Only small engines can be tested currently at stennis (luckily? that's all we have in the inventory). Firing off an F-1 would break a lot of things.
As far is always having been pork, NASA OIG criticized the decision made to build a new stand rather than modifying either of *two* underutilized facilities: http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/rep... The bottom line is that the decision was made without public discussion with all of the stakeholders and was always at high risk of being late and over budget due to the lousy decision making at NASA. (Don't blame all of this on Congress.) Interestingly, the initial cost estimate for A-3 was $390M, but Stennis talked that down to $173M to make it more attractive.
So no, there's very little chance that this will turn out to be great in the end, or that we won't end up paying for modifications to A-3 which would be similar to the modifications needed to use one of the existing facilities for a future engine (except that those could have been modified without an intervening $350M capital expediture). And it's very likely that when the time comes, it will look better on paper to build a new stand than to reuse A-3.
You'd have a cogent argument if NASA didn't already have more than one vacuum rocket test stand. They built this one because it was too hard/expensive to modify the others for the new engine. What are the chances that won't happen again? Nope, it's pure pork. Note that the entire Stennis facility was built to test saturn rocket engines far from anything that might break due to the sonic shock. If NASA was in this to preserve infrastructure, *that* is the feature they would have kept. Instead, Stennis now hosts computer facilities for a number of civilian agencies--because the jobs program was more important than being able to test really big rocket engines at the rocket engine test facility.
Quiet is important, active sonar resistance is less so. The submarine post WWII was important as a strategic deterrence asset (survivable ICBM platform) whose primary threat was other submarines. Neither the missile subs nor the attack subs were going to be pinging away, as that would be suicidal. One of the problems with the rubber coatings were that they'd come lose and bang on the hull as the flapped around -- and [i]that[/i] is something to give a modern submariner nightmares. I doubt that the USA and USSR completely ignored the technology, but they definitely had to solve that adhesive problem first.
The arctic route is difficult without a nuclear submarine. (Diesels can't run submerged, and batteries aren't going to get you that far.) I can't imagine what you have in mind as the "central route", as a submarine in a canal is not exactly a hard target. So, yes, the southern routes are the only possible approaches.
The emperor had the entire populace wound up to fight to the death and that's about the only thing that was going to change his mind
That was the army taking its own initiative, not the emperor. The emperor didn't want the war in the first place and was actively trying to end it by early 1945, but was worried that speaking publicly about doing so would lead to internal rebellion. There was in fact an attempted coup on August 14th (the day before his radio address ending hostilities), lending some credence to this belief.
Making warranties dependent on manufacturer add-ons is a completely different point of law (Magnusson-Moss Act), and I don't see that it is at issue here. The case for a Sherman Act violation is not clear cut given the lack of an actual monopoly, and the fact that it's not a simple case of banning functionally equivalent parts for no reason other than to boost profits. (The possibility of third-part licensed parts exists, and they're clearly targeting devices which can also be put into computers to modify the stored data--which arguably benefits the community overall.) This isn't to say that they'd necessarily win, but it is not as simple as you're making it out to be.
See United States v IBM, 1936, USSC ruled that it was a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act for IBM to require the use of IBM brand punch cards in their machines. Exact same thing here.
As you made the first claim, I look forward to YOU providing the citations to back it up
I didn't actually make a claim, I asked a question:
How many new drugs and medical techniques are developed in Australia? If the answer is "less than in the US", are you prepared to consider that the current screwy US system is actually subsidizing your health care?
That was the question I asked. Based on the tenor of your replies, I guess that the answer is that no, you're not prepared to consider anything beyond your simplistic view of the world. It turns out that a lot of issues are more complex than can be reasonably discussed on slashdot, and that simple solutions like "change the US healthcare system" leave out a lot of details (like where the $100bn/yr currently spent on medical R&D in the US will come from if that system becomes a lot leaner--note that's something like 12.5% of.au GDP, so it probably won't come from there). It's a lot easier to criticize from the outside than to actually make things work in the real world. Are there a lot of inefficiencies in the current system? Of course. Is it perfect? Of course not. Is it ok? That depends, frankly, on where you live. (But most things do.) Is it obvious how to fix all the problems without also screwing up the good things? Hell no--if it were that easy it would have been done by now.
