they were only tested against malaria, so some could feasibly be good against other ailments.
The criteria was "successful against malaria" - so their value in treating other conditions is irrelevant to determining the success rate against malaria. Either they meet the criteria, or they don't.
From TFS: "According to Tu, she and her team screened over 2,000 different Chinese herbs described in old texts, of which about 200 were good enough to test in mice. That's when they hit upon a plant called Artemisia annua: annual wormwood, or qinghao in Chinese."
Yeah, I've already heard from from my crunchy greenie friends about how this "proves" the value of traditional medicine. That one text mentions on herb that worked, and 1,999 texts listed herbs that didn't shows the exact opposite... completely escapes them.
They don't know why it sealed though... whether it was flexing of the case, or condensation of the exhaust gases forming a temporary plug. (IIRC, there was signs that the latter may have happened during previous burn through and blow by incidents.) But it goes to show that the accident is much more complicated than the "it got cold, it go boom" urban legend version.
Yet, it's by slow steady intermediate steps and evolutionary processes that practically every one of mankind's major breakthroughs, advances, and achievements have been accomplished. They're not visible to the narrow minded or the the clueless - but they're there none the less.
The problem isn't with "limited (and limiting) thinking", it's with idiots who have no patience and no grasp of how the world works... who think things just happen magically.
BTW, SRB's don't leak (they use solid propellent). I believe you guys are thinking of the o-rings that connected the hydrogen tank to the main engines; they'd become misshapen at colder temperatures thus causing liquid hydrogen to leak.
BTW - when they're burning, SRB's produce very hot gas which damn well can leak.
As the design change proved, it was safe by spaceflight standards... provided you kept the joint temperatures above the level at which significant erosion happened.
Well, again, that's the soundbite version - and only half the truth. In reality, the worst cases of leakage prior to the loss of Challenger occurred with launch temperatures in the eighties. In reality, the real problem wasn't temperature but a phenomena called joint rotation. That's why the redesigned joints included heavier clevis pins at the joint (to prevent the two halves from moving relative to each other) as well as heaters.
Reference Nasa's own description of the redesigned joint - there's a reason why the new heater is mentioned almost as an afterthought.
Then again, this was the NASA that thought it could ignore engineers and launch Challenger with frozen, leaky SRBs.
Since the same engineers had been telling them for five years that it was safe to launch with leaky SRB's (A part that's usually left out of the tale and most people are unaware of*) - I think NASA was more than justified in being a little skeptical of their last minute change in heart that they offered no justification more.
* That's why NASA was able to trot out a revised joint design so fast after the accident. The joint was a known problem and even though it was considered "safe" to continue flying, NASA and Morton-Thiokol were already working on a solution. (That the kludge that was the first flown joint design should never have entered service in the first place is another story.)
For instance, for any mission critical component NASA may have three different programs, each written in a different language and running on a unique platform.
Nope, the record (which was the Shuttle's control system) is two different programs running on identical hardware. They weren't even identical programs, the first had all mission features, the second had just enough to reach orbit and to return from orbit to earth. But even that was highly unusual - the norm is two identical computers running identical software.
If at any time one of the programs gives an answer that is not consistent with the other two then the minority report is discarded and the other two are presumed to be correct. No need to halt the proceedings and debug at that point.
Where the three comes in is the primary Shuttle flight control was three copies of the same software running on three identical computers. The minority report is in fact disregarded.
This is also why various technology contests (such as the X Prize) rarely if ever produce any applicable technology. (And when they do, it almost always requires a great deal of R&D to move it into the real world.) The competitors seek to win the prize with a design optimized to win the prize.
The X prize was designed to enable CATS (Cheap Acess To Space) - but the winning design doesn't scale well from suborbital to orbital. Hell, it barely scales from a four place suborbital to an eight place suborbital.
But who is playing shenanigans Samsung or Apple. Did Apple Spec out the correct specs to Samsung and they made a cheap knockoff, after sending a batch that seems to meet initial QA, in a very German style. Or did Apple know about/agree to giving different quality products.
There's a third possibility that should not be discounted out of hand - Samsung meets the specification, while TSMC exceeds it. Without access to internal information, it's hard to tell what's going on behind the curtain and all too easy to leap on the 'obvious' conspiracy.
Of course, the various mega corps routinely indulge in behavior that makes conspiracy theories not all that far fetched...
Of course, there's always the question - is it because they completed the program, or because they were selected for the program? Not all prisoners are eligible, and not all who are eligible gain a berth. It could just as easily be the prisoners that gained a berth would be within the 60% who don't come come back to prison within three years regardless of their participation due to personal drive and existing educational accomplishments (which are large factors in whether or not they qualify in the first place).
Don't get me wrong, education is always good - but with no control group, claiming a priori that education is the sole cause for the drop in recidivism seems a bit of stretch,
Speaking of renewables in the U.S. why is hydro never mentioned when discussing renewables?!?
