I thought about this as well. I'm not sure they have enough radiation shielding to stay up there long-term, the cumulative damage has too high a chance of damaging something they need on re-entry.
I wonder how expensive it would be to change that in lieu of building another vehicle or perhaps build an ISS module that could act as a hangar?
BTW, very interesting answer
Slashdot network engineers (armchair and professional): do you think the answer to having a massive and unreliable network is to build a second identical network?"
Since Michael asked it like that I will leave behind my network engineer role (professional) and pick up my role as armchair mathmatician.
The item too be doubled is a network. Unreliability and massiveness are qualities of that network. So, using the distributive property of multiplication this would give us the equivalence of one network that is twice as large and twice as unreliable as the original.
so they're going to have to come up with something different in the meantime, or the ISS isn't going to fulfil anywhere near it's potential for research.
Aside from cost does anyone know why we don't leave say . . . Endeavour up there? Pretty simple, two simultaneous shuttle missions one debarks their plane and boards the other to go home. It may need another airlock but we could do that easier than the new spacecraft, and the shuttle adds habitable productive space along with the capability for altitude adjustments etc...
Russia seems to be more concerned with sending tourists to space than contributing funds to the further the space station. I guess NASA was just helping them construct a Motel 6.
Nice criticism. Now, take a moment to think about it. The russians can not economically support their space program, so they fly VERY rich people to space to defray their costs. Our space agency is now becoming strapped for cash so NASA GIVES UP and mothballs the ISS.
Think of it this way: would you ever leave your workstation, your baby, to be used by your computer illiterate aunt while you were going on a summer vacation?
Yes, I would confidently leave my tightly administered Linux box for my comp. Illiterate aunt. I hope the ISS is not as fickle as your workstation is.
Of a Nasa project I worked on in the 60s. It is basically a filter for telescope lenses, which adds spacecraft to any celestial bodies you point it at. I did that when I worked at a Nasa base called "Lunar Landing" out in the desert in Arizona.
I think the date was April 1st 1969
First comment: Any Windows variant by default with the exclusion of a network management
With the exclusion of a network management. I can not possibly grok the substance of that sentence. If you mean that only the network management aspects of Windows requires skill, well that maybe. However, as an MIS manager that is the only aspect I truly care about anyway. I support three "nix" OSs (not any IXs ???) on my network and have a wan link with cisco routers. Bearing that any mind anyone who gives me a resume that reads like a 'nix' (or any other) fanatic to the exclusion of all else would not get the time of day from me. I am guessing from the "wow look how well I use echo" thing that you are a PC tech looking to get into the actual IT field and "any self respecting IT (IT what, finish your sentences please).
I do a lot of Unix admin and Perl script etc... But business requires well rounded IT staff not some snot nosed Linux (or NT) fanatic.
IMO, WIN2000 was MS first good OS (well, not good really, but acceptable).
Technically, you are absolutely right. However, from a business point of view you need the OS which MS will continue to support and that is XP. XP does not live up to Win2K but it trounces 9x hands down and that is a start.
Not necessarily, there is something to be said for being a generalist. A specialist often will fall to the "everything looks like a nail" syndrome, because they only know how to solve problems one way.
True.
As you progress up the chain in MIS you get to a level where you are expected to understand business. Not just that you know that you need to bring in more than you spend but REALLY understand business. Take an accounting course or two, a couple business management courses etc... Of all the hammers I own this one did the most for my income.
Tragically, it looks like the only OS you'll need to know is Window$
Not at all true. As an IT manager in my shop (which is fairly typical) we have a lot of 98 desktops but the new ones all have XP (MS first good OS IMO) this OS is very different from 9X series so get a little familiar with it. We also use Unix (AIX and Unixware) as well as Linux. Most other MIS guys I talk to have similar content though maybe different flavors.
Throw some military sysadmins to a court-martial for dereliction of duty!
Great precedent to set, I bet you are not a sys-admin at a site worthy of 'hacker' note.
If this fellow had been a professional (earning money from these hacks), then he'd be living in a secret compound provided by his employers in Iraq/Korea/China.
That is true the third world would definitely want to utilize its' native talent, local technology and definitely local bandwidth. There could be no reason for them to recruit an American/European CS student at a 21st century University. Likewise they would be hard pressed to find such a student who needed money.
Oops, I forgot to say... NOT!
The article was vague. Maybe he made a mistake and gave the investigators something that identified him.
Probably used the oldest trick in the book on him. They added an address field to/etc/passwd so when he added his back door account he put his name and address down. I don't know about you, but that gets me every time.
