP, but for many people, it is a hog unless carefully tuned. Win2K would be better, but MS doesn't really want to sell it to domestic and SOHOs.
The fact is we are in a recession (if it isn't a recession, that is merely a waive of a staticians wand), and people keep buying food, but they won't spend money on luxuries.
Are you getting confused between the audit subsystem and the operator log? The audit subsystem didn't normally produce any user readable messages. However, it could send them to OPCOM. However, you only ever turned on what you wanted with OPCOM, and you could even enable audit subsystem messages without SECURITY prvilege.
The perils of enabling everything was an exercise shown on the System Manager 101 course. You learned then only to enable what you actually needed. It was no problem to log one thing and then to have another appear on an operator console. It was even possible to shoot the log to another node for remote logging.
Um, this is a typical worm to catch a vulture capitalist. Note the almost complete absence of hard details and the wild claims.
As you say, if the did work then his best bet is to publicize it in open form. I can already find a lot of good quality stuff for free on the internet with good implementations. If I really want top performance for a closed source project, no problem, I can code it up again. The important thing is the protocol is out there together with enough code to demonstrate it.
They seemed simple but but they gave developers a big headache. They were also a pain for the operating system deveopers to work with because all buffers had to be address checked and where necessary, copied to pool to prevent user modification during the call. The overhead associated with this was not conducive to performance - but the VMS approach was secure.
Whats he doing these days? Its ages since I last saw him (about 10 years).
I met him a couple of times at DECUS events and he was always good to listen to. Around that time I was involved with the start of the Security SIG and he had been architecting the security extensions. However, he was also good to talk to about the XQP, which was a really neat idea.
I don't get to work on VMS so often these days and haven't done so since last year. Most of the people working at the site where I last worked had a minimal knowledge of the system, even to the point of downloading files to edit locally on PCs and then copying them back rather than using great tools like LSE (which they had).
The thing is that under the VMS file system, everything supported file versions. This included;0 (the current version),;-n (nth previous version) as well as;n (absolure version n). Because it was built in, it worked with evrything. This was the same with other facilities, such as the record management file system.
You can do everything under Unix, but because one developer does things one way, it doesn't mean to say that other apps would work with it. OpenVMS provides the support to everything, and it doesn't matter which language it is written in.
What ran on the iAPX432? You needed special software to properly use the silicon. This is one of the reasons that IA32 was improperly used for so long - most software chose the LCD way of running because it was simpler.
With the original VAX architecture, there were four privilege rings. You had the usual user space and kernel space. You had exec space which was used by RMS (Record Management System) and allowed it to do complicated things like cross user buffer sychronisation, securely but outside the kernel. It was also used by some of the Digital database systems. The other mode, supervisor, was for the command intrepreter. VMS fully used all these special facilityies which made it non-trivial to port to other architecture (they tried initially to go to MIPS, but that failed).
Yes, the QIO was great, a single call for I/O with either semaphore or completion routines (or even both). The problem was the item lists (also famous from the various get information system services). What was neat though is that all user level I/O went through the same system services so it was easy to coordinate.
What I would like is the distributed lock manager to run undr Linux. Then I could have a nice cluster.
The point is with VMS is that the versioning was in the file system - RCS or CVS is an extra much like CMS under VMS. However under VMS, you could access CMS libraries directly from the language sensitive editor.
With VMS you could edit something a few times and you would have those versions hanging around until you or your system manager did a purge. This was really useful. With CVS/RCS, you must think about it first.
You have to start somewhere and SYSTEM has to have everything. You can lock it up though very easily and normal system administration doesn't require the use of the SYSTEM account. I don't know what you mean by "SYSTEM/SYSTEM", because the standard password was manager and for over ten years you were forced to change it during installation..
Managing a complex system like OpenVMS does not require that you are smart, it just requires that you read the manual "Guide to OpenVMS Security".
VMS had Mandatory Access Controls, and information labelling but that was in Security Enhanced VMS only. The problems was getting export licenses. It was possible, but hard work.
There was an experimental Orange book 'A' system (with a VM) produced but this couldn't even be sold outside the government without problems.
