Ironic that this asking MS to remove barriers to see the source code is coming from a country that built the biggest wall in order to keep from sharing their own "source code" (albeit ~2200 years ago)
So from what I have read from most others' posts, there are two camps:
Use several packages depending upon application... i.e. Mathematica for symbolic math (what it is good at) and Matlab for numerical matrix math
Matlab is good but expensive
While I agree with #2, it does not really seem to answer the question. The question is:
"Do researchers use only one or two packages for most of their projects?"
I think the result for the most part is for mathematical calcs, the people that answered the question say most people use different programs for different goals.
Things to think about when you are trying to pick a language:
How big will this get? Are we talking about 100's or 1000's of lines of code? This may filter out some languages.
Is this a simulation/calculation that you will be running over and over? This will help decide on efficiency of the language (especially on big projects).
Will others be using this code? If this becomes a group project or used by a bunch of people, maybe doing it in a common language will help.
If large calculations are necessary, ARE MULTIPLE PROCESSORS NECESSARY? This is a big question for larger code. Certain languages (Matlab to name one) don't naitively support SMP, while other packages (IDL to name one) do.
These are likely to be very similar questions a computer programer asks him/herself when they are starting a new project. Okay, this post really doesn't say anything, but one last note for the major commercial packages: most of them support C/fortran/etc calls so if you are truely interested in efficiency, remember coding efficiency matters too. I am finishing up my Ph.D. Years ago, when I starting simulations for my work, I started working in C. I figured "if I am going to be working on something for X years, I may as well do it right!" While a noble goal, I really didn't know C. I subsequently spent a week trying to do something that took me roughly 2 hours to accomplish the same thing in Matlab (another language that I had no experience in).
So what is the moral of the story?
run... run as fast as you can and don't look back.
In an interesting spin on the story [arabnews.com], it turns out the US is trying to create a "death star" in space. I suppose it is another "real-life follows hollywood" thing.
Text of above link is as follows:
---
Israeli, US astronauts die in shuttle blast over Palestine
By Barbara Ferguson, Arab News Staff
WASHINGTON, 2 February 2003
All seven crew of the American space shuttle Columbia, including the first ever Israeli astronaut, were killed yesterday when the craft disintegrated in flames just minutes before it was scheduled to land.
In a tragic irony, the Columbia exploded with its Israeli astronaut on board over a city named Palestine in the state of Texas.
The cause of the disaster was not immediately clear, but residents in north Texas heard a loud boom as Columbia passed overhead.
"I could see two bright objects flying off each side of it," said Gary Hunziker. "I just assumed they were chase jets."
Another, John Ferolito, heard a noise "like a sonic boom" as Columbia went over Dallas.
Television footage showed a bright light followed by smoke plumes streaking through the sky. Debris appeared to break off into balls of light as it continued downward. Residents of Nacogdoches, Texas, found bits of metal strewn across the city.
Officials in Washington said there was no indication of terrorism. The disaster, said the National Aeronautical and Space Administration, occurred when the craft was flying at 12,500mph, at a height of 203,000ft, far too high for any ground-to-air missile.
Investigations of technical malfunction may first center on the fact that a piece of insulating foam on the craft's external fuel tank came off shortly after lift-off on Jan. 16.
Whatever the cause, the accident dealt a powerful shock to American confidence and throws into doubt the entire manned space program.
But President George W. Bush vowed the space program would continue. "The cause in which they died will continue," he said. "Our journey into space will go on."
Bush raced back to the White House from the Camp David presidential retreat in response to the tragedy. Earlier, he spoke to the families of the astronauts.
On board Columbia were six Americans and Israel's first astronaut, Ilan Ramon, a former air force colonel. The commander of the shuttle was Rick Husband, 45, an Air Force colonel from Amarillo, Texas, who was selected as an astronaut in 1994 on his fourth try. Among his crew were William McCool, 41, a navy commander from Lubbock, Texas, and father of three sons; Kalpana Chawla, 41, one of the two women on the flight, who emigrated to the US from India in the 1980s and became an astronaut in 1994; and Laurel Clark, 41, the flight surgeon, who became an astronaut in 1996 and who has an eight-year-old son.
