We have a budget of 45 million dollars an HOUR for the military, and just over 15 billion/year for NASA. We can spend whatever we want, really, it just depends what our priorities are.
Welcome to Fucked Up priority central.
Oh, it's Republican control. I guess that's one and the same isn't it?
At least GWB says that he's going to let the space program continue. I do hope that it doesn't get to the crew on the ISS using their Soyuz to come back down due to lack of food.
Interesting article. That is specifically talking about the loss of any of the OTHER ones in the fleet. It specifically mentions using Columbia solely for non-ISS related space programs. Now, with a space station out there that is in a mostly useable state, why are we out there WITHOUT using ISS?
That actually gives me a thought. Columbia wasn't equipped (or maybe it didn't have the proper staff....) for space walks. Now, they're still saying that the wing damage was likely negligible and not part of the cause of this.. BUT, on the offchance that it was the cause of this.. if they had been able to dock with the space station, or even had spacewalk capability, they could probably have at least examined the damage. Perhaps done a repair. Or had they been able to dock with the ISS, if it could be determined that it was not reperable, jettison Columbia into space, and get an emergency flight of another shuttle to bring them back.
I just think it's too bad that all of the U.S's space activity will stop for years now as they wring their hands over what went wrong, and how to do better next time.
And they'll continue to use the same 8088 based microprocessors, and the same control software, and all the same hardware that is now mounting on 20-30 years old, because all new designs and projects keep getting cancelled.
This should be a perfect excuse to get a NEW program going, completed, and get a NEW vehicle out there. The government should DEMAND it of NASA if NASA doesn't DEMAND it of itself.
Yes, we've had relatively few space vehicle accidents compared to number of successful launches, orbits, flights, landings, etc.. and yes, I recognize that space travel is dangerous.
I hope that this affects the right people in the right ways to make it the impetus for PROGRESS rather than to SIT ON OUR ASSES as NASA did for the 2 and a half years after Challenger. (yes, I know they were determining the cause and working to protect the other shuttles from that.. but come on. 2 and a half years of no flights?)
I was in 4th grade when Challenger went up. I was in complete and utter shock for days.
For those of us who have this as our second, third, fourth, or more experience in space program disaster, I think that thankfully, we're able to continue on without being totally in shock. Some of my friends don't agree, and are being almost haunted by their memories of Challenger.
There's a lot of people in the world though who weren't born, or were too young to know about Challenger. I think the smarter of the younger generation are in shock about this. I am at work today, and I work in a very urban area, and none of the kids that I see know or care about it. This saddens me.
But, on the other hand, after having seen the destruction of the World Trade Center, should I expect them to be at all affected?
I'm not sure if these kids just don't give a shit about space travel.. most of them barely speak English (some form of Ebonics mixed with Spanglish is the most common here)...
My question to all this is why did it have, on it's discovery port, a relatively undocumented option to send data back out?? What would be the purpose of such a thing?!
I'd just like to add that XFree86 fonts suck. X as a whole fonts do not suck, however. In fact, way back in the day, the only reason I wanted to run X was because X's fonts DIDN'T suck, and Microsoft's DID. (this day was around Windows 3.11 era)
Then, the world got XFree86. It's fonts suck. I used a lot of other implementations of X before XFree. I know.
X as a whole's handling of fonts really sucks. After... 15 ? years... of dealing with X, I still haven't got the slightest clue what the fuck the font definitions are doing.
We still haven't gotten copy and paste (using ctrl + C & V, respectively) working correctly 100% of the time.
Ya know, I'm trying to find documentation on the Common User Architecture (CUA) that Microsoft, IBM, and several other companies designed from like 1988 to 1994.. and that included making the UNIVERSAL way to copy-and-paste using ctrl-insert and shift-insert rather than Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V. Microsoft apparently created Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V for use with Windows '95 (and many programs STILL used ONLY Ctrl-Insert and Shift-Insert through at least '98 or '99 when I last used a lot of Windows apps) because the rest of the industry had adopted Ctrl-Insert and Shift-Insert.
Unfortunatly, I can't find documentation for CUA89, CUA92, or CUA94 (the standards used by Windows 3.11 and OS/2 1.x, OS/2 2.x and 3.x, and OS/2 4.x respectively.. apparently Microsoft threw out CUA when designing '95, although it was their own standard!)
Now why on earth would you need to tell the system what your card is and the monitor's maximum resolution? I believe since the late 80's, that shit's been easy to find automagicaly.
JWZ has dismissed this immediately by saying both Gnome2 and Red Hat 8.0 suck, without any sort of explaination.
Actually, his explanation is that Red Hat 8.0 sucks because it uses Gnome2 - which does suck.
I'm not going to have much to back that up with, except that it's virtually impossible to get G2 up and running on anything unless you isntall your whole damn system from source, or use RH 8 or another distribution that already has it.
