>"The anthropic explanations are very controversial and many people >do not like them," said Alexander Vilenkin a professor of >theoretical physics at Tufts University in Maryland.
And many people aren't going to like an infinite cycle of big bangs, either.
>Rather than making precise predictions for features of the >universe the anthropic principle gives a vague range of values so >it is difficult for physicists to test, he added.
Sure, but that's true for almost any cosmological theory. Really, it's unfair to but the anthropic principle on the same "level" as the other theories, because it's really not meant to provide specifics on the actual big bang itself. Moreover, the anthropic principle RELIES on other scientific theories to fill in the very details of how things happened. So it's not like it's the anthropic principle vs. other, more scientific theories.
>"It's absolutely terrible, it really is giving up," said Prof >Turok, "It's saying that we are never going to understand the state >of the universe. It just has to be that way for us to exist." His >explanation by contrast is built up from first principles.
I don't think a modernized version of the "steady state" model, where time just goes on forever into the past, is in any way less of a "giving up". Frankly, it's more so. The guy is bashing the anthropic principle by completely mischaracterizing it... it doesn't state that we can't understand the state of the universe. Moreover, it isn't incompatible with multiple universes, or even this guy's own multiple big bang idea. All it says is that the CURRENT universe we're in MUST have certain characteristics BECAUSE we are here. In fact, multiple universes (via quantum foam or many worlds or whatever mechanism you chose to invoke) actually makes the anthropic principle easier to understand, not less.
Professor Turok is the one who is giving up. "When did the universe begin and why?" "There's no answer! It's just always been like this, forever!" Gee, thanks doc, that's real intellectual progress.
Well, I don't think there is any question about it. It can only be attributable to human error. This sort of thing has cropped up before and it has always been due to human error.
What the surly teenager posted on his website as having happened, did NOT, in fact, transpire in that way. Like Mr. Tycho's "gut feeling" or "assumption" or "telepathic intuition" or whatever it was, everything the surly teenager posted was HIS perception of an interchange that lasted for less than two minutes. His assumptions and interpretations are his own, and he's entitled to them. Weird and sad and skewed as they may be.
But for him, for Mr. Tycho, and for all of you, I am telling you they are no more accurate than MY understanding of the matter. I don't expect the surly teenager to pause even a moment to consider that his interpretations are wonky, he's incapable, I suspect, of assuming responsibility for ANYTHING he does, like some mook standing in front of Judge Judy. And he certainly isn't going to cop to fronting someone who meant him no harm, not in front of his worshipful gamer-tots. But this is the bottom line:
I did not know them, I had no negative feelings toward them, and I was neither rude nor discourteous to them.
Never insulted them. Never wanted to insult them. Didn't do it consciously or reflexively. Just didn't do it. ALL insults and disparagement came from the surly teenager. Mr. Tycho shouldn't be defending his associate's bad behavior; after all, Mr. Tycho was standing right there beside me.
My assertion is demonstrably more accurate than what the surly teenager posted to arouse his adolescent admirers. As verified by the CHAIRMAN OF THE FOOLSCAP CONVENTION, Hank Graham, who has stated very clearly THERE WAS NO JESTER'S HAT FOR ME. If that is so, then all that follows in the surly teenager's memoir is equally as skewed, equally as misinterpreted, and equally as unfair to me.
We were in each other's company less than two minutes. We were all four--Gabe & Tycho, Hank Graham, myself--on the stage in a small room. They were making "gifts" to the Guests of Honor. The first was an orange peeler. I did the expected "take" and looked at this small plastic kitchen implement with mock humor and confusion. I then got a SECOND one, intended for Kathy Roche-Zujko (my ex-secretary, who now lives in Bellevue, with whom we hung during the weekend, and who had picked Susan and me up at Sea-Tac). It was a thankyou from the ConCommittee for her good offices. With TWO of these items, I continued to do the aversion shtick, edging backward toward the audience, past the surly teenager, with one of the orange peelers behind my back and, openly to the entire room, slipped it to someone in the audience. Everyone laughed.
I then returned to my place next to the surly teenager, as Hank Graham placed jester's caps (signifying "foolscap") on Mr. Tycho and the surly teenager. Mr. Graham then handed me a lined yellow tablet in a plastic sleeve--foolscap, in the classic meaning of the word--and said, "Here's YOUR foolscap." I am a writer. Getting foolscap was appropriate. I am neither a clown nor an asshole, as so many of the PA adolescents who have no idea of my fifty-plus years' work perceive. It was fitting and proper that I should get a pad of... well... foolscap.