Because it makes up a rather limited percentage of generation capacity in the US - and that percentage isn't going to go up significantly. (Weaseling because I'm still on my first cup of coffee and there may be some I'm unaware of.) We aren't building power generation dams in any significant quantity, and that's extraordinarily unlikely to change.
The project was cancelled because NASA is underfunded, not because it's not worthy of funding.
No, the project was cancelled because the B612 Foundation failed to uphold it's end of the contract - they've routinely failed to meet deadlines and to make the reports they're contractually obligated to do.
Spoken like someone who wasn't around when Jon Katz was writing his "Voices From The Hellmouth" columns, after the LIttleton massacre when nerdy teens were suddenly public enemy #1. As an old-timer, this looks exactly like the sort of story I'd expect/. to link to and discuss.
Huh? If you actually read TFA, there's precisely zero information in either linked article to suggests the suspects are 'nerdy teens' or have any other reason to be linked to the/. demographic. As a/. old-timer, I'm with OP, there's pretty much no reason for this to be on/. other than the slipping standards of the editorial staff.
For profit or not, once you start accepting money and running it through a business... you've crossed a line. It's no longer just a "fan party". (IMO of course.)
Ramar Larkin Jones isn't a "fan" - he's a event organizer who was running a Pokemon themed event for which he was selling tickets. The selling tickets parts got left out of the linked article somehow - I wonder why. (Actually, I don't need to wonder - the article is slanted all to hell and back.)
Think of it simply: These are trucks that can (and most already do) drive at night when there are few people on the road
Huh? Trucks drive 24/7/practically 365.
have very well-defined and easily known start and end points (vs. listening to a passenger describe a location or navigate an un-mapped driveway)
Huh? How is a given freight dock any less well defined or known than any given house or workplace?
Documenting loading bays for your business is a project that works at scale (and it's to determine the authoritative source of such information), whereas mapping everyone's driveway and personal parking spot does not (as we've seen with the crowd-sourced data contributed to Google Maps).
Huh? Your average autonomous car doesn't need massive amounts of crowd sourced data - a couple of weeks and the average driver can easily teach it most of their usual destinations. And it scales like nothing you've ever seen - once Joe Sixpack teaches the car the route from I-5 to his office building, everyone else who uses I-5 and goes to that office building can use the same data. And ditto on the opposite end - once Joe Sixpack has taught his car the route from I-5 to his subdivision in Seatac, everyone else who lives there can use all but the last few hundred to thousand yards or so of data.
This guy wasn't a Maker, he actually knew how to do things and how to use hand tools to achieve his goals.
Aaah excellent more maker hate from randos on the internet. I don't get the sheer level of vitriol aimed at people who instead of sitting on their arses watching TV or whining on the internet actually get up and do something with their time. Jealousy, perhaps?
You don't get it either because you don't want to get it, or you're terminally clueless. The hate isn't against people who "get up and do something" - it's against people who puff themselves up into something they aren't or somehow believe themselves superior because they "get up and do something".
The word was coined by an astrologer, but no-one invents astronomical events. And it is an astronomical event, regardless of who came up with the word or why.
That sound you heard was the OP's point whooshing over your head. Nobody is debating that it's an astronomical event - only that it's a non-event, of no actual significance beyond generating media hype.
Slashdot Mirror
The criteria was "successful against malaria" - so their value in treating other conditions is irrelevant to determining the success rate against malaria. Either they meet the criteria, or they don't.
They tested 200 out of 2000 - but only one worked. Thus the proper number is 1 of 2000 - a success rate of .05%, not 10%.
From TFS: "According to Tu, she and her team screened over 2,000 different Chinese herbs described in old texts, of which about 200 were good enough to test in mice. That's when they hit upon a plant called Artemisia annua: annual wormwood, or qinghao in Chinese."
Yeah, I've already heard from from my crunchy greenie friends about how this "proves" the value of traditional medicine. That one text mentions on herb that worked, and 1,999 texts listed herbs that didn't shows the exact opposite... completely escapes them.
They don't know why it sealed though... whether it was flexing of the case, or condensation of the exhaust gases forming a temporary plug. (IIRC, there was signs that the latter may have happened during previous burn through and blow by incidents.) But it goes to show that the accident is much more complicated than the "it got cold, it go boom" urban legend version.
Yet, it's by slow steady intermediate steps and evolutionary processes that practically every one of mankind's major breakthroughs, advances, and achievements have been accomplished. They're not visible to the narrow minded or the the clueless - but they're there none the less.
The problem isn't with "limited (and limiting) thinking", it's with idiots who have no patience and no grasp of how the world works... who think things just happen magically.
BTW - when they're burning, SRB's produce very hot gas which damn well can leak .
Read the Wikpedia article on the loss of the Challenger or just search Google for "space shuttle challenger accident"
Well, again, that's the soundbite version - and only half the truth. In reality, the worst cases of leakage prior to the loss of Challenger occurred with launch temperatures in the eighties. In reality, the real problem wasn't temperature but a phenomena called joint rotation. That's why the redesigned joints included heavier clevis pins at the joint (to prevent the two halves from moving relative to each other) as well as heaters.
