If you're referring to O'Reilly's Programming the Be Operating System by Dan Parks Sydow, then yes, that book is very very outdated.
It does not mean that BeOS is broken. Sheesh. Software evolves, paper decomposes. Fortunately, there *is* current documentation available.
Try the current version of the BeBook (available online), or join #bedev on irc.elric.net:-)
BeOS is pretty good. but i'm starting to belive it's abadonware; about 2 months ago i tried porting my streamripper program to it. the posix end of it worked out fine...
I'm interested in hearing more about the issued you had porting Streamripper to BeOS. The link to the BeOS binary from BeBits seems to be broken. I'll cvs it and take a look at it tonight. Any major brokes, besides the panics while debugging?
, but the GUI was beyond me. all of the same code i could find wouldn't even compile. Also i got constant kernel panics when debugging threads. real shame...
Well, Be's native gui is unique. In other words: BeAPI != win32API != gtk/qt/motif/whatever. The BeBook is available online, if anyone's interested in the API. Programming for BeOS is a great way to learn C++, IMHO.
Uhmm.. it sort-of is. Check out darwinos.org, or read Apple's FAQ.
"Darwin is processor-independent and is built for PowerPC and Intel platforms, enabling Open Source developers to work on Darwin projects on the widest choice of computer systems."
The use of RPM to compare checksums of original files vs. current files is particularly ingenious.
When doing forensics, never trust the tools that are already installed on the compromised system. Download or bring a floppy with a known good copy of cksum(1) or something. --
Of course kiddies are going after Linux systems. Suppose you wanted to 0wn a few boxes, for whatever reason. Would you rather 0wn....
a commercial *nix box where most of the common linux-centric 'sploits won't work?
some (l)user's windows machine that gets rebooted and/or crashes all the time?
a mac?
some obscure legacy OS running in a factory or big business (w00t, be a VMX h4x0r)
Jonh Doe's RedHat box running with an out-of-the-box config?
If I were a kiddie (hypthetically speaking, of course), I'd be going after a target that's easy, plentiful, and stable enough to stay online, allowing me to use it for scanning, bouncing, running b0ts, etc. Big Linux distros have new exploits uncovered and published every day. Linux is gaining popularity, too. All the new users installing it don't know jack about locking down their computers and it makes Linux a very ripe arena for the kiddies.
Does this make Linux a bad operating system? No, of course not. It just means that in order to really be secure, you still have to know what you're doing. --
They found it by analyzing photos of Mars taken from orbit around Mars. These are the same photos that NASA has, because they are photos taken by NASA spacecraft.
NIMA is able to analyze those photos with an entirely different toolset and skills. NASA may have the rocket scientists, but they don't have spooks who can read newspapers from orbit;-) --
Yes, most of the image analysis people at NASA are civilian geologists. Of course they have computers, but they tend to look at rocks and soil, wind and water erosion, spectroscopy, and stuff like that. When MPL was first lost, NASA searched their photos for easy-to-spot things like the lander's large parachutes, or a crash site with a crater and lots of debris.
NIMA, on the other hand, has the skills to pick out small objects like people and cars from satellite photos of earth. I don't see why JPL would doubt NIMA's findings. The question now is how much NIMA can talk about their findings or discuss the techiques they used without disclosing anything classified. At the very least, they should be able to say to NASA "these are the photos we used, and we believe the lander is right *there* (see, if you squint your eyes you can sorta see something...) --
Before this announcement, the most probable reason for failure was either (1) the landing rockets shut off too early, causing the lander to fall; or (2) the rockets failed to shut off after landing, causing the craft to skid along the ground, kick up a lot of dust, or possibly flip over.
In either case, it is possible that the lander could have ended up sitting upright, more-or-less in one piece. Just because it's sitting on all 3 legs doesn't mean it is functional. It could be all smashed up from a rough landing, or covered in dirt. It might have flipped over a couple times and eventually come to rest in an upright position. --
"Shortly after the loss of Mars Polar Lander, NIMA and NASA began working together analyzing images of the intended landing site and to try to locate the spacecraft," said Jennifer Lafley, a NIMA spokeswoman.