But do not expect to be running current, state of the art software on two-year old, obsolete binary distrubitions, and do not expect any sympathy, or respect for your rants, if you insist on doing so.
Funny; Every day, I run current, state of the art software on much older, more "obsolete" binary distributions of, say, Windows, Xenix, IRIX, HP/UX, AIX, et al.
That it requires upgrading huge portions of your system to get any current software to run on Linux really sucks.
Right, I thought the comment after this one was more correct - though like i said, i'm a physics idiot - a spinning cylinder with a rod in the center - 'generates' or 'appears' to generate gravity?
Maybe it's a simplistic view, but I thought that the gravitational effect was created by the fact that the Earth spins, the Sun spins, etc.
Pretty sure it is bullshit. I see no connection, except for some possible inference that someone drew from the "products being accepted at a rate within 90 days than within the first year of handheld pc's, cell phones, internet access", etc. Of course.. no one had handheld pc's cell phones or internet access when they first came out. duh.
They're still pretty big and clunky, even the smaller ones. At least, compared to, say, a Samsung 310, or even Motorola's CDMA phones..
Pretty sure the direct connect function operates to anyone on the Nextel network.. no matter what area.. but I don't know how much that extends. Obviously the coverage map they last showed me (which showed everywhere in the U.S. covered) is incorrect.
But, I have no personal experience with them. I imagine since Motorola runs the network, Motorola builds the handsets, Motorola does it all, that the quality and compatibility is way up there. Unlike say, the Nokia 21xx CDMA phones, where they apparently tried to homebrew their own CDMA chipset, and it failed miserably. lol
If your analog phones signal drops below maybe -3- bars out of 5, you're gonna get static. If you have 1 bar or less of signal on an analog phone, no amount of screaming is going to help you. I can make a crystal clear digital call, on Verizon's network usually with 1 bar or more. I get a bit of dropping on 0 bars, but whenever the signal is THAT low, it should switch to analog ALREADY.
NOT all Digital systems operate at 1.9GHz either - Verizon's network is mostly 800MHz. (Also incorrect when he states that AMPS [analog] operates on 900MHz, it is in the 800 band) Digital phones are at -variable- power, anywhere up to 300mw. Analog phones run at 600mw for handhelds, and 3W for the larger mounted and bag phones.
Granted, with a 3W transmitter, I'd take call quality from an analog phone any day, but unless you're in a really crappy area, a digital handheld should outperform any analog handheld. At least, a good digital handheld.
Plus, any good digital handheld should also be a good analog handheld if it needs to be.
The Analog network will be going away in a few years, except for areas where there is NO digital coverage.
Use high quality phones. Verizon and AT&T have decent quality control for their phones, and strict standards as to what they will approve to be used on their network [i'd be willing to be Verizon is a bit higher than AT&T, since they don't have 8 million different handsets available]. T-Mobile, Sprint and Cingular's QC for phones is considerably inferior, though I have no personal experience with AT&T, T-Mobile, or Cingular's inner workings. I can't speak for Nextel at all, but I don't know anyone who personally wants to carry a phone as big and heavy as the analog ones from 5 years ago on their hips just to have neat walkie talkie functions.
When I started working for the company I work for, 8 years ago, a person approached me, and mentioned "I work for a company that designed a DirecTV dish that automatically tracks the satellite while you're moving. You mount it on your RV or camper, and it just follows along."
Actually, the only language I've used for anything in the last few years has been PHP (I'm not much of a developer, I will quite readily admit).
The database abstraction things that I've seen posted everywhere seem to be far more complex than they really need to be - or maybe I simply don't have a use for their complexity - I have a roughly 100 or so line PHP file that has several functions for referring to any SQL capable database, and to make it work with a different database software (re: mSQL vs. mySQL vs. pgSQL), just change three or so lines at the top of the file, and that changes the functions that are called, and it works with the new database, provided that the SQL is compatible. (yes, I know SQL is supposed to be a standard, but if you've ever migrated from mSQL to mySQL, you know that's not the case)
Error reporting? Is there something wrong with the built in error reporting?
Maybe I'm strange, but the documentation off the link for this story looks like a mess.
Every time I install a new ver of PHP (which, admittedly, lately, hasn't been all that much, since shortly after the big security bug was fixed), I've looked at PEAR, and I've always wondered "what good is this?". It looks like it's a whole large collection of code that gives PHP3 the functions that are in PHP4. Maybe I missed something, but it just doesn't appear terribly useful for anything.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder.. did anyone anywhere SAVE these pictures from NOAA? I want to see them, but it's too late now.. :(
Welcome to Fucked Up priority central.
Oh, it's Republican control. I guess that's one and the same isn't it?