The mission was the 113th flight in the shuttle program?s 22 years and the 28th flight for Columbia, NASA's oldest shuttle. The disaster came 17 years, almost exactly to the day, after the shuttle Challenger exploded shortly after lift-off, killing all seven of its crew. In 42 years of human space flight, NASA has never lost a space crew during landing or the ride back to orbit.
As the Columbia's crew prepared for re-entry, astronaut David Brown joked with mission control: "Do we really have to come back?" As the rising sun burned off the early morning fog the controllers in Houston gave the seven astronauts clearance to begin the run for home. "I guess you've been wondering," they radioed Columbia, "but you are now to go for the de-orbit burn." Those words marked the beginning of the descent to doom.
"Once again we see that space technology can fail," Bruce Gagnon, international coordinator for the Global Network against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, told Arab News last night. "I'm troubled because the Bush Administration has recently announced a program called the 'Nuclear Systems Initiative', a $1 billion research and development program to expand the launching of nuclear power into space. The problem is that as you increase the numbers of launches carrying nuclear payloads into space, but you are also going to dramatically increase the chances of a catastrophic Chernobyl in the sky."
Asked why NASA was advising extreme precaution at the crash sites, Gagnon said: "We haven't heard that there was a nuclear payload on this shuttle, but one of the great hallmarks of the Bush administration is increased secrecy. I must admit that when NASA said no one should go near a site because of the toxic potential of the fuels and 'other reasons,' I couldn't help but wonder what those reasons are."
Due to cuts in NASA's budget in recent years, NASA has been forced to turn to the Pentagon for increased funding, said Gagnon. The result is that the space shuttles are now also NASA missions and carry both military and civilian technologies.
"What you have now is the military takeover of the space program. NASA is not just about gazing at the stars, it now also has a political and military agenda." What is of concern, he said, is that the Pentagon in now working on a program called the "Space Based Laser." "Its nickname is the 'Death Star,' and its job is to destroy other country's satellites, and also hit targets on the Earth below. NASA hopes to have the first operational tests by 2016 or 2017," Gagnon explained.
"This would give the US full control and domination of space and the earth below, because whoever controls space will control the Earth." (Additional reporting by David Randall of The Independent in New York)
In an interesting spin on the story, it turns out the US is trying to create a "death star" in space. I suppose it is another "real-life follows hollywood" thing.
Text of above link is as follows
Israeli, US astronauts die in shuttle blast over Palestine
By Barbara Ferguson, Arab News Staff
WASHINGTON, 2 February 2003
All seven crew of the American space shuttle Columbia, including the first ever Israeli astronaut, were killed yesterday when the craft disintegrated in flames just minutes before it was scheduled to land.
In a tragic irony, the Columbia exploded with its Israeli astronaut on board over a city named Palestine in the state of Texas.
The cause of the disaster was not immediately clear, but residents in north Texas heard a loud boom as Columbia passed overhead.
"I could see two bright objects flying off each side of it," said Gary Hunziker. "I just assumed they were chase jets."
Another, John Ferolito, heard a noise "like a sonic boom" as Columbia went over Dallas.
Television footage showed a bright light followed by smoke plumes streaking through the sky. Debris appeared to break off into balls of light as it continued downward. Residents of Nacogdoches, Texas, found bits of metal strewn across the city.
Officials in Washington said there was no indication of terrorism. The disaster, said the National Aeronautical and Space Administration, occurred when the craft was flying at 12,500mph, at a height of 203,000ft, far too high for any ground-to-air missile.
Investigations of technical malfunction may first center on the fact that a piece of insulating foam on the craft's external fuel tank came off shortly after lift-off on Jan. 16.
Whatever the cause, the accident dealt a powerful shock to American confidence and throws into doubt the entire manned space program.
But President George W. Bush vowed the space program would continue. "The cause in which they died will continue," he said. "Our journey into space will go on."
Bush raced back to the White House from the Camp David presidential retreat in response to the tragedy. Earlier, he spoke to the families of the astronauts.
On board Columbia were six Americans and Israel's first astronaut, Ilan Ramon, a former air force colonel. The commander of the shuttle was Rick Husband, 45, an Air Force colonel from Amarillo, Texas, who was selected as an astronaut in 1994 on his fourth try. Among his crew were William McCool, 41, a navy commander from Lubbock, Texas, and father of three sons; Kalpana Chawla, 41, one of the two women on the flight, who emigrated to the US from India in the 1980s and became an astronaut in 1994; and Laurel Clark, 41, the flight surgeon, who became an astronaut in 1996 and who has an eight-year-old son.