ACL and privileges were relatively easy to handle. There was only one manual you needed to look at and it was explained clearly there. It was quite useable by anyone who took the time to look at the docs.
Isolation between processes a problem under VMS? No, I think you may be confused there. With fine grained control over quotas, it was difficult to trash other processes. Indeed this was the main problem with VMS, building a new process was so expensive because of all the protection built around it.
As regards the subjects/objects - this really wasn't a problem. You could group your subjects into a class and grant or revoke access via class. The number of objects isn't really avoidable, because directories could be protected but directory access isn't worth a damn because most file systems allow you to open directly via node number.
RSTS/E and TSX security wasn't even slighly comparable. RSTS definitely didn't have a VM. Essentially it was just a multithreaded basic interpreter. OS 370 was certainly not up to much (starnge but IBM really didn't 'get' security' in those days) and Cray also not (it was designed as a fats number cruncher). Actually security on the Cray was a problem for many people ivolved classified/non-classified research because it was very difficult to securely partition the system.
Slashdot Mirror
All waste goes into the Progress resupply craft after it has been emptied. Progress is then separated and set to reenter ialong a path that would cause it to burn up. My definition, you can only shit what you eat, so the solution works well. as long the waste seals are intact. Ventilation on the ISS is somewhat worse than a submarine, so the place must stink after a while.
When does the ISS next need an orbital adjustment? This is the critical issue as the Soyuz engines aren't really suitable.
Whether such a board could stand a break-up on reentry is anybody's guess. However it does survive a self-destruct.
The original design that NASA were gunning for was for a vehicle that would come in steeper and then glide over a limited range to its target with two real wings. The advantage being that the vehicle would only be exposed for a short period of time to the heating effect. The shuttle would also land a lot slower with this design.
The USAF needed a longer glide range to operate from Vandenburg, so they could always get back to land, even after a single orbit. They pressed for a delta wing which allowed them to glive for about 2,500 miles. This disadvantge is that the shuttle must fly through reentry (rather than a controlled stall, that NASA wanted). This meant that reentry took a lot longer, with much greater exposure to heat.
I don't really understand why Phil is doing this. Perhaps some commercial customers feel more comfortable with a commercial package. However, GPG has had (German) government money funding its development and is thought to be quite good. The German Govt liked PGP as well, but it was complicated to licence. The old PGP commercial licence only permitted you to use the supplied binary, not to compile from source. The Germans supported the rewrite and AFAIK it is a standard there.
To me this seems like another of the recnt /. advertorials. An article about a product that isn't really newsworthy and there is a good Open Software and free equivalent.
Sad really isn't it!
However for disco use, the base was inadequate at louder volumes so we would add a pair of bass-bins driven at around 100 watts each.
First, the Internet infrastructure in Iraq will be minimal and the government will not trust it enough. Individuals in such a STalinist society are continully looking over their shoulders, anything written down can and will be held against them. If it is written down it must be on physical paper, stamped and then signed. This is not Western Europe.
Second, one of the few outside sources of information is the Internet along with Satellite TV.
Lastly, the regime usually can switch off all international access very quickly. Do they really want to encourage this if this is where the potential revolutionaries are getting information.
The longer a heat pipe is, the less efficient it is and it only moves heat, so you still need somewhere to dump it, whether convection, conduction or radiation.
The term you are looking for is the electrical breakdown voltage. Oils for transformers are off in the multi-KV range.
Space research is pretty open, or at least it should be as long as the programme remains in public hands. As work becomes routine, then private industry should take it over. For example, sattelite launch should be privatised. All of it. If the US military can use commercial transportation for logistics, they should be able to do the same for sattelite launch.
The result would be a massive increase in the space industry, not just a few thousand jobs.
Yes, but that problem is already solved by a another little plastic friend?
The song of the complaints department went something like this:
(to be a sung by a choir of two million robots, a flattened fith out of tune).We hope that Mitsibushi's attempt is somewhat better. However, thanks to the late Douglas Adams for warning us!!!!!
A couple of friends constructed their own car, however, the main reason for "Open" cars isn't the small home-build market, but the much larger self-maintenance thing. Taking an automobile to the workshop even for regular maintenance can have a traumatic effect on the wallet. The workshop tends to be time focused so they swp out subassemblies rather than attempting real repairs. If I have the time, I can do most of the work that the professionals do at a fractio of the price.