At least GWB says that he's going to let the space program continue. I do hope that it doesn't get to the crew on the ISS using their Soyuz to come back down due to lack of food.
Interesting article. That is specifically talking about the loss of any of the OTHER ones in the fleet. It specifically mentions using Columbia solely for non-ISS related space programs. Now, with a space station out there that is in a mostly useable state, why are we out there WITHOUT using ISS?
That actually gives me a thought. Columbia wasn't equipped (or maybe it didn't have the proper staff....) for space walks. Now, they're still saying that the wing damage was likely negligible and not part of the cause of this.. BUT, on the offchance that it was the cause of this.. if they had been able to dock with the space station, or even had spacewalk capability, they could probably have at least examined the damage. Perhaps done a repair. Or had they been able to dock with the ISS, if it could be determined that it was not reperable, jettison Columbia into space, and get an emergency flight of another shuttle to bring them back.
Just a thought.
And they'll continue to use the same 8088 based microprocessors, and the same control software, and all the same hardware that is now mounting on 20-30 years old, because all new designs and projects keep getting cancelled.
This should be a perfect excuse to get a NEW program going, completed, and get a NEW vehicle out there. The government should DEMAND it of NASA if NASA doesn't DEMAND it of itself.
Yes, we've had relatively few space vehicle accidents compared to number of successful launches, orbits, flights, landings, etc.. and yes, I recognize that space travel is dangerous.
I hope that this affects the right people in the right ways to make it the impetus for PROGRESS rather than to SIT ON OUR ASSES as NASA did for the 2 and a half years after Challenger. (yes, I know they were determining the cause and working to protect the other shuttles from that.. but come on. 2 and a half years of no flights?)
I was in 4th grade when Challenger went up. I was in complete and utter shock for days.
For those of us who have this as our second, third, fourth, or more experience in space program disaster, I think that thankfully, we're able to continue on without being totally in shock. Some of my friends don't agree, and are being almost haunted by their memories of Challenger.
There's a lot of people in the world though who weren't born, or were too young to know about Challenger. I think the smarter of the younger generation are in shock about this. I am at work today, and I work in a very urban area, and none of the kids that I see know or care about it. This saddens me.
But, on the other hand, after having seen the destruction of the World Trade Center, should I expect them to be at all affected?
I'm not sure if these kids just don't give a shit about space travel.. most of them barely speak English (some form of Ebonics mixed with Spanglish is the most common here)...
Anyway, I'm saddened. But I'm not in shock.
suitable replacement for 30V HP power brick
My question to all this is why did it have, on it's discovery port, a relatively undocumented option to send data back out?? What would be the purpose of such a thing?!
Let me summarize 99% of the comments to this story:
JWZ you're a fuckwad, if you could program in a hex Monitor, this'd all be simple!
Well, apparently he is capable of using a hex Monitor. Are you?
JWZ also states that he understands he can install X11 under OS/X, but why would he want to do that?
*Thinks you stopped reading halfway through once you got pissed off*
I'd just like to add that XFree86 fonts suck. X as a whole fonts do not suck, however. In fact, way back in the day, the only reason I wanted to run X was because X's fonts DIDN'T suck, and Microsoft's DID. (this day was around Windows 3.11 era)
... 15 ? years... of dealing with X, I still haven't got the slightest clue what the fuck the font definitions are doing.
Then, the world got XFree86. It's fonts suck.
I used a lot of other implementations of X before XFree. I know.
X as a whole's handling of fonts really sucks. After
Ya know, I'm trying to find documentation on the Common User Architecture (CUA) that Microsoft, IBM, and several other companies designed from like 1988 to 1994.. and that included making the UNIVERSAL way to copy-and-paste using ctrl-insert and shift-insert rather than Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V. Microsoft apparently created Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V for use with Windows '95 (and many programs STILL used ONLY Ctrl-Insert and Shift-Insert through at least '98 or '99 when I last used a lot of Windows apps) because the rest of the industry had adopted Ctrl-Insert and Shift-Insert.
Unfortunatly, I can't find documentation for CUA89, CUA92, or CUA94 (the standards used by Windows 3.11 and OS/2 1.x, OS/2 2.x and 3.x, and OS/2 4.x respectively
Now why on earth would you need to tell the system what your card is and the monitor's maximum resolution? I believe since the late 80's, that shit's been easy to find automagicaly.
Actually, his explanation is that Red Hat 8.0 sucks because it uses Gnome2 - which does suck.
I'm not going to have much to back that up with, except that it's virtually impossible to get G2 up and running on anything unless you isntall your whole damn system from source, or use RH 8 or another distribution that already has it.
Wow.. What player has a skin that makes it look like "engorged shaven genitals"? Are they male or female genitals?
Please provide a URL!