You know: shorter voyages, less diesel burned, less pollution, falling amounts of carbon in the air, colder climate, northwest passage not navigable, longer voyages, more diesel burned, more pollution, rising amounts....
The other upside is that only the strong will survive....Come on listen to this "The upside to global warming" There is no upside that will balance out recklessly changing the climate. That study was probably personally financed by Dick Cheney, and now our president will use it to show why emissions controls are unconstitutional barriers of industry.
I believe that the greatest threat to the environment is over-population. While many do not agree with this, I believe that this may be the key to living in a sustainable and habitable planet for the next 10,000 ro 100,000,000 years.
What do Slashdotters think?
This is a problem without solution. China has had legislation regarding population growth for a long time and look at their population as an example. Yes, overpopulation is a problem. However, the symptoms of the problem must be dealt with in a way that does not affect the problem. We will continue to grow rapidly (probably exponentially) as a population. So something else must be done.
We couldn't do anything to this planet if we wanted to short of using massive amounts of nuclear weapons, and even if we blew ourselves to hell with all the nukes we have it wouldn't mean jack shit it 10,000 years.
The point of environmental laws isn't that we think that we are going to 'destroy' earth it is that we think we will destroy our ecosystem. The ecosystem is actually very frail and many extinctions have been tied to minor changes in the ecosystem. Wether or not the planet is here in 10,000 years is an irrelevent point in terms of how we make environmental decisions.
Actually, I doubt you know what THE conspiracy is. Here is a fact that ONLY I know (it is a fact):
The Arizona Desert DOES NOT exist!!
Many people were on the moon in the late 60s and early 70s. Those people were there to film scenes of a "community" living in the desert of Arizona.
These films routinely show up as proof that Arizona is "inhabited" Like that would really happen.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought about this as well. I'm not sure they have enough radiation shielding to stay up there long-term, the cumulative damage has too high a chance of damaging something they need on re-entry.
I wonder how expensive it would be to change that in lieu of building another vehicle or perhaps build an ISS module that could act as a hangar?
BTW, very interesting answer
Slashdot network engineers (armchair and professional): do you think the answer to having a massive and unreliable network is to build a second identical network?"
Since Michael asked it like that I will leave behind my network engineer role (professional) and pick up my role as armchair mathmatician.
The item too be doubled is a network. Unreliability and massiveness are qualities of that network. So, using the distributive property of multiplication this would give us the equivalence of one network that is twice as large and twice as unreliable as the original.
so they're going to have to come up with something different in the meantime, or the ISS isn't going to fulfil anywhere near it's potential for research.
Aside from cost does anyone know why we don't leave say . . . Endeavour up there? Pretty simple, two simultaneous shuttle missions one debarks their plane and boards the other to go home. It may need another airlock but we could do that easier than the new spacecraft, and the shuttle adds habitable productive space along with the capability for altitude adjustments etc...
Russia seems to be more concerned with sending tourists to space than contributing funds to the further the space station. I guess NASA was just helping them construct a Motel 6.
Nice criticism. Now, take a moment to think about it. The russians can not economically support their space program, so they fly VERY rich people to space to defray their costs. Our space agency is now becoming strapped for cash so NASA GIVES UP and mothballs the ISS.
The russians win this space race IMO
Think of it this way: would you ever leave your workstation, your baby, to be used by your computer illiterate aunt while you were going on a summer vacation?
Yes, I would confidently leave my tightly administered Linux box for my comp. Illiterate aunt. I hope the ISS is not as fickle as your workstation is.
In other news, an invading alien race has left us for health reasons. Apparently we are the descendants of their common cold.
Of a Nasa project I worked on in the 60s. It is basically a filter for telescope lenses, which adds spacecraft to any celestial bodies you point it at. I did that when I worked at a Nasa base called "Lunar Landing" out in the desert in Arizona.
I think the date was April 1st 1969
Just be prepaired for the worst voice recognition program ever....
/.ing it probably doesn't help
Plus, as he said, his kids need them to type stuff.
I bet his 3 yr. old needs to type a lot.
or you want to do something crazy with embedded bodyparts? Well it's not in the scope
:-(
The fun stuff is never in the scope
Because the first step to solving any problem is always to create more problems.
Quantity isn't everything. MORE AND BETTER problems!!
First comment: Any Windows variant by default with the exclusion of a network management
With the exclusion of a network management. I can not possibly grok the substance of that sentence. If you mean that only the network management aspects of Windows requires skill, well that maybe. However, as an MIS manager that is the only aspect I truly care about anyway. I support three "nix" OSs (not any IXs ???) on my network and have a wan link with cisco routers. Bearing that any mind anyone who gives me a resume that reads like a 'nix' (or any other) fanatic to the exclusion of all else would not get the time of day from me. I am guessing from the "wow look how well I use echo" thing that you are a PC tech looking to get into the actual IT field and "any self respecting IT (IT what, finish your sentences please).