The surly teenager then asked me, not very loudly, "Don't you want to wear your hat?"
As there WAS NO HAT for me, I pretty much let slide the gibe.
Well, two aspects of the moment that followed:
1) Someone in the audience said something to ME, DIRECTLY, that I now understand as not having been heard or linked properly, by the surly teenager. I can't remember what it was, but it was a remark made my someone I knew, in a jocular vein, and I tossed over my shoulder the pro forma fuckyou or gofuckyerself or whatever it was. It was no more serious or rude a fuckyou than a Bart Simpson bite me or eat my shorts.
But it wasn't addressed to the surly teenager, who had already made snotty remarks at me, not once, but twice.
If the surly teenager misheard and thought he was EV
Ahh, it turns out I didn't read Harlan's second entry. Here's his further elaboration of the events:
MY SECOND, AND FINAL, WORDS ON THIS MATTER
What the surly teenager posted on his website as having happened, did NOT, in fact, transpire in that way. Like Mr. Tycho's "gut feeling" or "assumption" or "telepathic intuition" or whatever it was, everything the surly teenager posted was HIS perception of an interchange that lasted for less than two minutes. His assumptions and interpretations are his own, and he's entitled to them. Weird and sad and skewed as they may be.
But for him, for Mr. Tycho, and for all of you, I am telling you they are no more accurate than MY understanding of the matter. I don't expect the surly teenager to pause even a moment to consider that his interpretations are wonky, he's incapable, I suspect, of assuming responsibility for ANYTHING he does, like some mook standing in front of Judge Judy. And he certainly isn't going to cop to fronting someone who meant him no harm, not in front of his worshipful gamer-tots. But this is the bottom line:
I did not know them, I had no negative feelings toward them, and I was neither rude nor discourteous to them.
Never insulted them. Never wanted to insult them. Didn't do it consciously or reflexively. Just didn't do it. ALL insults and disparagement came from the surly teenager. Mr. Tycho shouldn't be defending his associate's bad behavior; after all, Mr. Tycho was standing right there beside me.
My assertion is demonstrably more accurate than what the surly teenager posted to arouse his adolescent admirers. As verified by the CHAIRMAN OF THE FOOLSCAP CONVENTION, Hank Graham, who has stated very clearly THERE WAS NO JESTER'S HAT FOR ME. If that is so, then all that follows in the surly teenager's memoir is equally as skewed, equally as misinterpreted, and equally as unfair to me.
We were in each other's company less than two minutes. We were all four--Gabe & Tycho, Hank Graham, myself--on the stage in a small room. They were making "gifts" to the Guests of Honor. The first was an orange peeler. I did the expected "take" and looked at this small plastic kitchen implement with mock humor and confusion. I then got a SECOND one, intended for Kathy Roche-Zujko (my ex-secretary, who now lives in Bellevue, with whom we hung during the weekend, and who had picked Susan and me up at Sea-Tac). It was a thankyou from the ConCommittee for her good offices. With TWO of these items, I continued to do the aversion shtick, edging backward toward the audience, past the surly teenager, with one of the orange peelers behind my back and, openly to the entire room, slipped it to someone in the audience. Everyone laughed.
I then returned to my place next to the surly teenager, as Hank Graham placed jester's caps (signifying "foolscap") on Mr. Tycho and the surly teenager. Mr. Graham then handed me a lined yellow tablet in a plastic sleeve--foolscap, in the classic meaning of the word--and said, "Here's YOUR foolscap." I am a writer. Getting foolscap was appropriate. I am neither a clown nor an asshole, as so many of the PA adolescents who have no idea of my fifty-plus years' work perceive. It was fitting and proper that I should get a pad of... well... foolscap.
The surly teenager then asked me, not very loudly, "Don't you want to wear your hat?"
As there WAS NO HAT for me, I pretty much let slide the gibe.
Well, two aspects of the moment that followed:
1) Someone in the audience said something to ME, DIRECTLY, that I now understand as not having been heard or linked properly, by the surly teenager. I can't remember what it was, but it was a remark made my someone I knew, in a jocular vein, and I tossed over my shoulder the pro forma fuckyou or gofuckyerself or whatever it was. It was no more serious or rude a fuckyou than a Bart Simpson bite me or eat my shorts.