The mission was the 113th flight in the shuttle program's 22 years and the 28th flight for Columbia, NASA's oldest shuttle. The disaster came 17 years, almost exactly to the day, after the shuttle Challenger exploded shortly after lift-off, killing all seven of its crew. In 42 years of human space flight, NASA has never lost a space crew during landing or the ride back to orbit.
As the Columbia's crew prepared for re-entry, astronaut David Brown joked with mission control: "Do we really have to come back?" As the rising sun burned off the early morning fog the controllers in Houston gave the seven astronauts clearance to begin the run for home. "I guess you've been wondering," they radioed Columbia, "but you are now to go for the de-orbit burn." Those words marked the beginning of the descent to doom.
"Once again we see that space technology can fail," Bruce Gagnon, international coordinator for the Global Network against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, told Arab News last night. "I'm troubled because the Bush Administration has recently announced a program called the 'Nuclear Systems Initiative', a $1 billion research and development program to expand the launching of nuclear power into space. The problem is that as you increase the numbers of launches carrying nuclear payloads into space, but you are also going to dramatically increase the chances of a catastrophic Chernobyl in the sky."
Asked why NASA was advising extreme precaution at the crash sites, Gagnon said: "We haven't heard that there was a nuclear payload on this shuttle, but one of the great hallmarks of the Bush administration is increased secrecy. I must admit that when NASA said no one should go near a site because of the toxic potential of the fuels and 'other reasons,' I couldn't help but wonder what those reasons are."
Due to cuts in NASA's budget in recent years, NASA has been forced to turn to the Pentagon for increased funding, said Gagnon. The result is that the space shuttles are now also NASA missions and carry both military and civilian technologies.
"What you have now is the military takeover of the space program. NASA is not just about gazing at the stars, it now also has a political and military agenda." What is of concern, he said, is that the Pentagon in now working on a program called the "Space Based Laser." "Its nickname is the 'Death Star,' and its job is to destroy other country's satellites, and also hit targets on the Earth below. NASA hopes to have the first operational tests by 2016 or 2017," Gagnon explained.
"This would give the US full control and domination of space and the earth below, because whoever controls space will control the Earth." (Additional reporting by David Randall of The Independent in New York)
certainly some of tme can be reused (H20 as you and others correctly stated for example). But here are typical applications of different chemicals:
H20: the vast majority of this is used in cleaning baths. It is always deionized water and ususally is operated in a "flow-through" manner such that there is a big tank where they put wafers and water flows into and out of this tank. 32 Kg of water likely accounts for the fact that these baths are probably kept on (because water is cheap) while wafers are not in there. The other use for this is to create steam, which when exposed to Silicon, creates silicon-dioxide (SiO2) which is typically used as an insulator.
N2: Okay, this is probably not reused primarily because of the manner it is used. Typically the N2 is used like a hose to dry off wafers (like a gun). This N2 typically is simply added to the 80-some percent of N2 in the ambient air. N2 is used in lesser quantities for replacing bad gasses in vacuum chambers (known as "flushing"), but the fact that this "pure" N2 is mixed with other "bad" gasses, it is probably difficult to use without large amounts of purification. Finally, production facilities probably use this in their storage area (wafer storage) as to avoid unwanted oxides growing on the surface (see below).
As: this is really bad (as most of you kiddies know) and is used in doping the Si to make it more conductive, etc (along with other chemicals). This is one of the gasses that N2 is used to flush out of the vacuum system.
HF: This is (afaik) the primary technique (as outlined in the RCA cleaning process to remove native oxides on the surface of the Si. As stated above, when Si comes in contact with water vapor (rich in oxygen), it forms SiO2. Well when Si comes in contact with O2 in ambient air (at a lower concentration), it will also create thinner films of SiO2, and this needs to be removed with something, which HF works very well for. This is typically neutralized and disposed of.
I am inclined to believe that most of the chemicals are not reused, at least in the traditional sense. H2O is cleaned and returned to the ocean, and N2 is cleaned (through air-handling systems) and returned to the atmosphere, but many of these chemicals probably are neutralized (read "made somewhat safe") and disposed of in your local land-fill, or into your local air.
