Universities are still teaching computer science, much to the chagrin of people like this AC who apparently thinks that the degree should be a hopped up vocational program.
I never said they weren't still teaching computer science - only that the term 'computer science' is used for a wide variety of disparate degree programs.
Or that the legal realities don't match up so well to the fevered dreams of hackers everywhere.
Precisely this - I wish I had mod points today because you hit so many points squarely on the head.
I actually have trouble understanding why hackers just completely lose their shit when the law is involved.
I don't. Many hackers and/.ers (the sets are in overlap, not congruent) are a) zealots and thus shut out any evidence that disagrees with their fore-ordained conclusions, b) mentally young adolescents who are unable to discern the difference between how they see the world and how the world works (and are seemingly unaware that the dichotomy even exists), or c) both of the above. They don't know the facts, and they don't need to know the facts - their worldview is a priori the correct one, and reality is at fault for failing to live up to it.
This article is dead on. There hasn't been major progress in making rockets more efficient since the 1960's because the basics of chemistry and physics.
If efficiency were the problem, that would be a concern.
You properly make the point that all the flashy things that people want to do in space (industry, manned missions to other planets, etc) fail over the same dull, dreary, problem: lifting significant mass to LEO remains prohibitively expensive.
But what he, you, and the author of the TFA all fail to realize is that expense is not a law of nature.
There's nothing intrinsic about space travel that makes it expensive, fuel is cheap, aluminum is cheap, electronics are cheap... What's expensive is building fragile and virtually handcrafted vehicles that require man-hours by the dump truck load to prepare for launch - and then throwing them away after a single use.
The costs of space travel will fall significantly when we break out of this broken model. SpaceX and Scaled Composites have shown what can be done with modest investment, but there is yet more that can be done.
I respond that they have no idea what a university education was for over its thousand year history.
I respond that neither do you - because for most of their history, universities were job training schools intended to produce lawyers, judges, priests, government functionaries, etc..., etc... That they produced 'cultured' and 'well rounded' graduates was a happy accident, not an intended result.
The idea behind a liberal arts education is to become a well-rounded person, with a (hopefully) better understanding and appreciation of the world around you.
This is something that is sorely missing in the vast majority of the population today, thanks to the transactional view of education. The idea of applicability to real life is something that was perpetuated by the likes of corporations, who needed skilled people but did not want to train.
Colleges have become trade schools, and are expected to teach trades that are applicable to a job, with little else.
Um, no. For most of their history colleges were job training programs - intended to produce doctors, lawyers, priests, government ministers and functionaries, etc..., etc... The 'liberal arts' programs designed to produce a well-rounded person are a rather late development and have always been the minority.
It wasn't. Examine WHY this was the case before you go into fantasy land. WHY was a 3rd world nation that had suffered a decimating war ahead of a country that was swimming in money and the only effect of war had been fewer unemployed?
That's an easy one.
After WWII, the US enjoyed a vast technological lead in aircraft *and* an overwhelming geographic strategic advantage - most strategic targets in the USSR lay fairly close to their borders, so detecting incoming bombers early was difficult and defense in depth even more so. Add in stand off missiles and jet fighters that could carry out short notice nuclear attacks from Europe, and the advantage becomes even more pronounced. So the US had no particular reason to chase after ICBM's early on.
The Soviets on the other hand, were pretty badly off. Their bombers barely had the range to make a one-way suicide attack on the US. Even so, they had to fly for hours across Canada and a dense and growing thicket of radars, SAM's, and interceptors that could fly rings around their bombers. So the Soviets went 'outside the box' and went after ICBM's.
The Soviets also had an additional advantage born of their lack of technology - their lack of nuclear technology (meaning their bombs remained physically large and heavy) and need for large yield weapons to make up for their lack of accuracy (making the bombs even larger and heavier) meant they had more powerful boosters available to them earlier. This vastly simplified their engineering problems when it came time to add a manned payload.
Once you can answer that, you have learned a lot about the true nature of the US and might even be able to use to help explain the current mess it is in.