Funny; Every day, I run current, state of the art software on much older, more "obsolete" binary distributions of, say, Windows, Xenix, IRIX, HP/UX, AIX, et al.
That it requires upgrading huge portions of your system to get any current software to run on Linux really sucks.
Right, I thought the comment after this one was more correct - though like i said, i'm a physics idiot - a spinning cylinder with a rod in the center - 'generates' or 'appears' to generate gravity?
Maybe it's a simplistic view, but I thought that the gravitational effect was created by the fact that the Earth spins, the Sun spins, etc.
Hmm. Now, I'm no physicist, and for that matter, I hated science...
but..
Doesn't a centrifuge, or something like that, that spins at a really high rate of speed, generate it's own gravitational force?
Wouldn't there be some way that this could be measured from that point?
Pretty sure it is bullshit. I see no connection, except for some possible inference that someone drew from the "products being accepted at a rate within 90 days than within the first year of handheld pc's, cell phones, internet access", etc. Of course.. no one had handheld pc's cell phones or internet access when they first came out. duh.
They're still pretty big and clunky, even the smaller ones. At least, compared to, say, a Samsung 310, or even Motorola's CDMA phones..
Pretty sure the direct connect function operates to anyone on the Nextel network.. no matter what area.. but I don't know how much that extends. Obviously the coverage map they last showed me (which showed everywhere in the U.S. covered) is incorrect.
But, I have no personal experience with them. I imagine since Motorola runs the network, Motorola builds the handsets, Motorola does it all, that the quality and compatibility is way up there. Unlike say, the Nokia 21xx CDMA phones, where they apparently tried to homebrew their own CDMA chipset, and it failed miserably. lol
If your analog phones signal drops below maybe -3- bars out of 5, you're gonna get static. If you have 1 bar or less of signal on an analog phone, no amount of screaming is going to help you. I can make a crystal clear digital call, on Verizon's network usually with 1 bar or more. I get a bit of dropping on 0 bars, but whenever the signal is THAT low, it should switch to analog ALREADY.
NOT all Digital systems operate at 1.9GHz either - Verizon's network is mostly 800MHz. (Also incorrect when he states that AMPS [analog] operates on 900MHz, it is in the 800 band) Digital phones are at -variable- power, anywhere up to 300mw. Analog phones run at 600mw for handhelds, and 3W for the larger mounted and bag phones.
Granted, with a 3W transmitter, I'd take call quality from an analog phone any day, but unless you're in a really crappy area, a digital handheld should outperform any analog handheld. At least, a good digital handheld.
Plus, any good digital handheld should also be a good analog handheld if it needs to be.
The Analog network will be going away in a few years, except for areas where there is NO digital coverage.
Use high quality phones. Verizon and AT&T have decent quality control for their phones, and strict standards as to what they will approve to be used on their network [i'd be willing to be Verizon is a bit higher than AT&T, since they don't have 8 million different handsets available]. T-Mobile, Sprint and Cingular's QC for phones is considerably inferior, though I have no personal experience with AT&T, T-Mobile, or Cingular's inner workings. I can't speak for Nextel at all, but I don't know anyone who personally wants to carry a phone as big and heavy as the analog ones from 5 years ago on their hips just to have neat walkie talkie functions.
When I started working for the company I work for, 8 years ago, a person approached me, and mentioned "I work for a company that designed a DirecTV dish that automatically tracks the satellite while you're moving. You mount it on your RV or camper, and it just follows along."
At that point, the price was $3k.
Old News.
Hey, I'm not the IT person, and if I were, we'd be using dumb terminals instead of Windows machines acting like dumb terminals.
But, in any case, it does work.
Actually, the only language I've used for anything in the last few years has been PHP (I'm not much of a developer, I will quite readily admit).
The database abstraction things that I've seen posted everywhere seem to be far more complex than they really need to be - or maybe I simply don't have a use for their complexity - I have a roughly 100 or so line PHP file that has several functions for referring to any SQL capable database, and to make it work with a different database software (re: mSQL vs. mySQL vs. pgSQL), just change three or so lines at the top of the file, and that changes the functions that are called, and it works with the new database, provided that the SQL is compatible. (yes, I know SQL is supposed to be a standard, but if you've ever migrated from mSQL to mySQL, you know that's not the case)
Error reporting? Is there something wrong with the built in error reporting?
Maybe I'm strange, but the documentation off the link for this story looks like a mess.
I was merely pointing out my own observation. You don't even have a command of what FUD means.
Every time I install a new ver of PHP (which, admittedly, lately, hasn't been all that much, since shortly after the big security bug was fixed), I've looked at PEAR, and I've always wondered "what good is this?". It looks like it's a whole large collection of code that gives PHP3 the functions that are in PHP4. Maybe I missed something, but it just doesn't appear terribly useful for anything.