This is the product name I propose. And on the "discovery from elementary school" department, the article offers some hints:
"...a University of Maryland agricultural scientist who oversaw tests of an earlier prototype at the Salisbury campus..."
I always wondered what "salisbury steak" was when I would get a plate full of the stuff in elementary school.
Re:Is this UWB? Are they confusing light with all
on
Optical Cellphones
·
· Score: 1
Though it sounds like you know this, maybe it should be clarified for other people...
the optical spactrum is a (small) part of a much larger range of frequencies, making up the electro-magnetic spectrum
Having said this, there is no reason that something that you can do in the radio frequencies can't be done in the optical spectrum. Materials (buildings, glass, etc) will react differently to the different frequencies but if this is not a limitation, there really is no reason not to move to shorter wavelengths (higher frequencies) as the band-width is somehow controled by the frequency (beyond the scope of this post)
Additionally, it should be noted the article makes no reference to lasers (or "lazers" to some of you). Hence, flashing a light on and off would almost satisfy this criteria. How about your TV remote? How does this talk with your TV? If you answered "Infra-red radiation", you get a happy-face sticker. In most peoples books, the IR spectrum is still included in the "optical spectrum" even though you can't see it (1.5um wavelength lasers are used almost exclusively in optical fiber communication, which is roughly double the wavelength we can see with our eye).
"because most of us couldn't go without movies/music forever"
Well from time to time, I become an idealist. I think that the "couldn't" above really should be "choose not to". There are several notable (but false) exceptions:
"I have kids that I can't keep from watching teletubbies/power rangers/etc as well as buy them associated toys"
I can imagine that childrens' influence (whining) can be quite prolific, if they whined "Come ON pops... I WANT to take crack", I can't imagine you would succumb very easily.
"I have to as part of my job because I am in the entertainment industry"
I guess this is somewhat legitimate, though it seems to me that your choice of careers is indeed a "choice" and if you are characterizing this career with "Cartel" maybe you have chosen the wrong career.
"Every time I drive to work, I see billboards pitching the latest and greatest stuff to me. I can't avoid seeing these"
But you can avoid buying them.
"Every time I turn on the TV, I see ads pitching the latest and greatest stuff to me. I can't avoid seeing these"
But you can avoid buying them. And I guess it should be somewhat obvious, but you can avoid watching TV
"But what about the MS-tax?"
While somewhat difficult to avoid, it is possible through Dell and Walmart to name some major ones.
While I agree with wunderhorn1's assessment of the intent of the lessig challenge, Giving matching funds given to the "bad guys" and giving them to the "good guys" is a good start, it results in the "good guys" with a net income much smaller than the "bad guys" (based on the number of software-conscious people)
Re:Hmmm..I'll bet they needed this to figure out..
on
Coolest Cluster Ever
·
· Score: 1
\begin{rumor} I actually heard that when a section of los-alamos became contaminated beyond "healthy" doses, they level it and build a public park and/or a hotel. The thinking is that people spending only a few hours are not at risk. I guess no one has thought about the hotel employees... \end{rumor}
We all know that kids rebel against the things that earlier generations try to force on them. For instance, my parents religiously gave be powdered milk, and now I refuse to buy it.
I think possibly the best solution is to encourage people to use Windows in grade school (especially during adolescence). Maybe then they will grow up hating it, and search for something better (like possible... uhh... linux?).
For a review on the fanless heatsinks (including the zalman stuff), check this out.
Otherwise, just go to this review which was referred to a few days ago in this slashdot post
"At the top of the root server hierarchy is the "A" root server, which every 12 hours generates a critical file"
Come on people... I don't understand how a group of techno-nerds and geek scientists can come up with such a lame name for waht seems to be the most important computer to the internet! For goodness sakes, even slashdotters can come up with some Does clever naming schemes.
For this, UUNET or Verisign, or someone should be taken out back and beaten.
"We do not anticipate offering software on Linux. Nobody pays for software on Linux."
-S. Balmer
\end{quote}
Wait a minute. You mean the money I spent on Crossover as well as the money I shelled out on the Linux version (actually the student Linux/windows version) of Matlab was not for Linux software? While I suppose the Crossover was actually in the end for MS software, I wasn't paying for MSOffice, I was paying for the ease of compatibility (without much technical knowledge on my behalf).