P.S. I know Australians love to have pride in their country, and that's great and all, but R&D that dates back 80 years is more historical curiosity than a current driver of public policy. And, for that matter, Florey (and Chain) would be more than willing to acknowledge that the money for industrialization of penicillin came from the UK & US governments as part of the massive expenditures of WWII--so it's not particularly relevant to how medical research should be funded today. (Unless, of course, another really big war is part of the strategy.)
How many new drugs and medical techniques are developed in Australia? If the answer is "less than in the US", are you prepared to consider that the current screwy US system is actually subsidizing your health care?
This is probably because most security assessments aren't very good and don't correlate well to an organization's actual security problems. At least the assessments help people get rid of all that extra money they have.
So, I take it you have a plan for survival (theirs and yours) if your source of income dries up and blows away?
Yes, and the plan includes not blowing the safety net in a fit of pique. The emergency fund is for emergencies, not "I'm feeling like a prima donna today and want to be a jerk to my boss".
For all the bitching about glibc, it works very well. I'd guess that most of the people complaining in this thread don't really know what they're talking about. (E.g., the complaints about ABI compatibility, which is really quite good.) And glibc has been improving over time, not getting worse. (That's not to say that there are no valid points, but the pile-on is way out of control.)
when you installed the reader plugin you told the browser to transparently display any pdf content. Hint: if you don't install the plugin you'll get prompted about what to do with pdfs (save/open/etc). I recommend not installing the reader plugin.
SGI bought out part of Cray, the supercomputing/interconnect part. Sun bought out the other part of Cray, the storage systems part. Even if a company is in debt and has no sales, the patent portfolio is worth something even if it is for counter-litigation purposes.
No, Sun bought the interconnect (it was eventually sold as the E10k series and made a ton of money outside the supercomputing space). SGI bought the nameplate, the legacy systems (you could buy a Cray T3E or SV1 from SGI and it would come with a Sun workstation to boot it up), and entry into a shrinking market. SGI never made any money on their purchase and ended up selling it for a loss. This kind of brain dead management is why SGI is in the trouble it is in.
SGI's storage systems came from its StorageTek acquisition. (And, before that, it had its own SunStorage hardware. Best to forget about that.)
Ad servers have been distributing malware for years. The way it works is that the "big name" ad server posts content directing your browser to a "partner" who has paid them money. That "partner" could be a legitimate advertiser, or it could be a sleazy malware purveyor who will launch an exploit to install junk on your computer. (No, I'm not sure how you distinguish between "legitimate" and "sleazy" advertisers.) The "big name" ad company doesn't care, they've already been paid. What does this have to do with ZD (or any of the other web sites that have ads)? One might ask whether they've got a "due diligence" requirement to ensure that visitors to their site aren't exposed to malware via their ad server "partner". Unfortunately, the ads are controlled by the business guys, not the technical guys, and there's way too much money involved.
This is why it's ridiculous when microsoft mentions "attacker would have to convince user to visit a web site" as a mitigating factor. This is code for "attack is only viable if user visits web sites with ads". That sure mitigates exposure, doesn't it?
Coming from an IT background, we view work as something which we can personally accomplish. It's what we know and how we apply it which is important.
And frankly, that view of work as something which "we can personally accomplish" is outdated and does not scale in any company larger than a hundred or so people, maybe even less.
And that's the kind of MBA-babble that brought us such titans of industry as GE or BofA, which we are all collectively bailing out because they "scaled" to the point that nobody could "personally accomplish" figuring out how they worked. You're right, pushing things like "skills" doesn't scale very far because it's hard work, and requires people to really understand what the people working for them do. That's a good thing.
As for the coupons, there was no reason they couldn't have extended the coupon program but still kept the original timeline.
No reason except all of the money allocated by Congress for the program was out in the form of coupons and no more was available and won't be until they find out how many coupons got redeemed and how many went unused and can be re-issued.
So your theory is that congress couldn't authorize a few million more for the converter box program? They just spent a trillion dollars they didn't have, I'm sure they could have tossed out a few more coupons.
And then there's channel 11 in Baltimore which will be going to a *lower* signal that just barely covers the city.
Where on earth did you get that information? WBAL should be viewable past DC into the NoVA suburbs after the transition. (No way to know for sure just where the reception line will be until next month, but it'll be way past the Balto city limits.)
Slashdot Mirror
Only small engines can be tested currently at stennis (luckily? that's all we have in the inventory). Firing off an F-1 would break a lot of things.