Much less than you might think.
Don't treat the USSR beating the US as some kind of freak accident, EXAMINE your history as it is, so you can learn from it.
No, it wasn't a freak accident - it was the coming together of a variety of political and technological influences. And unlike you, I *have* studied my history.
They didn't have, and never successfully tested a craft that could go into lunar orbit. Both attempts to test it (both in 1969) failed when the booster failed. (By December 1968, Apollo had flown twice unmanned suborbital, once unmanned orbital, and once manned orbital.)
Here I'm not sure what you're talking about. If you mean N1 rocket, then it was tested not 2, but 4 times - all unsuccessfully. If you mean Soyuz spacecraft, then - before December 1968 - it was flown manned twice, first time (April 1967) it was Komarov catastrophe, second time (October 1968) it was Beregovoi's unsuccessful flight. In addition to that many unmanned flights both of Soyuz and Zond happened before December 1968. For example, Zond 5 and 6 both flew around the Moon and came back intact - in September and November of 1968.
What I was talking about was the was the Soyuz 7K-L3, which isn't the Soyux 7K-OK flown by Komarov and Beregovoy or the Zond (Soyuz 7K-L1). 'Soyuz' is a generic term for a large family of spacecraft - with significant differences between the various models.
But in 1968, Russians were lagging more and more to Americans, and that lag was only growing, until the project got cancelled.
The lag began to build even earlier - during Gemini which flew flight after successful flight, while the Soviets struggled with rendezvous, docking, and getting a multi-man craft into orbit. The Soviets knew this, which is why they were willing to consider a dammfool stunt like sending a stripped-to-the-bone Soyuz variant on a flyby in the first place.
Still, there was a period where the capabilities were similar, and regarding first flights to the Moon - even different in requirement - it was, in my opinion, around the end of 1968.
But what I was demonstrating is that while the Soviets may have been able to grab a brief propaganda triumph - the war was already lost so long as the US didn't suffer a significant setback.
the Soviets were able to pretend that they didn't have a manned lunar program, which made it possible for the Nixon administration to kneecap manned space flight a few years later.
(Sigh.)
When will people actually study space history rather than repeating urban legends?
The Apollo program was killed in the budget battles of 1965-67, when the Apollo Applications program was all but canceled and the Apollo Lunar Landing program was capped at Apollo 20. By the time we landed on the Moon, the production lines were already starting to shut down.
The idea that throwing spacecraft away was a bad one dates from the early 60's - in fact, even earlier there were some in NASA that regarded Mercury as nothing more than a cheap way to get medical information on man in space and a temporary distraction from the Real Thing - reusable space infrastructure. The first contracts for what became the Shuttle were signed on July 18th 1969 (while Apollo 11 was enroute to the moon), and had been budgeted for in 1968 (before Nixon was even elected).
At worst, Nixon gave the orders to pull the plug on a patient on advanced life support and already near death. If anything, the Shuttle program fared as badly as it did because of continued Congressional insistence that it be done on the cheap.
Soviets were about that much behind Americans by the December of 1968, as Americans were behind Soviets by the April of 1961.
Huh? (That translates as "what have you been smoking?)
In Dec 1968:
The Soviets were considering a flyby because they couldn't go into lunar orbit. (And the manned flyby was delayed multiple times because of safety problems with the spacecraft.)
They didn't have, and never successfully tested a craft that could go into lunar orbit. Both attempts to test it (both in 1969) failed when the booster failed. (By December 1968, Apollo had flown twice unmanned suborbital, once unmanned orbital, and once manned orbital.)
They didn't have a functional lunar lander - it's first unmanned test wasn't until November 1970. (By December 1968 the LM had flown once unmanned orbital.)
They didn't have proven booster that could boost the spacecraft (that never did reach orbit) and the lunar lander (which never flew manned either) to the Moon. The first launch attempt wasn't until 1969 - and it was a failure. (By December 1968 the Saturn V had flown twice unmanned.)