In fact, Crossover may be an example that at least some of us are willing to pay for something we would scoff at on a windows system. Yes, in most cases there are free alternatives to software available on Linux today, but some of use are willing to pay for a better quality product if it is just that... better.
As for Microsoft trying to make their product more valuable so that people will choose to pay for it, as opposed to electing to partake in a free operating system with more free software... well that is exactly what they are supposed to do. However, they have relied on being the "only" (read to mean the "primary") operating system in use, and therefore could charge a price that may not necessarily reflect the quality of product they put out.
And finally, this deserves the "I'll believe it when I see it" clause, because we have all heard songs like this come from Microsoft in the past.
Quantum Cryptography may not be "the place to start" but it is free, and you are cheap: http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/presk ill/ph22 9/#describe
Slashdot Mirror
Ironic that this asking MS to remove barriers to see the source code is coming from a country that built the biggest wall in order to keep from sharing their own "source code" (albeit ~2200 years ago)
So from what I have read from most others' posts, there are two camps:
While I agree with #2, it does not really seem to answer the question. The question is: "Do researchers use only one or two packages for most of their projects?" I think the result for the most part is for mathematical calcs, the people that answered the question say most people use different programs for different goals.
Things to think about when you are trying to pick a language:
These are likely to be very similar questions a computer programer asks him/herself when they are starting a new project. Okay, this post really doesn't say anything, but one last note for the major commercial packages: most of them support C/fortran/etc calls so if you are truely interested in efficiency, remember coding efficiency matters too. I am finishing up my Ph.D. Years ago, when I starting simulations for my work, I started working in C. I figured "if I am going to be working on something for X years, I may as well do it right!" While a noble goal, I really didn't know C. I subsequently spent a week trying to do something that took me roughly 2 hours to accomplish the same thing in Matlab (another language that I had no experience in).
So what is the moral of the story?
run... run as fast as you can and don't look back.
A study last year indicated that FOXP2 evolved "some time between last Tuesday and 200,000 years ago"
no... really.
In an interesting spin on the story [arabnews.com], it turns out the US is trying to create a "death star" in space. I suppose it is another "real-life follows hollywood" thing.
Text of above link is as follows:
---
Israeli, US astronauts die in shuttle blast over Palestine
By Barbara Ferguson, Arab News Staff
WASHINGTON, 2 February 2003
All seven crew of the American space shuttle Columbia, including the first ever Israeli astronaut, were killed yesterday when the craft disintegrated in flames just minutes before it was scheduled to land.
In a tragic irony, the Columbia exploded with its Israeli astronaut on board over a city named Palestine in the state of Texas.
The cause of the disaster was not immediately clear, but residents in north Texas heard a loud boom as Columbia passed overhead.
"I could see two bright objects flying off each side of it," said Gary Hunziker. "I just assumed they were chase jets."
Another, John Ferolito, heard a noise "like a sonic boom" as Columbia went over Dallas.
Television footage showed a bright light followed by smoke plumes streaking through the sky. Debris appeared to break off into balls of light as it continued downward. Residents of Nacogdoches, Texas, found bits of metal strewn across the city.
Officials in Washington said there was no indication of terrorism. The disaster, said the National Aeronautical and Space Administration, occurred when the craft was flying at 12,500mph, at a height of 203,000ft, far too high for any ground-to-air missile.
Investigations of technical malfunction may first center on the fact that a piece of insulating foam on the craft's external fuel tank came off shortly after lift-off on Jan. 16.
Whatever the cause, the accident dealt a powerful shock to American confidence and throws into doubt the entire manned space program.
But President George W. Bush vowed the space program would continue. "The cause in which they died will continue," he said. "Our journey into space will go on."
Bush raced back to the White House from the Camp David presidential retreat in response to the tragedy. Earlier, he spoke to the families of the astronauts.
On board Columbia were six Americans and Israel's first astronaut, Ilan Ramon, a former air force colonel. The commander of the shuttle was Rick Husband, 45, an Air Force colonel from Amarillo, Texas, who was selected as an astronaut in 1994 on his fourth try. Among his crew were William McCool, 41, a navy commander from Lubbock, Texas, and father of three sons; Kalpana Chawla, 41, one of the two women on the flight, who emigrated to the US from India in the 1980s and became an astronaut in 1994; and Laurel Clark, 41, the flight surgeon, who became an astronaut in 1996 and who has an eight-year-old son.