The writers of home maintenance manuals have new cars in pieces the moment they get their hand on them. They photograph evrything explaing how to disassemble and reassemble it yourself. Every so often a manufacturer tries to withold information for the benefit of their own dealers, but more often than not, they are slapped on the wrists.
Ok, why can't I hack around with software in the same way? If I disassemble something and publish the information for the benfit of others, I will be DMCA'ed from here to eternity. If I try to fix something myself, again I can be sued.
The fact is we are in a recession (if it isn't a recession, that is merely a waive of a staticians wand), and people keep buying food, but they won't spend money on luxuries.
The perils of enabling everything was an exercise shown on the System Manager 101 course. You learned then only to enable what you actually needed. It was no problem to log one thing and then to have another appear on an operator console. It was even possible to shoot the log to another node for remote logging.
As you say, if the did work then his best bet is to publicize it in open form. I can already find a lot of good quality stuff for free on the internet with good implementations. If I really want top performance for a closed source project, no problem, I can code it up again. The important thing is the protocol is out there together with enough code to demonstrate it.
They seemed simple but but they gave developers a big headache. They were also a pain for the operating system deveopers to work with because all buffers had to be address checked and where necessary, copied to pool to prevent user modification during the call. The overhead associated with this was not conducive to performance - but the VMS approach was secure.
I met him a couple of times at DECUS events and he was always good to listen to. Around that time I was involved with the start of the Security SIG and he had been architecting the security extensions. However, he was also good to talk to about the XQP, which was a really neat idea.
I don't get to work on VMS so often these days and haven't done so since last year. Most of the people working at the site where I last worked had a minimal knowledge of the system, even to the point of downloading files to edit locally on PCs and then copying them back rather than using great tools like LSE (which they had).
You can do everything under Unix, but because one developer does things one way, it doesn't mean to say that other apps would work with it. OpenVMS provides the support to everything, and it doesn't matter which language it is written in.
With the original VAX architecture, there were four privilege rings. You had the usual user space and kernel space. You had exec space which was used by RMS (Record Management System) and allowed it to do complicated things like cross user buffer sychronisation, securely but outside the kernel. It was also used by some of the Digital database systems. The other mode, supervisor, was for the command intrepreter. VMS fully used all these special facilityies which made it non-trivial to port to other architecture (they tried initially to go to MIPS, but that failed).
What I would like is the distributed lock manager to run undr Linux. Then I could have a nice cluster.
With VMS you could edit something a few times and you would have those versions hanging around until you or your system manager did a purge. This was really useful. With CVS/RCS, you must think about it first.
Managing a complex system like OpenVMS does not require that you are smart, it just requires that you read the manual "Guide to OpenVMS Security".
Are you trolling or something?
VMS had Mandatory Access Controls, and information labelling but that was in Security Enhanced VMS only. The problems was getting export licenses. It was possible, but hard work. There was an experimental Orange book 'A' system (with a VM) produced but this couldn't even be sold outside the government without problems.
ACL and privileges were relatively easy to handle. There was only one manual you needed to look at and it was explained clearly there. It was quite useable by anyone who took the time to look at the docs.
Isolation between processes a problem under VMS? No, I think you may be confused there. With fine grained control over quotas, it was difficult to trash other processes. Indeed this was the main problem with VMS, building a new process was so expensive because of all the protection built around it.
As regards the subjects/objects - this really wasn't a problem. You could group your subjects into a class and grant or revoke access via class. The number of objects isn't really avoidable, because directories could be protected but directory access isn't worth a damn because most file systems allow you to open directly via node number.
RSTS/E and TSX security wasn't even slighly comparable. RSTS definitely didn't have a VM. Essentially it was just a multithreaded basic interpreter. OS 370 was certainly not up to much (starnge but IBM really didn't 'get' security' in those days) and Cray also not (it was designed as a fats number cruncher). Actually security on the Cray was a problem for many people ivolved classified/non-classified research because it was very difficult to securely partition the system.