In short, by December 1968, the US had all the pieces and all had flown at least unmanned. The Soviets had all the pieces - but none other than the flyby had flown at all, let alone manned. Except for the flyby and the first unmanned test of the lunar booster and spacecraft, none were even ready to be flown.
In 1961, the US was only weeks behind - in 1968 the Soviets were years behind.
The Soviets not only weren't even not close in December 1968, the were very nearly not even in the race at all. Between divisive internal politics and a very late start, they'd hobbled themselves right out of the gate. Their lag and defeat was so decisive that for decades their official line was that they hadn't succeeded because they hadn't even tried. (I.E. if at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you even tried.)
Like what could be stored on, delivered and powered by a retired nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.
In some universe where nuclear carriers aren't retired because they are worn out, that would be a useful concept. Here in the real world, it's a ludicrous idea.
I just want the politicians to order the Navy to get some guys thinking about the idea
It'll take the Navy about three months to reply - but while the executive summary of the report will actually be dry bureaucratase, it will pretty much say "ROFLMAO".
Or maybe I'll write the Japanese embassy to suggest that they offer to buy the Enterprise, thereby saving the US Navy $millions in decommissioning costs.
In some universe where the US would even consider selling the Enterprise... that might be a useful endeavor. Here in the real universe, your letter will be filed where it belongs - in the recycling bin.
They have the infrastructure to refuel it, if required, and the motivation to dedicate it to disaster response.
In some universe where the Japanese have any experience fabricating HEU fuel, let alone refuelling the reactors - you'd have a good point. Here in the real universe the Japanese not only lack the infrastructure, the lack even a fraction of the relevant experience.
Just as I said the last time you posted this nonsense - you haven't the foggiest clue what you're talking about. We even engaged in a lengthy discussion where it appeared you might be interested in and capable of learning - but now the truth is apparent... you're an ignorant nutjob.
It's like an infinite number of monkeys on typewriters collaborated by working together to crowd source this open-source summary.
And one, that while invoking all the 'right' buzzwords, fail to make clear the key point - this project is largely vaporware. Yeah, they've made some cute models and a cool website... but the actual engineering accomplished in real world is roughly zero. They want to build a Concorde, but so far all they've demonstrated is a paper airplane.
Apple once had ADD too - back when they were flush with cash in the early days. It damn near killed them when the glory ebbed and they were left with the habits of being wealthy but nearly stone broke.
Wait a few weeks for the Iodine to decay, filter out the Ceasium and any inert heavy metals that might have been picked up. Pump now pure water into sea.
If it were that easy, nobody would be worried.
(Protip: You can't filter out elemts dissolved in water.)
A good rinse should be sufficient to clean them of any radionuclides hanging about.
Thereby creating *more* contaminated water to handle.
My wife would probably love one for her studio in place of the space sucking and noisy desktop that's up there now. (Laptops with sufficient screen size for her research are too friggin' expensive.) I also might consider one for the living room - it's a cheap way to get an internet enabled TV without the bother of replacing my existing non internet enabled one.
So, just because you wouldn't buy one doesn't mean others won't.
For instance, most 'bulletproof glass' is just rated for pistol calibers (as I believe bank teller glass tends to be).
As 'pistol calibers', and the resultant energy, tend to vary wildly - that's pretty much a meaningless statement. But most teller glass tends to be rated for rifles anyway.
Rifle calibers will punch right through. I think you'll need something close to 6" or so to withstand a shot or two from a 30 caliber, high velocity rifle (eg. think mostly anything from WWII, 7.62 NATO, 7.62R, etc.).
Nope - as little as two inches or so will stop those kinds of rifles. (UL level 8.) You're a decade or two behind state-of-the-art.
They use the scientific method to prove or disprove hypotheses. So yeah, they're real scientists
They use something that kinda looks like the scientific method - when it doesn't get in the way of making a big boom or doesn't interfere with the entertainment value. When it does, even that fig leaf goes overboard.
Slashdot Mirror
I never said they weren't still teaching computer science - only that the term 'computer science' is used for a wide variety of disparate degree programs.