But it wasn't addressed to the surly teenager, who had already made snotty remarks at me, not once, but twice.
If the surly teenager misheard and thought he was
Asking someone why they aren't putting on their jester's cap isn't necessarily nice, either. Oh, they left that part out of the CGW article, but it's on their web page:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/2005/09/26 So Tycho and I are up in front of the audience with Harlen, and Hank (the con organizer) presents us with some jester hats ("Fool's caps"). Tycho and I put ours on because we are polite, but Harlen - who is apparently too cool for school - refuses to wear his. I turn to him and say, "Don't you want your hat?" and he tells me to fuck off. This caught me off guard, I mean I have no clue who this fucking coot is. Then he points to a pad of paper he has and asks if I'm aware that his paper is also called foolscap. Now, I've never heard that term before, I pretty much just call it paper so I shake my head "no." This really isn't a fair question. I mean, it would be like me asking him about Photoshop or if he can remember what he had for lunch. The guy was essentially setting me up to look stupid in front of all these people. So then he asks me if I even attended college and I say "No, I did not." Then, he says "did you at least finish high school?"
Remember, Gabe and Tycho went into this expecting him to be a little testy, and with a plan to deliver a "zinger" when the opportunity arose, so I'm sure they took everything he said with that in mind. They theorized he was upset that he had to share the stage with them, and so tried to belittle them at the first opportunity. But it could just as easily be true that Harlan felt Gabe started it when he asked him to wear the hat.
Met the co-guests of honor at Foolscap for all of two minutes.
One of them seemed to me a pleasant man with a nice manner.
The other struck me as a superannuated teen-age golem with a slack jaw, a slow manner, a typical pointless surliness at a world unwilling or unable to accept him as Superlative, and on sum a twerp easy to dismiss.
But then, I'm known for my compassion.
Harlan
Harlan doesn't suffer fools, and especially not gladly. Gabe came off as a boob making snarky comments from the start, and when Harlan tried to engage him intellectually, Gabe showed further weakness by not knowing what he was talking about. Did Harlan take advantage of this to snark back? Sure, but rather than take it in stride, Gabe then went for the comment he had pre-planned to make... a comment which Harlan would regard as a pretty unsophisticated zinger at that, which only made things worse for Gabe.
In any case, perhaps Harlan through Gabe said something else. Or perhaps Harlan didn't say what Gabe thought he said. We do know for sure, though, that Gabe and Tycho entered the frey intended to provoke an exchange from Harlan, and they got exactly what they wanted. I don't see Harlan is to blame for that. Oh, but I see, you figure it's just "coincidence" that Harlan was hostile, that it wasn't Gabe's intent at all, and of course that just confirms your pre-existing evaluation of Harlan's personality.
In the final analysis, I don't know what exactly happened or who is to blame. But I do know something about talking with Harlan, and that's what I posted about. Yes, Harlan has probably pissed off more people in the sf arena than any other author, but the number of people who have managed to get along fine with him still far surpass those few incidents. The man's personality may have sharper corners than most, but that doesn't mean you should intentionally thrust your knee into one just to demonstrate that.
Harlan is a lot like me (and many other geeks), in that we can often be opinionated, blunt assholes who insist their current view is the right one, and will defend it with passion and vigor. It isn't because we don't think we could be wrong, but because we rarely offer opinions without some serious thought behind them. This turns off a lot of "ordinary" folks (and even some of the geekier ones), who are so insecure about their own beliefs that they can't really wrap their head around someone else who is so secure in theirs. And those people don't like to be shown to be wrong, either; it just makes them hurt and hostile.
I knew all this and read all the stories about Harlan before I ever talked to the man, and when I finally did spend an hour with him chatting and discussing various topics, I treated him with a little common courtesy and respect and he was completely charming and reasonable. We squabbled over a couple of points, had some good laughs, and we both came away having enjoyed our conversation.
Yes, the man will bite your hand off if you stick your finger in his eye, and while watching him get riled up may be amusing, one should not then complain about his temperment. If the PA guys had been nice to him, he would have been nice in turn. I'm sure the PA guys can thoroughly understand this, too.
Umm, you need to check out something called CALTRAIN. It'll take you from San Jose to San Francisco in just under an hour (or about 1 hour, 20 minutes on a non-express), with stops along the way through Silicon Valley, and it's extremely cheap. Now, you might have to take the bus to the nearest CalTrain stop, but you don't really expect the rail to have stops at every corner, do you?