NIMA is DoD. The do what they want and NASA can't really say too much if they step on our toes. Fortunately in this case, NIMA's expertise payed off bigtime. --
MOOSE was an awesome concept... i'd hate to be the first person to test it, though!
Under the rule of thumb mentioned, you wouldn't need 400 feet per second since air drag gets you once you're down to, say 50 nm.
The rule of thumb accounts for that so that your perigee will end up around 0 to 50 nautical miles. Orbital mechanics says if you make your deorbit burn at a given point, it will lower the perigee at a point 180 degrees opposite where you made the burn.
"2 feet per second per nautical mile altitude" is not meant to be exact but it does take into consideration that you don't need to lower the perigee all the way to 0 altitude. It's just a back of envelope sort of thing. I'm sure Capt. REFSMMAT would approve of it, though;-)
how can you even think of doing something that's not 100% safe
Hehe. So frustrating. So true. "Aww come on you guys, it's not rocket science..... err....uh...actually...never mind." --
It would take a really big braking motor to bring decelrate an astronaut enough so that he/she would fall straight down.
When calculating the delta-V you need to get down from low earth orbit, the general rule is 2 feet per second per nautical mile altitude (sorry metric folks, NASA still uses Real Units;)
The International Space Station is currently in a 371x382 km orbit, (or about 200 nmi). That means that a vehicle deorbiting from that altitude needs to slow down by 400 feet per second.
Suppose the astronaut plus a small heat shield, space suit, and parachute weighs 250kg. Total impulse required would be 250kg multiplied by 400 feet(122 meters), or 30kilonewton-seconds. That's equivalent to 1500 "D" size model rocket engines just to reach entry interface. --
In some situations an observer can hear two sonic booms. One from the shock at the nose and one from the tail. Any protrusion in a supersonic flow will tend to generate its own shock. The 3 booms observed in that case probably came from the nose, the tail, and the OMS pods.
When a vehicle is ascending or descending rapidly the individual shocks at the nose and tail tend to be farther apart, as observed from a listener on the ground. The Shuttle is slighly more aerodynamic than a brick, and it flys as such). It's a good example of the kind of situation you need to hear multiple booms.
The Shuttle also breaks the sound barrier on the way UP, but since it's climbing rapidly and heading out over the ocean, observers in Florida don't hear anything besides the roar of the rockets. --
Pretty impressive for a jump from a balloon! In the early days of the space program there were lots of schemes to allow an astronaut to bailout from orbit. The problem there, however, is that you've got to decelerate through the atmosphere. The Encyclopedia Astronautica has some examples of orbital bailout systems.
Some of the concepts of them were nothing more than a small solid rocket to give the delta-V to come home and a small aeroshell to shield the astronaut until he got low and slow enough to use a regular parachute.
For the physics-challenged: jumping from a stationary balloon means you fall straight down. Going 1000 miles per hour through the stratosphere is not fast enough to generate dangerous heat. Coming down from low earth orbit, however, (at 17,000 miles per hour) is an entirely different thing. --
I'm writing this from Mozilla (ironic, eh?) I use it for a web browser, ONLY. I could care less if it had news, email, irc, or an http composer. Get rid of all the extra shit, please! --
Shortening the key to 56 bits made DES export compliant, because anything longer than that was classified as "munitions" under the US crypto laws.
Obviously, degrading the key like that makes it easier to break. Should you be paranoid? Duh, of course. Is it an evil conspiracy? No, just a bizarre law. --
The UK sold those enigma machines mostly to other Commonwealth countries (for instance, India). The Indians certainly suspected that Britain knew how to break enigma, but that wasn't their cheif concern. The Enigma machines allowed secure communications protected Indian secrets from countries like Pakistan. That served a purpose. Even if _some_ countries could have broken enigma, the machines were useful/ Many of the clued-in 3rd world customers figured that the Allies had a break for enigma, so they used the machines accordingly. --
CAM == Centrifuge Accomodation Module. According rev F of the official assembly sequence, it'll be on ISS flight UF-7, also known as STS-143. The current fiction places that flight on OV-104 (Atlantis) in April 2006.