Precisely this - I wish I had mod points today because you hit so many points squarely on the head.
I don't. Many hackers and /.ers (the sets are in overlap, not congruent) are a) zealots and thus shut out any evidence that disagrees with their fore-ordained conclusions, b) mentally young adolescents who are unable to discern the difference between how they see the world and how the world works (and are seemingly unaware that the dichotomy even exists), or c) both of the above. They don't know the facts, and they don't need to know the facts - their worldview is a priori the correct one, and reality is at fault for failing to live up to it.
How many are actually studying computer science and how many are actually in hopped up vocational programs?
If efficiency were the problem, that would be a concern.
But what he, you, and the author of the TFA all fail to realize is that expense is not a law of nature.
There's nothing intrinsic about space travel that makes it expensive, fuel is cheap, aluminum is cheap, electronics are cheap... What's expensive is building fragile and virtually handcrafted vehicles that require man-hours by the dump truck load to prepare for launch - and then throwing them away after a single use.
The costs of space travel will fall significantly when we break out of this broken model. SpaceX and Scaled Composites have shown what can be done with modest investment, but there is yet more that can be done.
I respond that neither do you - because for most of their history, universities were job training schools intended to produce lawyers, judges, priests, government functionaries, etc..., etc... That they produced 'cultured' and 'well rounded' graduates was a happy accident, not an intended result.
Um, no. For most of their history colleges were job training programs - intended to produce doctors, lawyers, priests, government ministers and functionaries, etc..., etc... The 'liberal arts' programs designed to produce a well-rounded person are a rather late development and have always been the minority.
That's an easy one.
After WWII, the US enjoyed a vast technological lead in aircraft *and* an overwhelming geographic strategic advantage - most strategic targets in the USSR lay fairly close to their borders, so detecting incoming bombers early was difficult and defense in depth even more so. Add in stand off missiles and jet fighters that could carry out short notice nuclear attacks from Europe, and the advantage becomes even more pronounced. So the US had no particular reason to chase after ICBM's early on.
The Soviets on the other hand, were pretty badly off. Their bombers barely had the range to make a one-way suicide attack on the US. Even so, they had to fly for hours across Canada and a dense and growing thicket of radars, SAM's, and interceptors that could fly rings around their bombers. So the Soviets went 'outside the box' and went after ICBM's.
The Soviets also had an additional advantage born of their lack of technology - their lack of nuclear technology (meaning their bombs remained physically large and heavy) and need for large yield weapons to make up for their lack of accuracy (making the bombs even larger and heavier) meant they had more powerful boosters available to them earlier. This vastly simplified their engineering problems when it came time to add a manned payload.
Much less than you might think.
No, it wasn't a freak accident - it was the coming together of a variety of political and technological influences. And unlike you, I *have* studied my history.
What I was talking about was the was the Soyuz 7K-L3, which isn't the Soyux 7K-OK flown by Komarov and Beregovoy or the Zond (Soyuz 7K-L1). 'Soyuz' is a generic term for a large family of spacecraft - with significant differences between the various models.
The lag began to build even earlier - during Gemini which flew flight after successful flight, while the Soviets struggled with rendezvous, docking, and getting a multi-man craft into orbit. The Soviets knew this, which is why they were willing to consider a dammfool stunt like sending a stripped-to-the-bone Soyuz variant on a flyby in the first place.
But what I was demonstrating is that while the Soviets may have been able to grab a brief propaganda triumph - the war was already lost so long as the US didn't suffer a significant setback.
Doesn't mean you have a clue. In fact, you abundantly demonstrate a complete and utter lack of one.
(Sigh.)
When will people actually study space history rather than repeating urban legends?
The Apollo program was killed in the budget battles of 1965-67, when the Apollo Applications program was all but canceled and the Apollo Lunar Landing program was capped at Apollo 20. By the time we landed on the Moon, the production lines were already starting to shut down.