I do a lot of Unix admin and Perl script etc... But business requires well rounded IT staff not some snot nosed Linux (or NT) fanatic.
IMO, WIN2000 was MS first good OS (well, not good really, but acceptable).
Technically, you are absolutely right. However, from a business point of view you need the OS which MS will continue to support and that is XP. XP does not live up to Win2K but it trounces 9x hands down and that is a start.
Not necessarily, there is something to be said for being a generalist. A specialist often will fall to the "everything looks like a nail" syndrome, because they only know how to solve problems one way.
True.
As you progress up the chain in MIS you get to a level where you are expected to understand business. Not just that you know that you need to bring in more than you spend but REALLY understand business. Take an accounting course or two, a couple business management courses etc... Of all the hammers I own this one did the most for my income.
Tragically, it looks like the only OS you'll need to know is Window$
Not at all true. As an IT manager in my shop (which is fairly typical) we have a lot of 98 desktops but the new ones all have XP (MS first good OS IMO) this OS is very different from 9X series so get a little familiar with it. We also use Unix (AIX and Unixware) as well as Linux. Most other MIS guys I talk to have similar content though maybe different flavors.
People who liked: Teach yourself open heart surgery in 24 hours
Also liked: Teach yourself malpractice litigation in 24 hours
I'm sure its not nearly as comprehensive as this [bhami.com] UNIX rosetta stone.
I hope it is. I used the Rosetta stone when I was first learning AIX. I bumped into a number of discrepancies and omissions.
Throw some military sysadmins to a court-martial for dereliction of duty! ... NOT!
Great precedent to set, I bet you are not a sys-admin at a site worthy of 'hacker' note.
If this fellow had been a professional (earning money from these hacks), then he'd be living in a secret compound provided by his employers in Iraq/Korea/China.
That is true the third world would definitely want to utilize its' native talent, local technology and definitely local bandwidth. There could be no reason for them to recruit an American/European CS student at a 21st century University. Likewise they would be hard pressed to find such a student who needed money. Oops, I forgot to say
The article was vague. Maybe he made a mistake and gave the investigators something that identified him.
/etc/passwd so when he added his back door account he put his name and address down. I don't know about you, but that gets me every time.
Probably used the oldest trick in the book on him. They added an address field to
Does that come with a 401k plan and a good dental plan? It still probably has a better retirement plan than Enron :P
Best 401K around, you invest all the 'half cents' that are left over from other transactions.
Over-restrictive laws trying to slow earth's natural processes down do nothing but hurt our economies.
Thanks George! What school did you study ecology at?
You know: shorter voyages, less diesel burned, less pollution, falling amounts of carbon in the air, colder climate, northwest passage not navigable, longer voyages, more diesel burned, more pollution, rising amounts....
The other upside is that only the strong will survive....Come on listen to this "The upside to global warming" There is no upside that will balance out recklessly changing the climate. That study was probably personally financed by Dick Cheney, and now our president will use it to show why emissions controls are unconstitutional barriers of industry.
I believe that the greatest threat to the environment is over-population. While many do not agree with this, I believe that this may be the key to living in a sustainable and habitable planet for the next 10,000 ro 100,000,000 years.
What do Slashdotters think? This is a problem without solution. China has had legislation regarding population growth for a long time and look at their population as an example. Yes, overpopulation is a problem. However, the symptoms of the problem must be dealt with in a way that does not affect the problem. We will continue to grow rapidly (probably exponentially) as a population. So something else must be done.
We couldn't do anything to this planet if we wanted to short of using massive amounts of nuclear weapons, and even if we blew ourselves to hell with all the nukes we have it wouldn't mean jack shit it 10,000 years.
The point of environmental laws isn't that we think that we are going to 'destroy' earth it is that we think we will destroy our ecosystem. The ecosystem is actually very frail and many extinctions have been tied to minor changes in the ecosystem. Wether or not the planet is here in 10,000 years is an irrelevent point in terms of how we make environmental decisions.
This "proves" the conspiracy!!!
Actually, I doubt you know what THE conspiracy is. Here is a fact that ONLY I know (it is a fact):
The Arizona Desert DOES NOT exist!!
Many people were on the moon in the late 60s and early 70s. Those people were there to film scenes of a "community" living in the desert of Arizona.
These films routinely show up as proof that Arizona is "inhabited" Like that would really happen.