Reference Nasa's own description of the redesigned joint - there's a reason why the new heater is mentioned almost as an afterthought.
Since the same engineers had been telling them for five years that it was safe to launch with leaky SRB's (A part that's usually left out of the tale and most people are unaware of*) - I think NASA was more than justified in being a little skeptical of their last minute change in heart that they offered no justification more.
* That's why NASA was able to trot out a revised joint design so fast after the accident. The joint was a known problem and even though it was considered "safe" to continue flying, NASA and Morton-Thiokol were already working on a solution. (That the kludge that was the first flown joint design should never have entered service in the first place is another story.)
Nope, the record (which was the Shuttle's control system) is two different programs running on identical hardware. They weren't even identical programs, the first had all mission features, the second had just enough to reach orbit and to return from orbit to earth. But even that was highly unusual - the norm is two identical computers running identical software.
Where the three comes in is the primary Shuttle flight control was three copies of the same software running on three identical computers. The minority report is in fact disregarded.
This is also why various technology contests (such as the X Prize) rarely if ever produce any applicable technology. (And when they do, it almost always requires a great deal of R&D to move it into the real world.) The competitors seek to win the prize with a design optimized to win the prize.
The X prize was designed to enable CATS (Cheap Acess To Space) - but the winning design doesn't scale well from suborbital to orbital. Hell, it barely scales from a four place suborbital to an eight place suborbital.
There's a third possibility that should not be discounted out of hand - Samsung meets the specification, while TSMC exceeds it. Without access to internal information, it's hard to tell what's going on behind the curtain and all too easy to leap on the 'obvious' conspiracy.
Of course, the various mega corps routinely indulge in behavior that makes conspiracy theories not all that far fetched...
Of course, there's always the question - is it because they completed the program, or because they were selected for the program? Not all prisoners are eligible, and not all who are eligible gain a berth. It could just as easily be the prisoners that gained a berth would be within the 60% who don't come come back to prison within three years regardless of their participation due to personal drive and existing educational accomplishments (which are large factors in whether or not they qualify in the first place).
Don't get me wrong, education is always good - but with no control group, claiming a priori that education is the sole cause for the drop in recidivism seems a bit of stretch,
Because it makes up a rather limited percentage of generation capacity in the US - and that percentage isn't going to go up significantly. (Weaseling because I'm still on my first cup of coffee and there may be some I'm unaware of.) We aren't building power generation dams in any significant quantity, and that's extraordinarily unlikely to change.
No, the project was cancelled because the B612 Foundation failed to uphold it's end of the contract - they've routinely failed to meet deadlines and to make the reports they're contractually obligated to do.
As if /. was in any way capable of impartial analysis and discussion. It's not, and never has been been.
Like the individual to who I was replying, you're just pulling stuff out of your ass.
Huh? If you actually read TFA, there's precisely zero information in either linked article to suggests the suspects are 'nerdy teens' or have any other reason to be linked to the /. demographic. As a /. old-timer, I'm with OP, there's pretty much no reason for this to be on /. other than the slipping standards of the editorial staff.
No, you didn't. You programmed a Bombe simulator and then spent months building an output display.
Though I suppose from a certain point of view the output display could be considered a cool thing, but it isn't a Bombe.
This is Slashdot - where the impulse is to find a way, howsoever ludicrous or convoluted, to excuse the engineers from fault.
For profit or not, once you start accepting money and running it through a business... you've crossed a line. It's no longer just a "fan party". (IMO of course.)
Ramar Larkin Jones isn't a "fan" - he's a event organizer who was running a Pokemon themed event for which he was selling tickets. The selling tickets parts got left out of the linked article somehow - I wonder why. (Actually, I don't need to wonder - the article is slanted all to hell and back.)
Huh? Trucks drive 24/7/practically 365.
Huh? How is a given freight dock any less well defined or known than any given house or workplace?
Huh? Your average autonomous car doesn't need massive amounts of crowd sourced data - a couple of weeks and the average driver can easily teach it most of their usual destinations. And it scales like nothing you've ever seen - once Joe Sixpack teaches the car the route from I-5 to his office building, everyone else who uses I-5 and goes to that office building can use the same data. And ditto on the opposite end - once Joe Sixpack has taught his car the route from I-5 to his subdivision in Seatac, everyone else who lives there can use all but the last few hundred to thousand yards or so of data.
You don't get it either because you don't want to get it, or you're terminally clueless. The hate isn't against people who "get up and do something" - it's against people who puff themselves up into something they aren't or somehow believe themselves superior because they "get up and do something".
That sound you heard was the OP's point whooshing over your head. Nobody is debating that it's an astronomical event - only that it's a non-event, of no actual significance beyond generating media hype.
You both stare at the things that attract you, regardless of actual value, so no - there isn't any difference.
As much as /.ers hate Joe Sixpack and his fascination with the Kardashians - they sure perk up their ears when their media darlings pontificate.