The mission was the 113th flight in the shuttle program?s 22 years and the 28th flight for Columbia, NASA's oldest shuttle. The disaster came 17 years, almost exactly to the day, after the shuttle Challenger exploded shortly after lift-off, killing all seven of its crew. In 42 years of human space flight, NASA has never lost a space crew during landing or the ride back to orbit.
As the Columbia's crew prepared for re-entry, astronaut David Brown joked with mission control: "Do we really have to come back?" As the rising sun burned off the early morning fog the controllers in Houston gave the seven astronauts clearance to begin the run for home. "I guess you've been wondering," they radioed Columbia, "but you are now to go for the de-orbit burn." Those words marked the beginning of the descent to doom.
"Once again we see that space technology can fail," Bruce Gagnon, international coordinator for the Global Network against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, told Arab News last night. "I'm troubled because the Bush Administration has recently announced a program called the 'Nuclear Systems Initiative', a $1 billion research and development program to expand the launching of nuclear power into space. The problem is that as you increase the numbers of launches carrying nuclear payloads into space, but you are also going to dramatically increase the chances of a catastrophic Chernobyl in the sky."
Asked why NASA was advising extreme precaution at the crash sites, Gagnon said: "We haven't heard that there was a nuclear payload on this shuttle, but one of the great hallmarks of the Bush administration is increased secrecy. I must admit that when NASA said no one should go near a site because of the toxic potential of the fuels and 'other reasons,' I couldn't help but wonder what those reasons are."
Due to cuts in NASA's budget in recent years, NASA has been forced to turn to the Pentagon for increased funding, said Gagnon. The result is that the space shuttles are now also NASA missions and carry both military and civilian technologies. "What you have now is the military takeover of the space program. NASA is not just about gazing at the stars, it now also has a political and military agenda." What is of concern, he said, is that the Pentagon in now working on a program called the "Space Based Laser." "Its nickname is the 'Death Star,' and its job is to destroy other country's satellites, and also hit targets on the Earth below. NASA hopes to have the first operational tests by 2016 or 2017," Gagnon explained.
"This would give the US full control and domination of space and the earth below, because whoever controls space will control the Earth." (Additional reporting by David Randall of The Independent in New York)
In an interesting spin on the story, it turns out the US is trying to create a "death star" in space. I suppose it is another "real-life follows hollywood" thing.
Text of above link is as follows
Israeli, US astronauts die in shuttle blast over Palestine
By Barbara Ferguson, Arab News Staff
WASHINGTON, 2 February 2003
All seven crew of the American space shuttle Columbia, including the first ever Israeli astronaut, were killed yesterday when the craft disintegrated in flames just minutes before it was scheduled to land.
In a tragic irony, the Columbia exploded with its Israeli astronaut on board over a city named Palestine in the state of Texas.
The cause of the disaster was not immediately clear, but residents in north Texas heard a loud boom as Columbia passed overhead.
"I could see two bright objects flying off each side of it," said Gary Hunziker. "I just assumed they were chase jets."
Another, John Ferolito, heard a noise "like a sonic boom" as Columbia went over Dallas.
Television footage showed a bright light followed by smoke plumes streaking through the sky. Debris appeared to break off into balls of light as it continued downward. Residents of Nacogdoches, Texas, found bits of metal strewn across the city.
Officials in Washington said there was no indication of terrorism. The disaster, said the National Aeronautical and Space Administration, occurred when the craft was flying at 12,500mph, at a height of 203,000ft, far too high for any ground-to-air missile.
Investigations of technical malfunction may first center on the fact that a piece of insulating foam on the craft's external fuel tank came off shortly after lift-off on Jan. 16.
Whatever the cause, the accident dealt a powerful shock to American confidence and throws into doubt the entire manned space program.
But President George W. Bush vowed the space program would continue. "The cause in which they died will continue," he said. "Our journey into space will go on."
Bush raced back to the White House from the Camp David presidential retreat in response to the tragedy. Earlier, he spoke to the families of the astronauts.