However, it's quite true that mass transit outside of that is a total mess.
While I agree that it's true that people should expect that nothing is guaranteed if you overclock the memory beyond its specification, you have to remember that manufacturers are submitting their memory to THG for testing specifically KNOWING it's going to be OCed! They want to look as good as possible. Sure, a FooCo-533 may perform just as good as a BarCo-533, but if the FooCo-533 fails when overclocked 566 and the BarCo-533 doesn't, BarCo comes out looking like they have a higher-quality product. And even if the consumer doesn't intent to overclock his memory, might he not feel SAFER with the BarCo memory? After all, if the FooCo memory can't handle a litte overclocking, how many FooCo-533 modules are unreliable even at 533? Such a conclusion is not logical, and not supported by the evidence, but it is how some consumers think.
But perhaps more to the point, pointing out how a manufacturer's memory sample may not be representative of retail quality isn't so much as to say "Gotcha!" to the manufacturer, but rather to help the hardcore computer hobbyists KNOW which memory they can trust to overclock. If Tom's doesn't test retail-quality memory, then the consumers can't necessarily trust the results. By providing a comparison study like the current one, it actually does help them evaluate products better, regardless of the fact that they're using these products out-of-spec.
>A few of us geezers can remember when Reagan bought into the "Star >Wars" defense in the mid-1980s on the basis of flimsy experiments. >Twenty years lter they have yet to pan out, even in the most >contrived missile tests.
Uh... what? Your comment makes no sense. That's like saying there were plans to go to send men to Mars in the 1980s, but 20 years later, they have yet to pan out -- so, therefore, sending me to Mars is impossible. That's just stupid. It hasn't "panned out" because it was never actually FUNDED, fully DEVELOPED, and then DEPLOYED. The initial plan for space-based missile defense was never followed.
However, we currently DO have a GROUND-based missile defense system in place, TODAY, and it is OPERATIONAL. Every year, the system is tested multiple times and it is gradually proving itself capable against increasingly sophisticated targets. Will it actually work well enough against a REAL attack? Let's hope we never have to find out.
The problem with Holodeck porn is that, while the fantasy goes away when you "end program", all of your own -- shall we say, genetic material -- remains. And holodeck rooms are limited in dimension, so when you think you've gone up the stairs or into another room, you actually haven't. So all that -- residue -- which was held in check by forcefields all over the place will, when the program ends, finally become subject to gravity. Who do you think gets to clean up the place afterwards? Quark or some poor Engsin Redshirt?
Hell, I'd like to get one of these devices for myself. But I have a feeling it would generate way too many false positives, or perhaps more importantly, inconsequential positives. The are times when people are bored, but they're trying to be polite and conversational, and pressuring them to make them more interested in what you're saying isn't going to help. Also, although this device may help an autistic person know the other person isn't engaged, do they even know what to do in order to facilitate engagement?
>1) He cut NASA's budget by a third his first 3 years in office.
False, see the chart above.
>Not until we invaded Iraq did it recieve any re-funding, and even >then the new funds were earmarked for use in military technologies - >not NASA's area in the first place. NASA had to use that money to >support launching of military satelites and whatnot.
False. NASA doesn't launch the vast majority of military satellites and hasn't in quite some time. The military buys launch vehicles from aerospace constractors like Boeing and Lock-Mart and they're launched from Air Force stations.
>To this day, NASA's budget is lessthan 80% of what it was when Bill >Clinton left office. And that's 80% not adjusting for inflation or >time, which means it's around 72% of what it was after adjustments.
False; see the chart above. While NASA's budget in 1996 dollars is still not as high as it was under the highest level of Clinton's era, it's still higher than it was the last few years of Clinton's tenure, including when he left office. If you look closely, you can see Clinton was the one who was cutting NASA down from the recent highs it enjoyed under the 4 years of Bush I. This was mostly Space Station cuts... taking Freedom, which was becoming way more expensive than anyone wanted to pay, and saddling us with the ugly albatross of the ISS.
I believe the CPI for the past few years has also been lower than projected, so NASA's budget has actually done even better, but I'm not 100% sure on that particular point.
Yes. From reading elsewhere, they have spent $257M; the total price tag is estimated at $446M. So they still have $189M to go. Cancelling the mission would have saved them $175M, which will now probably come out of the CEV-related budgets.