CAM is the small module that will berth to Node 2's zenith port. Part of the internal volume of the CAM is a centrifuge that is big enough to hold 2 standard ISS racks.
While we normally tend to think of centrifuges as places to subject experiments to much more than 1G, the CAM in a microgravity environment can also spin slowly to create, say, 0.5G.
We already know that microgravity is bad for people. No amount of excercise and nutrition will offset all the negative effects like bone loss, muscle deterioration, or fluid imbalance. But we don't yet know if humans or other living things can get along well in a fractional gravity environment.
Collecting new data points between 0 and 1 G's will help immensely in figuring out what would happen to living things in a long term expedition to Mars or the Moon. --
I wish it wasn't so... but you're absolutely right. I've been working on the ISS program for almost 2 years now, and in that time we've come a long way, but the bureaucracy really makes sure that every penny spent is wasted to the fullest extent.
Canceling CRV means either limiting the ISS crew size to three, or buying Soyuz vehicles on a regular basis to provide a capability to return 6 crewmembers. Which do you think is cheaper: a few CRV's or a bunch of Soyuzs'? There are already concerns that three crewmembers are not adequate to assemble/run ISS and do enough science. And you can forget about 7 crew. We've got a lot invested in CRV, now is no time to stop that program.
Canceling Prop Module means more and continued dependence on Progress tankers, which are already moving to the right schedule wise. Who do you think will pay for that, and can the Russians produce enough Progress', Soyuzs' and their boosters to meet ISS needs - at any price? They are already slipping the SPP, which will result in even more propellant being needed because the SM must maintain roll control without the advantage of the moment arm the SPP would provide. We obviously need PM, and we need it to be refuelable from the Shuttle, as was the original plan. We can't afford to waste dedicated Shuttle missions to bring up fuel.
Canceling CAM kills the best potential source of useful science next to the Lab. We know that 1G is good and 0G is bad for the human body. The CAM could tell us if there is some fraction of a G that is acceptable, which will in turn tell us much about long term colonization of the Moon and Mars; and how to design future space stations and vehicles for travel through the Solar System. Presumably, there are also other benefits to having the CAM.
By the time they get done cutting these things out, just what will be left? What will it be able to accomplish?
If we're really serious about building ISS, we ought to use a tiny fraction of the budget surplus to fully fund station. That's all it would take. --
Skipjack has a different heritage than the AES candidates. Skipjack is (iirc) a 40-bit cipher meant for mobile radios, phones, laptops. It's based more on old military style shift-register stuff, rather than your typical modern civilian cyrpto. Skipjack is not intended to be super strong, nor is it intended for high volumes of traffic. For small volumes of traffic from small mobile units, Skipjack is fine.
One of the clever things about Skipjack, however, is that when Skipjack is poorly implemented, it falls right apart and is quite simple to break. When done properly, however, Skipjack makes a fine 40-bit cipher.
This particular quality is actually a good thing. The only people who are supposed to be using Skipjack devices (orignally, at least) would have had embedded devices that were known to be good. Now suppose a bad guy builds his own skipjack devices but bungles the implementation... the bad buy may think he's got secure communications, but it's actually easy to break. --
Slashdot Mirror
Puesto que el Mir es de ruso, creo que la frase correcta es "Mne khochitsa Taco Bell".
O si prefieres en lugar: "Ya khachu Taco Bell".
Left claw North! RIGHTCLAWSOUTH!!
Zubenelgeubi and Zubeneschamali, the claws of scorpion?
It does not mean that BeOS is broken. Sheesh. Software evolves, paper decomposes. Fortunately, there *is* current documentation available.
Try the current version of the BeBook (available online), or join #bedev on irc.elric.net :-)
I'm interested in hearing more about the issued you had porting Streamripper to BeOS. The link to the BeOS binary from BeBits seems to be broken. I'll cvs it and take a look at it tonight. Any major brokes, besides the panics while debugging?
, but the GUI was beyond me. all of the same code i could find wouldn't even compile. Also i got constant kernel panics when debugging threads. real shame...
Well, Be's native gui is unique. In other words: BeAPI != win32API != gtk/qt/motif/whatever. The BeBook is available online, if anyone's interested in the API. Programming for BeOS is a great way to learn C++, IMHO.
