Seeing if the heat-shielding technology will work is important for future missions around the solar system.
Unless they're using some radically new heatshielding materials (which I haven't heard of), not really. Heatshielding is a fairly well understood technology and surviving faster reentries is pretty much just a matter of a having a thicker shield.
When we talk about such items as $75 Nikes that "would cost $300 if they were made in a factory full of USA union labor, paid $45K plus per year", we neglect the possibility that SMALL companies making unique shoes could compete nicely
For pretty much the same reason that most people neglect the possibility that a supermodel will knock on their door and offer to have carnal relations with them - that is, while it's theoretically possible it just isn't probable.
As to the rest of your comment, all I can say is you have no idea how business works.
I hate to break this to you, but the universe does not revolve around you.
I use them on a daily basis because they frequently provide much more information than the internet version(s) do. Like the brands a particular repair business services, or identifying which businesses from the nearby big city serve our outlying area, or hours of operation, etc... etc...
I hate using the net versions of Yellow pages - from figuring out which of the 1x10^3 online versions are legit to have to call 3,4,5,6 business to find the one that meets my needs. Online yellow pages are one of the few areas where new tech still lags far behind old tech.
People born into 20th-century America are prone to economic fantasy because they have lived their whole lives inside one. What they don't realize is that their country and their government is broke. There is no trillion dollars for space explorations. There is no trillion dollars for anything. There is no trillion dollars left anywhere in the USA.
I hate to interrupt your rant, but just maybe you should read TFA and notice who is running this simulation. Then your rant will have at least one point of contact with reality.
being in LEO they also need a lot of boosting to stay in orbit
The Iridium constellation is up around 500 miles. They need very little reboosting, especially as compared to things much lower like the ISS.
If you're doing something like setting up a remote science station, my impression was that you'd rather throw up a huge dish and talk directly to a GEO satellite because in total it's cheaper.
In the higher latitudes that becomes problematical. In Antarctica it's essentially impossible.
Ultimately Iridium is for a very small market of mobilse users in very remote areas.
That's obvious today with cell phones being very nearly ubiquitous and the equipment to set up wifi/femtocell/digital repeater networks being cheap and available off the shelf. That wasn't the case back in the mid 1990's when the various satellite provider networks (yes, there was more than one planned/started, Iridium is the sole survivor) were getting started. Even today they're useful in places where cell phones aren't. (Like the middle of the ocean.)
When they first rolled out their service their business plan depended on the fact it would eventualy be as pervasive as cellular phones and that sure worked out fine.
You have to keep in mind that when planning started for these services (and Iridium wasn't the only one) in the mid 1990's, it wasn't at all clear that cell phone services would expand as fast and penetrate as deeply as they ended up doing. Back then, cell phones were high tech toys with coverage largely limited to major urban areas.
As an aside, one thing few people realize is that the roots of the current commercial space 'boom' lie in that era. It was widely believed that there would be multiple satellite providers, and that with each satellite network requiring between fifty and a hundred birds, that there would be a large number of launches both for initial provisioning and ongoing replacement. In the eyes of the alt.space community that meant an opportunity for a large market and a big chance to undercut the 'big boys'. They believed that by purchasing launches the satellite providers would end up underwriting the development of the boosters, providing a shortcut to commercial manned space.
This idiot legend again... Saturn production was capped in 1965 - and subsequent Congresses declined to restart it. At worst Nixon pulled the plug on a brain dead patient on full life support. For all intents and purposes it was already dead by the time he arrived on the scene.
[Nixon] botched the shuttle
As above, the basic Shuttle design (essentially what we have today) was already nearly complete by the time Nixon took office. By the time NASA signed the development contracts in July of 1968 (while Apollo 11 was on the way to moon as it happens), it was way too late for Nixon to have any significant effect.
Etc... etc... I could write a full debunking of the balance of your comment, but such a debunking can usefully be summed up thusly "not one single thing you wrote as factual is correct or bears any relation to reality".
It's frightening actually - Slashdot in theory prides itself on being smarter than Joe Sixpack, but this same ignorant and erroneous crap on Shuttle history keeps getting modded up.
it's sad to think how far we've come (down) since those days when we used to believe that moon bases and giant space stations were just around the corner.
Believing that is kinda like still believing in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. It's not realities fault that your unfounded childish fantasies didn't come to pass.
You can plant trees and reap the timber in just a few decades.
Well, yes and no.
We've become exceedingly good at forest management (except in California where they're so concerned about saving the poor underbrush that they'd rather burn down the entire forest, along with San Diego, than properly manage their forests). Timber is a renewable resource
The mistake you're making is treating all timber the same. The timber that 'peaked' in the 19th century (and is now nearly vanished) took centuries to grow. The timber we harvest every few decades today, well it took only a few decades to grow.