On board Columbia were six Americans and Israel's first astronaut, Ilan Ramon, a former air force colonel. The commander of the shuttle was Rick Husband, 45, an Air Force colonel from Amarillo, Texas, who was selected as an astronaut in 1994 on his fourth try. Among his crew were William McCool, 41, a navy commander from Lubbock, Texas, and father of three sons; Kalpana Chawla, 41, one of the two women on the flight, who emigrated to the US from India in the 1980s and became an astronaut in 1994; and Laurel Clark, 41, the flight surgeon, who became an astronaut in 1996 and who has an eight-year-old son.
The mission was the 113th flight in the shuttle program's 22 years and the 28th flight for Columbia, NASA's oldest shuttle. The disaster came 17 years, almost exactly to the day, after the shuttle Challenger exploded shortly after lift-off, killing all seven of its crew. In 42 years of human space flight, NASA has never lost a space crew during landing or the ride back to orbit.
As the Columbia's crew prepared for re-entry, astronaut David Brown joked with mission control: "Do we really have to come back?" As the rising sun burned off the early morning fog the controllers in Houston gave the seven astronauts clearance to begin the run for home. "I guess you've been wondering," they radioed Columbia, "but you are now to go for the de-orbit burn." Those words marked the beginning of the descent to doom.
"Once again we see that space technology can fail," Bruce Gagnon, international coordinator for the Global Network against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, told Arab News last night. "I'm troubled because the Bush Administration has recently announced a program called the 'Nuclear Systems Initiative', a $1 billion research and development program to expand the launching of nuclear power into space. The problem is that as you increase the numbers of launches carrying nuclear payloads into space, but you are also going to dramatically increase the chances of a catastrophic Chernobyl in the sky."
Asked why NASA was advising extreme precaution at the crash sites, Gagnon said: "We haven't heard that there was a nuclear payload on this shuttle, but one of the great hallmarks of the Bush administration is increased secrecy. I must admit that when NASA said no one should go near a site because of the toxic potential of the fuels and 'other reasons,' I couldn't help but wonder what those reasons are."
Due to cuts in NASA's budget in recent years, NASA has been forced to turn to the Pentagon for increased funding, said Gagnon. The result is that the space shuttles are now also NASA missions and carry both military and civilian technologies. "What you have now is the military takeover of the space program. NASA is not just about gazing at the stars, it now also has a political and military agenda." What is of concern, he said, is that the Pentagon in now working on a program called the "Space Based Laser." "Its nickname is the 'Death Star,' and its job is to destroy other country's satellites, and also hit targets on the Earth below. NASA hopes to have the first operational tests by 2016 or 2017," Gagnon explained.
"This would give the US full control and domination of space and the earth below, because whoever controls space will control the Earth." (Additional reporting by David Randall of The Independent in New York)
certainly some of tme can be reused (H20 as you and others correctly stated for example). But here are typical applications of different chemicals:
I am inclined to believe that most of the chemicals are not reused, at least in the traditional sense. H2O is cleaned and returned to the ocean, and N2 is cleaned (through air-handling systems) and returned to the atmosphere, but many of these chemicals probably are neutralized (read "made somewhat safe") and disposed of in your local land-fill, or into your local air.
This is the product name I propose. And on the "discovery from elementary school" department, the article offers some hints:
"...a University of Maryland agricultural scientist who oversaw tests of an earlier prototype at the Salisbury campus..."I always wondered what "salisbury steak" was when I would get a plate full of the stuff in elementary school.
Though it sounds like you know this, maybe it should be clarified for other people...
the optical spactrum is a (small) part of a much larger range of frequencies, making up the electro-magnetic spectrum
Having said this, there is no reason that something that you can do in the radio frequencies can't be done in the optical spectrum. Materials (buildings, glass, etc) will react differently to the different frequencies but if this is not a limitation, there really is no reason not to move to shorter wavelengths (higher frequencies) as the band-width is somehow controled by the frequency (beyond the scope of this post)
Additionally, it should be noted the article makes no reference to lasers (or "lazers" to some of you). Hence, flashing a light on and off would almost satisfy this criteria. How about your TV remote? How does this talk with your TV? If you answered "Infra-red radiation", you get a happy-face sticker. In most peoples books, the IR spectrum is still included in the "optical spectrum" even though you can't see it (1.5um wavelength lasers are used almost exclusively in optical fiber communication, which is roughly double the wavelength we can see with our eye).