As far is always having been pork, NASA OIG criticized the decision made to build a new stand rather than modifying either of *two* underutilized facilities: http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/rep... The bottom line is that the decision was made without public discussion with all of the stakeholders and was always at high risk of being late and over budget due to the lousy decision making at NASA. (Don't blame all of this on Congress.) Interestingly, the initial cost estimate for A-3 was $390M, but Stennis talked that down to $173M to make it more attractive.
So no, there's very little chance that this will turn out to be great in the end, or that we won't end up paying for modifications to A-3 which would be similar to the modifications needed to use one of the existing facilities for a future engine (except that those could have been modified without an intervening $350M capital expediture). And it's very likely that when the time comes, it will look better on paper to build a new stand than to reuse A-3.
So yes, always pork.
I'll disable ad blocker when the ad industry starts taking responsibility for not serving up malware.
You'd have a cogent argument if NASA didn't already have more than one vacuum rocket test stand. They built this one because it was too hard/expensive to modify the others for the new engine. What are the chances that won't happen again? Nope, it's pure pork. Note that the entire Stennis facility was built to test saturn rocket engines far from anything that might break due to the sonic shock. If NASA was in this to preserve infrastructure, *that* is the feature they would have kept. Instead, Stennis now hosts computer facilities for a number of civilian agencies--because the jobs program was more important than being able to test really big rocket engines at the rocket engine test facility.
Quiet is important, active sonar resistance is less so. The submarine post WWII was important as a strategic deterrence asset (survivable ICBM platform) whose primary threat was other submarines. Neither the missile subs nor the attack subs were going to be pinging away, as that would be suicidal. One of the problems with the rubber coatings were that they'd come lose and bang on the hull as the flapped around -- and [i]that[/i] is something to give a modern submariner nightmares. I doubt that the USA and USSR completely ignored the technology, but they definitely had to solve that adhesive problem first.
The arctic route is difficult without a nuclear submarine. (Diesels can't run submerged, and batteries aren't going to get you that far.) I can't imagine what you have in mind as the "central route", as a submarine in a canal is not exactly a hard target. So, yes, the southern routes are the only possible approaches.
The emperor had the entire populace wound up to fight to the death and that's about the only thing that was going to change his mind
That was the army taking its own initiative, not the emperor. The emperor didn't want the war in the first place and was actively trying to end it by early 1945, but was worried that speaking publicly about doing so would lead to internal rebellion. There was in fact an attempted coup on August 14th (the day before his radio address ending hostilities), lending some credence to this belief.
Making warranties dependent on manufacturer add-ons is a completely different point of law (Magnusson-Moss Act), and I don't see that it is at issue here. The case for a Sherman Act violation is not clear cut given the lack of an actual monopoly, and the fact that it's not a simple case of banning functionally equivalent parts for no reason other than to boost profits. (The possibility of third-part licensed parts exists, and they're clearly targeting devices which can also be put into computers to modify the stored data--which arguably benefits the community overall.) This isn't to say that they'd necessarily win, but it is not as simple as you're making it out to be.
See United States v IBM, 1936, USSC ruled that it was a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act for IBM to require the use of IBM brand punch cards in their machines. Exact same thing here.
xbox is a monopoly?
I didn't actually make a claim, I asked a question:
That was the question I asked. Based on the tenor of your replies, I guess that the answer is that no, you're not prepared to consider anything beyond your simplistic view of the world. It turns out that a lot of issues are more complex than can be reasonably discussed on slashdot, and that simple solutions like "change the US healthcare system" leave out a lot of details (like where the $100bn/yr currently spent on medical R&D in the US will come from if that system becomes a lot leaner--note that's something like 12.5% of .au GDP, so it probably won't come from there). It's a lot easier to criticize from the outside than to actually make things work in the real world. Are there a lot of inefficiencies in the current system? Of course. Is it perfect? Of course not. Is it ok? That depends, frankly, on where you live. (But most things do.) Is it obvious how to fix all the problems without also screwing up the good things? Hell no--if it were that easy it would have been done by now.
P.S. I know Australians love to have pride in their country, and that's great and all, but R&D that dates back 80 years is more historical curiosity than a current driver of public policy. And, for that matter, Florey (and Chain) would be more than willing to acknowledge that the money for industrialization of penicillin came from the UK & US governments as part of the massive expenditures of WWII--so it's not particularly relevant to how medical research should be funded today. (Unless, of course, another really big war is part of the strategy.)
I look forward to your factual citations to relieve my ignorance!