The differences between the woods are immense. Wood from virgin forests (as opposed to modern managed farms) is extremely dense, with many more growth rings per inch. Wood from such forests, both hardwoods and softwoods, are much stronger and longer lasting. (Even taking into account selection bias, this is the key reason we still see wooden structures from decades and centuries ago still standing.) Not to mention the wood varieties that take centuries to grow in the forest aren't available from managed tree farms at any price.
This mattered a great deal back then, when wood filled so many niches that steel, concrete, and plastic fill today.
So yes, it's a valid analogy. Don't be mislead by how we take poor quality wood as the norm today.
You managed to read the article with a large bias. It *does* explain how to deal with the issues of fragmentation: a) guarantee APIs are forward compatible; b) have apps declare their hardware needs; c) minimize bugs/incompatible APIs using extensive testing.
You managed to not actually read the article, or only read the parts that agreed with you. Read a paragraph or two beyond what you quote above and read how they have to hide the existence of fragmentation by hiding apps from people who can't run them.
What you quote ensures compatibility, which is not the same thing as avoiding fragmentation.
If indeed fragmentation is inevitable, Google has seemingly defined the problem correctly and it looks like the solution is good.
Had they defined the fragmentation problem, you'd have a point. But what you've done is fail to read the article and fail to understand the difference between fragmentation and compatibility.
Google does assume fragmentation is inevitable. That seems to be under discussion by some people here on/. Personally, I can't fathom how is fragmentation avoidable, unless by stagnation.
We're in violent agreement on that point - I'm merely addressing the 'fragmentation is FUD/Google has solved the fragmentation problem' nonsense. Both statement are patently false.
The first step in solving a problem is to define the problem, and that's what he's doing.
Except the problem he's defining is 'making sure apps are compatible with at least one hardware/OS combo" - and he pretty much stops there and declares victory. If they have something in the works to prevent fragmentation, that's nowhere apparent in the article.
The amusing part is TFA doesn't say what they submitter thinks it does - they openly admit fragmentation exists. And their response to fragmentation? "Android Market makes sure your app is only visible to those devices where it will run correctly, by filtering your app from devices which don't have the features you listed".
And thus, magically, since no one can download an app that they cannot run - fragmentation is gone. (It should go without saying this is laughable.)
Google is making sure that your app will run one someones hardware/OS, but that's a far cry from making sure it runs on all hardware/OS combinations.
Do try and pay attention - we're talking an elementary school library here. Most of the issues you cite aren't in the least bit relevant. The balance worked out just fine without automation. (And actually, probably worked better - as while a computer can help you locate a book, it can't help you to discover a book.)
You could never just walk into a library and anonymously check out a book: you had to have a library card, and the record of everything you've ever checked out was associated with that card, and therefore, with you.
Well, no there hasn't always been eternal records associated with you - I didn't see my first computerized checkout system until I was well into my teens, and even then I don't think they stored everything forever. Storage costs money, something libraries are perennially short of.
You try to get a six year old to remember a pin number or library card.
Why the heck does a six year old need a library card or a PIN in the first place?
The problem here is assuming that everything must be computerized... for no good reason other than everything must be computerized. When I was six, the teacher pulling a card from the pocket in the book, having me print my name, stamping the card and the book with with the due date, and then filing the card worked just fine.
I'm no luddite or technophobe by any stretch, but sometimes electronic/automated systems are solutions in search of a problem.
If I'm buying goods wholesale or as an investment and I'm trying to sell them at a profit as my means of earning a living, though - well, that's taxable in this country and that's just all there is to it.
In other words, if you're trying to live free of the IRS by doing a cash business on eBay, screw you. Pay up.
Precisely. There's a lot of other screwy things taxwise coming down the pike because of the damnable Healthcare 'reform' bill that nobody read - but this isn't one of them.
runs his unit tests to verify that it works according to spec, and they deploy it into the field.
Unless his spec included 'capturing and storing packets to a database previously provided', then his unit tests will fail.
Your contrived scenario is utterly and completely full of shit.
I suggest you do not attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence (or inexperience).
If the situation can adequately be explained by incompetence (or inexperience), you'd have a point. But it cannot be so explained - unless you'd have me believe a bug existed that could not only capture the data, but also define a database field to store it in? Or in short, you're full of shit.
Not actually true. In it's most basic definition, beer is anything made from fermenting starches.