There's two very interesting structures in Namibia, and I'm almost certain one of them is a crater:
2046'24.47"S
1618'18.43"E
You can see the multiple rings and the raise central structure. Also, just north of it is a smaller structure which may be associated with the first impact (sometimes you get crater chains):
2043'56.35"S
1617'28.12"E
Finally, there's a very strange (to a layman) structure to the SW that would have to be a very oblique impact crater if it is one, but I've never seen a crater like that; it looks more like a natural circular feature:
2049'8.00"S
16 7'48.59"E
If any geologist can look into this, let me know. I'd bet money the first one is an impact structure, though!
>Or you could walk to the stores. Of course, the last time I was in >the USA I got laughed at for asking how I walked the 2 miles from >hotel to restaurant. And got told I'd probably be arrested for kerb crawling.
Your story doesn't make any sense at all, for the following reasons:
1. Kerb (or curb) crawling requires driving slowly, and so wouldn't be applicable to someone walking 2 miles. 2. It refers to trying to pick up prostitutes, which again, wouldn't really apply here. 3. Kerb crawling is a British phrase, not an American one.
I suppose what you might mean is the person suggested that if you walked 2 miles downtown, you'd be probably be arrested because someone would think you were looking for a prostitute. I suppose this would make sense if you were in a highly trafficked "strip" area where prostitutes are known to hang out, but you wouldn't get arrested just for walking past them.
>The Atlas HLV consists of 95% elements that have already flown. It flies >off the same pad and infrastructure as all Atlas V's.
Again, this isn't what I've been told. I can't tell you precisely the issue, nor could I find a reference at the moment, but I think right now certain infrastructure isn't big enough to handle a top-end HLV.
>It is available in 2 years. CLV might be here in 7. CLV is $10B HLV is less >than $300M. For an additional $2B LM could fly six HLV's off to build >confidence before the CLV ever cuts first chips.
See what you did there? You made a logical fallacy. You say the Atlas LL be ready in 2 years, but the CLV MIGHT be ready in 7. You make inherent assumptions there. It's fairer to say the CLV MIGHT be ready in 2. Then you have to consider, as I already pointed out, how the development costs of CLV save costs for the CaLV, which the Atlas HLV can't replace. Suddenly when you view things in the proper context, the "obvious" advantages of the HLV in the way you framed the argument melt away. The HLV still may be cheaper and faster, but not by as much as you suggest.
>The time to orbit is a nearly trivial dial with respect to safety during ascent.
Well, it's nice you think so. More experienced rocket engineers disagree.
>What is more important is how many times you have flown that hardware. If >the number is small then regardless of your desirements and analysis the >vehicle is unproven and has a low reliability. By 2012 the EELV fleet will >have many dozens of flights under their belts and CLV will have zip. At >planned flight rates they will NEVER overtake the EELV fleet.
Ahh, there you go again. See, you compare ALL EELV flights... in all configurations... to one configuration, the CLV. To fairly compare, you'd need to compare only the Atlas HLV flights to the CLV... and you know what? There probably won't be any Atlas HLV flights by then (the 30t model) because no one will buy one. Now, maybe you want to say you can figure the HLV's reliability based on hardware that it has in common with other Atlas models. Fair enough. But THEN, you need to compare the CLV the same way, with the Shuttle flights. And in that case, I think you'll find the shuttle "hardware" that the CLV uses has many, many flights under its belt. And the Shuttle hardware matches up statistically to just about every other launcher on the market. You know that as well as I do. There are way too few flights for ANY rocket to say within a sigma or two that one rocket is "really" 98% and another is "really" 95%.
>The supposed low cost SSME for CaLV will get no benefit from CLV and it too >is essentially unproven. Especially in a five cluster. Even the upper stage >elements for CaLV are different from the CLV upper stage- at least at >present. The amount of common hardware between the two is limited to the >solids - pretty slim pickings.
Wow, your information is outdated. NASA changed their plans recently to specifically make the CLV and CaLV have more hardware in common. Part of that was 5-segment boosters for both and J-2X upper stages for both. You can read about it on space.com or wherever. So there goes that underpinning of your argument.
Again, the point isn't to say that CLV is the best solution. Using EELVs might make more sense in the short run. But it's far from the terrible idea that you make it out to be.
>The "new expendables" you refer to are the prime source of the problem. >The CLV development cost is now at $10B and will likely rise. This to get >a rocket that lifts 24.5t to LEO. We can already do this with an Atlas HLV.