How many new drugs and medical techniques are developed in Australia? If the answer is "less than in the US", are you prepared to consider that the current screwy US system is actually subsidizing your health care?
This is probably because most security assessments aren't very good and don't correlate well to an organization's actual security problems. At least the assessments help people get rid of all that extra money they have.
yeah, the OP used the silly "put something important only on the subject line so the body lacks context" method of posting and I missed it.
...if I downgrade my broadband speed by a factor of 5-10 from cable
You have a 300Mbps cable connection? What market is that in?
So, I take it you have a plan for survival (theirs and yours) if your source of income dries up and blows away?
Yes, and the plan includes not blowing the safety net in a fit of pique. The emergency fund is for emergencies, not "I'm feeling like a prima donna today and want to be a jerk to my boss".
when you're a technophile who has lost touch with reality
For all the bitching about glibc, it works very well. I'd guess that most of the people complaining in this thread don't really know what they're talking about. (E.g., the complaints about ABI compatibility, which is really quite good.) And glibc has been improving over time, not getting worse. (That's not to say that there are no valid points, but the pile-on is way out of control.)
when you installed the reader plugin you told the browser to transparently display any pdf content. Hint: if you don't install the plugin you'll get prompted about what to do with pdfs (save/open/etc). I recommend not installing the reader plugin.
SGI bought out part of Cray, the supercomputing/interconnect part. Sun bought out the other part of Cray, the storage systems part. Even if a company is in debt and has no sales, the patent portfolio is worth something even if it is for counter-litigation purposes.
No, Sun bought the interconnect (it was eventually sold as the E10k series and made a ton of money outside the supercomputing space). SGI bought the nameplate, the legacy systems (you could buy a Cray T3E or SV1 from SGI and it would come with a Sun workstation to boot it up), and entry into a shrinking market. SGI never made any money on their purchase and ended up selling it for a loss. This kind of brain dead management is why SGI is in the trouble it is in.
SGI's storage systems came from its StorageTek acquisition. (And, before that, it had its own SunStorage hardware. Best to forget about that.)
And I do not see any broadcaster shelling out for 200% increase in power bills..for 0% revenue increase.
It actually turns out to be a major net reduction in costs once they cut off the hugely inefficient analog transmitters.
Ad servers have been distributing malware for years. The way it works is that the "big name" ad server posts content directing your browser to a "partner" who has paid them money. That "partner" could be a legitimate advertiser, or it could be a sleazy malware purveyor who will launch an exploit to install junk on your computer. (No, I'm not sure how you distinguish between "legitimate" and "sleazy" advertisers.) The "big name" ad company doesn't care, they've already been paid. What does this have to do with ZD (or any of the other web sites that have ads)? One might ask whether they've got a "due diligence" requirement to ensure that visitors to their site aren't exposed to malware via their ad server "partner". Unfortunately, the ads are controlled by the business guys, not the technical guys, and there's way too much money involved.
This is why it's ridiculous when microsoft mentions "attacker would have to convince user to visit a web site" as a mitigating factor. This is code for "attack is only viable if user visits web sites with ads". That sure mitigates exposure, doesn't it?
And frankly, that view of work as something which "we can personally accomplish" is outdated and does not scale in any company larger than a hundred or so people, maybe even less.
And that's the kind of MBA-babble that brought us such titans of industry as GE or BofA, which we are all collectively bailing out because they "scaled" to the point that nobody could "personally accomplish" figuring out how they worked. You're right, pushing things like "skills" doesn't scale very far because it's hard work, and requires people to really understand what the people working for them do. That's a good thing.
As for the coupons, there was no reason they couldn't have extended the coupon program but still kept the original timeline.
No reason except all of the money allocated by Congress for the program was out in the form of coupons and no more was available and won't be until they find out how many coupons got redeemed and how many went unused and can be re-issued.
So your theory is that congress couldn't authorize a few million more for the converter box program? They just spent a trillion dollars they didn't have, I'm sure they could have tossed out a few more coupons.
If two submarines crash in the ocean, and neither is running sonar, does it make a sound?
yes. it sounds like "crunch" followed by "oh, shit".
And then there's channel 11 in Baltimore which will be going to a *lower* signal that just barely covers the city.
Where on earth did you get that information? WBAL should be viewable past DC into the NoVA suburbs after the transition. (No way to know for sure just where the reception line will be until next month, but it'll be way past the Balto city limits.)