Yes, actually true - beer is made from grains. (Hint: Look up how beers were made historically, back in Mesopotamia for example.) Not to mention that you ferment sugars, not starches.
Root beer wasn't always a sickly sweet kid's drink, it once was exactly what the name suggests, beer fermented from roots, primarily sassafras.
Which is why it's called 'root' beer rather than beer - to differentiate it from actual beer.
Grain became the hands-down favorite because of its relative low cost and high starch content. Which is also why companies like Anheuser-Busch use rice, it's very cheap and high in fermentable starches. They sure don't do it for the quality flavor (rice has none).
Actually, Anheuser-Busch, etc..., use rice because it's high in starches that can be converted into fermentable sugars. The Japanese brew Sake from rice for the same reason. You'll also note that Sake has flavors. (Anheuser-Busch, etc..., doesn't have flavor because of the brewing processes they use not because of any special qualities or lack thereof in their grains.)
Yeah, in the same way I have first hand knowledge that breathing is vital to my continued existence.
Seriously, what fucking drugs are you smoking that you can honestly believe that code wrote itself, and then ran on a computer, all without human intervention?
Slashdot Mirror
Unless they're using some radically new heatshielding materials (which I haven't heard of), not really. Heatshielding is a fairly well understood technology and surviving faster reentries is pretty much just a matter of a having a thicker shield.
That correlates strongly on the usage pattern and only weakly on the raw MPG figures.
Reading comprehension - get some. My post referred to versions of online yellow pages, not to advertisers thereof.
For pretty much the same reason that most people neglect the possibility that a supermodel will knock on their door and offer to have carnal relations with them - that is, while it's theoretically possible it just isn't probable.
As to the rest of your comment, all I can say is you have no idea how business works.
And by and large they're roughly worth what you pay for them when it comes to substituting for the hard copy version.
Had anyone raised legitimacy as a selling point, you'd have a point.
[Re: Yellow Pages]
I hate to break this to you, but the universe does not revolve around you.
I use them on a daily basis because they frequently provide much more information than the internet version(s) do. Like the brands a particular repair business services, or identifying which businesses from the nearby big city serve our outlying area, or hours of operation, etc... etc...
I hate using the net versions of Yellow pages - from figuring out which of the 1x10^3 online versions are legit to have to call 3,4,5,6 business to find the one that meets my needs. Online yellow pages are one of the few areas where new tech still lags far behind old tech.
I hate to interrupt your rant, but just maybe you should read TFA and notice who is running this simulation. Then your rant will have at least one point of contact with reality.
The Iridium constellation is up around 500 miles. They need very little reboosting, especially as compared to things much lower like the ISS.
In the higher latitudes that becomes problematical. In Antarctica it's essentially impossible.
That's obvious today with cell phones being very nearly ubiquitous and the equipment to set up wifi/femtocell/digital repeater networks being cheap and available off the shelf. That wasn't the case back in the mid 1990's when the various satellite provider networks (yes, there was more than one planned/started, Iridium is the sole survivor) were getting started. Even today they're useful in places where cell phones aren't. (Like the middle of the ocean.)
You have to keep in mind that when planning started for these services (and Iridium wasn't the only one) in the mid 1990's, it wasn't at all clear that cell phone services would expand as fast and penetrate as deeply as they ended up doing. Back then, cell phones were high tech toys with coverage largely limited to major urban areas.
As an aside, one thing few people realize is that the roots of the current commercial space 'boom' lie in that era. It was widely believed that there would be multiple satellite providers, and that with each satellite network requiring between fifty and a hundred birds, that there would be a large number of launches both for initial provisioning and ongoing replacement. In the eyes of the alt.space community that meant an opportunity for a large market and a big chance to undercut the 'big boys'. They believed that by purchasing launches the satellite providers would end up underwriting the development of the boosters, providing a shortcut to commercial manned space.
This idiot legend again... Saturn production was capped in 1965 - and subsequent Congresses declined to restart it. At worst Nixon pulled the plug on a brain dead patient on full life support. For all intents and purposes it was already dead by the time he arrived on the scene.
As above, the basic Shuttle design (essentially what we have today) was already nearly complete by the time Nixon took office. By the time NASA signed the development contracts in July of 1968 (while Apollo 11 was on the way to moon as it happens), it was way too late for Nixon to have any significant effect.
Etc... etc... I could write a full debunking of the balance of your comment, but such a debunking can usefully be summed up thusly "not one single thing you wrote as factual is correct or bears any relation to reality".
It's frightening actually - Slashdot in theory prides itself on being smarter than Joe Sixpack, but this same ignorant and erroneous crap on Shuttle history keeps getting modded up.