"because most of us couldn't go without movies/music forever"
Well from time to time, I become an idealist. I think that the "couldn't" above really should be "choose not to". There are several notable (but false) exceptions:
- "I have kids that I can't keep from watching teletubbies/power rangers/etc as well as buy them associated toys"
I can imagine that childrens' influence (whining) can be quite prolific, if they whined "Come ON pops... I WANT to take crack", I can't imagine you would succumb very easily.
- "I have to as part of my job because I am in the entertainment industry"
I guess this is somewhat legitimate, though it seems to me that your choice of careers is indeed a "choice" and if you are characterizing this career with "Cartel" maybe you have chosen the wrong career.
- "Every time I drive to work, I see billboards pitching the latest and greatest stuff to me. I can't avoid seeing these"
But you can avoid buying them.
- "Every time I turn on the TV, I see ads pitching the latest and greatest stuff to me. I can't avoid seeing these"
But you can avoid buying them. And I guess it should be somewhat obvious, but you can avoid watching TV
- "But what about the MS-tax?"
While somewhat difficult to avoid, it is possible through Dell and Walmart to name some major ones.
While I agree with wunderhorn1's assessment of the intent of the lessig challenge, Giving matching funds given to the "bad guys" and giving them to the "good guys" is a good start, it results in the "good guys" with a net income much smaller than the "bad guys" (based on the number of software-conscious people)\begin{rumor}
I actually heard that when a section of los-alamos became contaminated beyond "healthy" doses, they level it and build a public park and/or a hotel. The thinking is that people spending only a few hours are not at risk. I guess no one has thought about the hotel employees...
\end{rumor}
We all know that kids rebel against the things that earlier generations try to force on them. For instance, my parents religiously gave be powdered milk, and now I refuse to buy it.
I think possibly the best solution is to encourage people to use Windows in grade school (especially during adolescence). Maybe then they will grow up hating it, and search for something better (like possible... uhh... linux?).
well now, let us see.. 100 times ZERO. Maybe that "new math" we all learned can help us with this.
Please forgive this post, I am a bitter III/V (read GaAs et al) guy
Uh... I don't think that is my goal
For a review on the fanless heatsinks (including the zalman stuff), check this out. Otherwise, just go to this review which was referred to a few days ago in this slashdot post
"At the top of the root server hierarchy is the "A" root server, which every 12 hours generates a critical file"
Come on people... I don't understand how a group of techno-nerds and geek scientists can come up with such a lame name for waht seems to be the most important computer to the internet! For goodness sakes, even slashdotters can come up with some Does clever naming schemes.
For this, UUNET or Verisign, or someone should be taken out back and beaten.
Google's rank technique doesn't leave much for "tweaking"
What do you expect when Google's technology is based on the spatial orientation of pigeons as outlined in Google's own white pages!
"We do not anticipate offering software on Linux. Nobody pays for software on Linux."
-S. Balmer\end{quote}
Wait a minute. You mean the money I spent on Crossover as well as the money I shelled out on the Linux version (actually the student Linux/windows version) of Matlab was not for Linux software? While I suppose the Crossover was actually in the end for MS software, I wasn't paying for MSOffice, I was paying for the ease of compatibility (without much technical knowledge on my behalf).
In fact, Crossover may be an example that at least some of us are willing to pay for something we would scoff at on a windows system. Yes, in most cases there are free alternatives to software available on Linux today, but some of use are willing to pay for a better quality product if it is just that... better.
As for Microsoft trying to make their product more valuable so that people will choose to pay for it, as opposed to electing to partake in a free operating system with more free software... well that is exactly what they are supposed to do. However, they have relied on being the "only" (read to mean the "primary") operating system in use, and therefore could charge a price that may not necessarily reflect the quality of product they put out.
And finally, this deserves the "I'll believe it when I see it" clause, because we have all heard songs like this come from Microsoft in the past.
maybe:e /Indx.ht ml
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbas
I am not familiar with this site, but I am getting a page in front of me.
Quantum Cryptography may not be "the place to start" but it is free, and you are cheap:k ill/ph22 9/#describe
http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/pres