The idea that throwing spacecraft away was a bad one dates from the early 60's - in fact, even earlier there were some in NASA that regarded Mercury as nothing more than a cheap way to get medical information on man in space and a temporary distraction from the Real Thing - reusable space infrastructure. The first contracts for what became the Shuttle were signed on July 18th 1969 (while Apollo 11 was enroute to the moon), and had been budgeted for in 1968 (before Nixon was even elected).
At worst, Nixon gave the orders to pull the plug on a patient on advanced life support and already near death. If anything, the Shuttle program fared as badly as it did because of continued Congressional insistence that it be done on the cheap.
Huh? (That translates as "what have you been smoking?)
In Dec 1968:
In short, by December 1968, the US had all the pieces and all had flown at least unmanned. The Soviets had all the pieces - but none other than the flyby had flown at all, let alone manned. Except for the flyby and the first unmanned test of the lunar booster and spacecraft, none were even ready to be flown.
In 1961, the US was only weeks behind - in 1968 the Soviets were years behind.
The Soviets not only weren't even not close in December 1968, the were very nearly not even in the race at all. Between divisive internal politics and a very late start, they'd hobbled themselves right out of the gate. Their lag and defeat was so decisive that for decades their official line was that they hadn't succeeded because they hadn't even tried. (I.E. if at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you even tried.)
In some universe where nuclear carriers aren't retired because they are worn out, that would be a useful concept. Here in the real world, it's a ludicrous idea.
It'll take the Navy about three months to reply - but while the executive summary of the report will actually be dry bureaucratase, it will pretty much say "ROFLMAO".
In some universe where the US would even consider selling the Enterprise... that might be a useful endeavor. Here in the real universe, your letter will be filed where it belongs - in the recycling bin.
In some universe where the Japanese have any experience fabricating HEU fuel, let alone refuelling the reactors - you'd have a good point. Here in the real universe the Japanese not only lack the infrastructure, the lack even a fraction of the relevant experience.
Just as I said the last time you posted this nonsense - you haven't the foggiest clue what you're talking about. We even engaged in a lengthy discussion where it appeared you might be interested in and capable of learning - but now the truth is apparent... you're an ignorant nutjob.
And one, that while invoking all the 'right' buzzwords, fail to make clear the key point - this project is largely vaporware. Yeah, they've made some cute models and a cool website... but the actual engineering accomplished in real world is roughly zero. They want to build a Concorde, but so far all they've demonstrated is a paper airplane.
Apple once had ADD too - back when they were flush with cash in the early days. It damn near killed them when the glory ebbed and they were left with the habits of being wealthy but nearly stone broke.
To soften the blow and make Jobs look like less of an asshole than he is?
Same old story - when you try to get something for nothing, you often get nothing for something.
Protip: Learn the difference between 'filtration' (what the OP proposed and I responded to), and chemical processes (which you propose).
If it were that easy, nobody would be worried.
(Protip: You can't filter out elemts dissolved in water.)
Thereby creating *more* contaminated water to handle.
Right - a 1996 era quality video is news because "nobody has done it yet".
So, a really basic animation that practically anyone can do is worthy of a Slashdot story - why?
I know he was right - which is why I didn't address that point, only his mistakes with regards to common bulletproof glass.
This is also why the military uses windows much more resistant than commonly available commercial ones.
My wife would probably love one for her studio in place of the space sucking and noisy desktop that's up there now. (Laptops with sufficient screen size for her research are too friggin' expensive.) I also might consider one for the living room - it's a cheap way to get an internet enabled TV without the bother of replacing my existing non internet enabled one.
So, just because you wouldn't buy one doesn't mean others won't.
As 'pistol calibers', and the resultant energy, tend to vary wildly - that's pretty much a meaningless statement. But most teller glass tends to be rated for rifles anyway.
Nope - as little as two inches or so will stop those kinds of rifles. (UL level 8.) You're a decade or two behind state-of-the-art.
They use something that kinda looks like the scientific method - when it doesn't get in the way of making a big boom or doesn't interfere with the entertainment value. When it does, even that fig leaf goes overboard.
No, they're not real scientists.