Believing that is kinda like still believing in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. It's not realities fault that your unfounded childish fantasies didn't come to pass.
Well, yes and no.
The mistake you're making is treating all timber the same. The timber that 'peaked' in the 19th century (and is now nearly vanished) took centuries to grow. The timber we harvest every few decades today, well it took only a few decades to grow.
The differences between the woods are immense. Wood from virgin forests (as opposed to modern managed farms) is extremely dense, with many more growth rings per inch. Wood from such forests, both hardwoods and softwoods, are much stronger and longer lasting. (Even taking into account selection bias, this is the key reason we still see wooden structures from decades and centuries ago still standing.) Not to mention the wood varieties that take centuries to grow in the forest aren't available from managed tree farms at any price.
This mattered a great deal back then, when wood filled so many niches that steel, concrete, and plastic fill today.
So yes, it's a valid analogy. Don't be mislead by how we take poor quality wood as the norm today.
I was about to say the same things - once you distill it, it's no longer beer.
You managed to not actually read the article, or only read the parts that agreed with you. Read a paragraph or two beyond what you quote above and read how they have to hide the existence of fragmentation by hiding apps from people who can't run them.
What you quote ensures compatibility, which is not the same thing as avoiding fragmentation.
Had they defined the fragmentation problem, you'd have a point. But what you've done is fail to read the article and fail to understand the difference between fragmentation and compatibility.
We're in violent agreement on that point - I'm merely addressing the 'fragmentation is FUD/Google has solved the fragmentation problem' nonsense. Both statement are patently false.
Except the problem he's defining is 'making sure apps are compatible with at least one hardware/OS combo" - and he pretty much stops there and declares victory. If they have something in the works to prevent fragmentation, that's nowhere apparent in the article.
The amusing part is TFA doesn't say what they submitter thinks it does - they openly admit fragmentation exists. And their response to fragmentation? "Android Market makes sure your app is only visible to those devices where it will run correctly, by filtering your app from devices which don't have the features you listed".
And thus, magically, since no one can download an app that they cannot run - fragmentation is gone. (It should go without saying this is laughable.)
Google is making sure that your app will run one someones hardware/OS, but that's a far cry from making sure it runs on all hardware/OS combinations.
Do try and pay attention - we're talking an elementary school library here. Most of the issues you cite aren't in the least bit relevant. The balance worked out just fine without automation. (And actually, probably worked better - as while a computer can help you locate a book, it can't help you to discover a book.)
Well, no there hasn't always been eternal records associated with you - I didn't see my first computerized checkout system until I was well into my teens, and even then I don't think they stored everything forever. Storage costs money, something libraries are perennially short of.
Why the heck does a six year old need a library card or a PIN in the first place?
The problem here is assuming that everything must be computerized... for no good reason other than everything must be computerized. When I was six, the teacher pulling a card from the pocket in the book, having me print my name, stamping the card and the book with with the due date, and then filing the card worked just fine.
I'm no luddite or technophobe by any stretch, but sometimes electronic/automated systems are solutions in search of a problem.
Precisely. There's a lot of other screwy things taxwise coming down the pike because of the damnable Healthcare 'reform' bill that nobody read - but this isn't one of them.
Unless his spec included 'capturing and storing packets to a database previously provided', then his unit tests will fail.
Your contrived scenario is utterly and completely full of shit.
If the situation can adequately be explained by incompetence (or inexperience), you'd have a point. But it cannot be so explained - unless you'd have me believe a bug existed that could not only capture the data, but also define a database field to store it in? Or in short, you're full of shit.
Where is that bad? Because it's junk science and crappy historical research. Some of us actually care about things other than just getting drunk.
Yes, actually true - beer is made from grains. (Hint: Look up how beers were made historically, back in Mesopotamia for example.) Not to mention that you ferment sugars, not starches.
Which is why it's called 'root' beer rather than beer - to differentiate it from actual beer.
Actually, Anheuser-Busch, etc..., use rice because it's high in starches that can be converted into fermentable sugars. The Japanese brew Sake from rice for the same reason. You'll also note that Sake has flavors. (Anheuser-Busch, etc..., doesn't have flavor because of the brewing processes they use not because of any special qualities or lack thereof in their grains.)
Yeah, in the same way I have first hand knowledge that breathing is vital to my continued existence.
Seriously, what fucking drugs are you smoking that you can honestly believe that code wrote itself, and then ran on a computer, all without human intervention?
If the filter wasn't tight enough, it was because someone decided not to tighten the filter.
You cannot 'accidentally' write code, run code, collect data, and put it into a database. Period.