Your post is somewhat misleading. The Atlas HLV doesn't exist yet; it's a hypothetical configuration that's never been tried. I agree that it (should) be cheaper to arrange one of those to launch than develop a new CLV, but it's not like we can arrange one tomorrow. An Atlas of such a configuration would require entirely new laucnh facilities to support; the proposed CLV can use existing facilities.
Another advantage is the CLV has a much faster time to orbit than equivalent EELVs, minimizing some of the risk and providing a different set of abort options. Also, the CLV is built upon the same technologies that will be used for the CaLV, so it helps save on development costs for the CaLV.
>Alternatively you could lift nearly every payload to ISS faster and >cheaper on EELV's and Ariane V's. They have more performance than Shuttle >at roughly 1/5th the price.
No, you couldn't. First of all, all the EELVs have LESS performance than Shuttle... you're forgetting that the Shuttle drags its own ass into orbit along with payload, as well as providing return payload capability. But most importantly, all the ISS payloads are sized for the Shuttle and many require the Shuttle, its arm, and its crew to put the payload in place. You can't do this with an EELV. So the Shuttle is still "required" for ISS completion. So you would have to pretty much abandon the ISS, as you suggested before.
If you look at it fairly, and not through the lens of rosy alternatives, you'll see that the CEV/CLV/CaLV design is actually pretty sound.
Statistically speaking, Soyuz capsules are no safer than the Shuttle. More people have died on the Shuttle, but more people have been carried by it. Most of Soyuz's failures were early in the program, and changes have been made. But so, too, have changes been made with the Shuttle.
And you have to look at non-fatal failures as well. Frankly, the Soyuz capsule and the Soyuz booster have had a number of failures which could very well have been failure had they happened on the right flight at the right time. You've really got a very small statistical sample to say for sure which is reall safer, and in the end you're quibbling over a couple of percent at best.
And you can't say Apollo capsules are safer, either. They got very lucky at least twice, and there's very few flights to measure them with.
That being said, it's clearly the shuttle is less safe than we'd like, and it's clear that the debris issue is something that can't easily be solved in a side-side configuration, but instead should be addressed with an in-line configuration. What's on top doesn't necessarily have to be a capsule; it could be a lifting body. But it's wrong to characterize the Shuttle as being particularly unsafe, or the characterize capsule designs as inherently safer. Yes, they do address some problems, but given the number of possible failure modes and the low frequency of space flights, statistically the differences matter very little.
Slashdot Mirror
>"The anthropic explanations are very controversial and many people
>do not like them," said Alexander Vilenkin a professor of
>theoretical physics at Tufts University in Maryland.
And many people aren't going to like an infinite cycle of big bangs, either.
>Rather than making precise predictions for features of the
>universe the anthropic principle gives a vague range of values so
>it is difficult for physicists to test, he added.
Sure, but that's true for almost any cosmological theory. Really, it's unfair to but the anthropic principle on the same "level" as the other theories, because it's really not meant to provide specifics on the actual big bang itself. Moreover, the anthropic principle RELIES on other scientific theories to fill in the very details of how things happened. So it's not like it's the anthropic principle vs. other, more scientific theories.
>"It's absolutely terrible, it really is giving up," said Prof
>Turok, "It's saying that we are never going to understand the state
>of the universe. It just has to be that way for us to exist." His
>explanation by contrast is built up from first principles.
I don't think a modernized version of the "steady state" model, where time just goes on forever into the past, is in any way less of a "giving up". Frankly, it's more so. The guy is bashing the anthropic principle by completely mischaracterizing it... it doesn't state that we can't understand the state of the universe. Moreover, it isn't incompatible with multiple universes, or even this guy's own multiple big bang idea. All it says is that the CURRENT universe we're in MUST have certain characteristics BECAUSE we are here. In fact, multiple universes (via quantum foam or many worlds or whatever mechanism you chose to invoke) actually makes the anthropic principle easier to understand, not less.
Professor Turok is the one who is giving up. "When did the universe begin and why?" "There's no answer! It's just always been like this, forever!" Gee, thanks doc, that's real intellectual progress.
Bruce
>You start with 1000 awesome features, and end up implementing 2.
And 1 of them doesn't work right.
Bruce
Well, I don't think there is any question about it. It can only be attributable to human error. This sort of thing has cropped up before and it has always been due to human error.
Damn formatting:
... well ... foolscap.