Uhmm.. it sort-of is. Check out darwinos.org, or read Apple's FAQ.
"Darwin is processor-independent and is built for PowerPC and Intel platforms, enabling Open Source developers to work on Darwin projects on the widest choice of computer systems."
When doing forensics, never trust the tools that are already installed on the compromised system. Download or bring a floppy with a known good copy of cksum(1) or something.
--
err, s/VMX/VMS/. See how obscure that stuff is? I can't even remember the name properly.
--
- a commercial *nix box where most of the common linux-centric 'sploits won't work?
- some (l)user's windows machine that gets rebooted and/or crashes all the time?
- a mac?
- some obscure legacy OS running in a factory or big business (w00t, be a VMX h4x0r)
- Jonh Doe's RedHat box running with an out-of-the-box config?
If I were a kiddie (hypthetically speaking, of course), I'd be going after a target that's easy, plentiful, and stable enough to stay online, allowing me to use it for scanning, bouncing, running b0ts, etc. Big Linux distros have new exploits uncovered and published every day. Linux is gaining popularity, too. All the new users installing it don't know jack about locking down their computers and it makes Linux a very ripe arena for the kiddies.Does this make Linux a bad operating system? No, of course not. It just means that in order to really be secure, you still have to know what you're doing.
--
They found it by analyzing photos of Mars taken from orbit around Mars. These are the same photos that NASA has, because they are photos taken by NASA spacecraft.
NIMA is able to analyze those photos with an entirely different toolset and skills. NASA may have the rocket scientists, but they don't have spooks who can read newspapers from orbit ;-)
--
NIMA, on the other hand, has the skills to pick out small objects like people and cars from satellite photos of earth. I don't see why JPL would doubt NIMA's findings. The question now is how much NIMA can talk about their findings or discuss the techiques they used without disclosing anything classified. At the very least, they should be able to say to NASA "these are the photos we used, and we believe the lander is right *there* (see, if you squint your eyes you can sorta see something...)
--
In either case, it is possible that the lander could have ended up sitting upright, more-or-less in one piece. Just because it's sitting on all 3 legs doesn't mean it is functional. It could be all smashed up from a rough landing, or covered in dirt. It might have flipped over a couple times and eventually come to rest in an upright position.
--
NIMA is DoD. The do what they want and NASA can't really say too much if they step on our toes. Fortunately in this case, NIMA's expertise payed off bigtime.
--
Use Opera.
Opera is MDI. bletch.
--
Under the rule of thumb mentioned, you wouldn't need 400 feet per second since air drag gets you once you're down to, say 50 nm.
The rule of thumb accounts for that so that your perigee will end up around 0 to 50 nautical miles. Orbital mechanics says if you make your deorbit burn at a given point, it will lower the perigee at a point 180 degrees opposite where you made the burn.
"2 feet per second per nautical mile altitude" is not meant to be exact but it does take into consideration that you don't need to lower the perigee all the way to 0 altitude. It's just a back of envelope sort of thing. I'm sure Capt. REFSMMAT would approve of it, though ;-)
how can you even think of doing something that's not 100% safe
Hehe. So frustrating. So true. "Aww come on you guys, it's not rocket science..... err....uh...actually...never mind."
--
When calculating the delta-V you need to get down from low earth orbit, the general rule is 2 feet per second per nautical mile altitude (sorry metric folks, NASA still uses Real Units ;)
The International Space Station is currently in a 371x382 km orbit, (or about 200 nmi). That means that a vehicle deorbiting from that altitude needs to slow down by 400 feet per second.
Suppose the astronaut plus a small heat shield, space suit, and parachute weighs 250kg. Total impulse required would be 250kg multiplied by 400 feet(122 meters), or 30kilonewton-seconds. That's equivalent to 1500 "D" size model rocket engines just to reach entry interface.
--
When a vehicle is ascending or descending rapidly the individual shocks at the nose and tail tend to be farther apart, as observed from a listener on the ground. The Shuttle is slighly more aerodynamic than a brick, and it flys as such). It's a good example of the kind of situation you need to hear multiple booms.
The Shuttle also breaks the sound barrier on the way UP, but since it's climbing rapidly and heading out over the ocean, observers in Florida don't hear anything besides the roar of the rockets.
--
Some of the concepts of them were nothing more than a small solid rocket to give the delta-V to come home and a small aeroshell to shield the astronaut until he got low and slow enough to use a regular parachute.
For the physics-challenged: jumping from a stationary balloon means you fall straight down. Going 1000 miles per hour through the stratosphere is not fast enough to generate dangerous heat. Coming down from low earth orbit, however, (at 17,000 miles per hour) is an entirely different thing.
--
I'm writing this from Mozilla (ironic, eh?) I use it for a web browser, ONLY. I could care less if it had news, email, irc, or an http composer. Get rid of all the extra shit, please!
--
Obviously, degrading the key like that makes it easier to break. Should you be paranoid? Duh, of course. Is it an evil conspiracy? No, just a bizarre law.
--
The UK sold those enigma machines mostly to other Commonwealth countries (for instance, India). The Indians certainly suspected that Britain knew how to break enigma, but that wasn't their cheif concern. The Enigma machines allowed secure communications protected Indian secrets from countries like Pakistan. That served a purpose. Even if _some_ countries could have broken enigma, the machines were useful/ Many of the clued-in 3rd world customers figured that the Allies had a break for enigma, so they used the machines accordingly.
--
YES: 63%
NO: 36.7%
I dunno if it would go over well at my job, but it sure would be kinda fun ;-)
--
CAM is the small module that will berth to Node 2's zenith port. Part of the internal volume of the CAM is a centrifuge that is big enough to hold 2 standard ISS racks.
While we normally tend to think of centrifuges as places to subject experiments to much more than 1G, the CAM in a microgravity environment can also spin slowly to create, say, 0.5G.
We already know that microgravity is bad for people. No amount of excercise and nutrition will offset all the negative effects like bone loss, muscle deterioration, or fluid imbalance. But we don't yet know if humans or other living things can get along well in a fractional gravity environment.
Collecting new data points between 0 and 1 G's will help immensely in figuring out what would happen to living things in a long term expedition to Mars or the Moon.
--
Canceling CRV means either limiting the ISS crew size to three, or buying Soyuz vehicles on a regular basis to provide a capability to return 6 crewmembers. Which do you think is cheaper: a few CRV's or a bunch of Soyuzs'? There are already concerns that three crewmembers are not adequate to assemble/run ISS and do enough science. And you can forget about 7 crew. We've got a lot invested in CRV, now is no time to stop that program.
Canceling Prop Module means more and continued dependence on Progress tankers, which are already moving to the right schedule wise. Who do you think will pay for that, and can the Russians produce enough Progress', Soyuzs' and their boosters to meet ISS needs - at any price? They are already slipping the SPP, which will result in even more propellant being needed because the SM must maintain roll control without the advantage of the moment arm the SPP would provide. We obviously need PM, and we need it to be refuelable from the Shuttle, as was the original plan. We can't afford to waste dedicated Shuttle missions to bring up fuel.
Canceling CAM kills the best potential source of useful science next to the Lab. We know that 1G is good and 0G is bad for the human body. The CAM could tell us if there is some fraction of a G that is acceptable, which will in turn tell us much about long term colonization of the Moon and Mars; and how to design future space stations and vehicles for travel through the Solar System. Presumably, there are also other benefits to having the CAM.
By the time they get done cutting these things out, just what will be left? What will it be able to accomplish?
If we're really serious about building ISS, we ought to use a tiny fraction of the budget surplus to fully fund station. That's all it would take.
--
wot's this, then?
"people called Romanes, they go to the 'ouse?"
--
One of the clever things about Skipjack, however, is that when Skipjack is poorly implemented, it falls right apart and is quite simple to break. When done properly, however, Skipjack makes a fine 40-bit cipher.
This particular quality is actually a good thing. The only people who are supposed to be using Skipjack devices (orignally, at least) would have had embedded devices that were known to be good. Now suppose a bad guy builds his own skipjack devices but bungles the implementation... the bad buy may think he's got secure communications, but it's actually easy to break.
--