MY SECOND, AND FINAL, WORDS ON THIS MATTER
What the surly teenager posted on his website as having happened, did NOT, in fact, transpire in that way. Like Mr. Tycho's "gut feeling" or "assumption" or "telepathic intuition" or whatever it was, everything the surly teenager posted was HIS perception of an interchange that lasted for less than two minutes. His assumptions and interpretations are his own, and he's entitled to them. Weird and sad and skewed as they may be.
But for him, for Mr. Tycho, and for all of you, I am telling you they are no more accurate than MY understanding of the matter. I don't expect the surly teenager to pause even a moment to consider that his interpretations are wonky, he's incapable, I suspect, of assuming responsibility for ANYTHING he does, like some mook standing in front of Judge Judy. And he certainly isn't going to cop to fronting someone who meant him no harm, not in front of his worshipful gamer-tots. But this is the bottom line:
I did not know them, I had no negative feelings toward them, and I was neither rude nor discourteous to them.
Never insulted them. Never wanted to insult them. Didn't do it consciously or reflexively. Just didn't do it. ALL insults and disparagement came from the surly teenager. Mr. Tycho shouldn't be defending his associate's bad behavior; after all, Mr. Tycho was standing right there beside me.
My assertion is demonstrably more accurate than what the surly teenager posted to arouse his adolescent admirers. As verified by the CHAIRMAN OF THE FOOLSCAP CONVENTION, Hank Graham, who has stated very clearly THERE WAS NO JESTER'S HAT FOR ME. If that is so, then all that follows in the surly teenager's memoir is equally as skewed, equally as misinterpreted, and equally as unfair to me.
We were in each other's company less than two minutes. We were all four--Gabe & Tycho, Hank Graham, myself--on the stage in a small room. They were making "gifts" to the Guests of Honor. The first was an orange peeler. I did the expected "take" and looked at this small plastic kitchen implement with mock humor and confusion. I then got a SECOND one, intended for Kathy Roche-Zujko (my ex-secretary, who now lives in Bellevue, with whom we hung during the weekend, and who had picked Susan and me up at Sea-Tac). It was a thankyou from the ConCommittee for her good offices. With TWO of these items, I continued to do the aversion shtick, edging backward toward the audience, past the surly teenager, with one of the orange peelers behind my back and, openly to the entire room, slipped it to someone in the audience. Everyone laughed.
I then returned to my place next to the surly teenager, as Hank Graham placed jester's caps (signifying "foolscap") on Mr. Tycho and the surly teenager. Mr. Graham then handed me a lined yellow tablet in a plastic sleeve--foolscap, in the classic meaning of the word--and said, "Here's YOUR foolscap." I am a writer. Getting foolscap was appropriate. I am neither a clown nor an asshole, as so many of the PA adolescents who have no idea of my fifty-plus years' work perceive. It was fitting and proper that I should get a pad of
The surly teenager then asked me, not very loudly, "Don't you want to wear your hat?"
As there WAS NO HAT for me, I pretty much let slide the gibe.
Well, two aspects of the moment that followed:
1) Someone in the audience said something to ME, DIRECTLY, that I now understand as not having been heard or linked properly, by the surly teenager. I can't remember what it was, but it was a remark made my someone I knew, in a jocular vein, and I tossed over my shoulder the pro forma fuckyou or gofuckyerself or whatever it was. It was no more serious or rude a fuckyou than a Bart Simpson bite me or eat my shorts.
But it wasn't addressed to the surly teenager, who had already made snotty remarks at me, not once, but twice.
If the surly teenager misheard and thought he was EV
Ahh, it turns out I didn't read Harlan's second entry. Here's his further elaboration of the events: MY SECOND, AND FINAL, WORDS ON THIS MATTER What the surly teenager posted on his website as having happened, did NOT, in fact, transpire in that way. Like Mr. Tycho's "gut feeling" or "assumption" or "telepathic intuition" or whatever it was, everything the surly teenager posted was HIS perception of an interchange that lasted for less than two minutes. His assumptions and interpretations are his own, and he's entitled to them. Weird and sad and skewed as they may be. But for him, for Mr. Tycho, and for all of you, I am telling you they are no more accurate than MY understanding of the matter. I don't expect the surly teenager to pause even a moment to consider that his interpretations are wonky, he's incapable, I suspect, of assuming responsibility for ANYTHING he does, like some mook standing in front of Judge Judy. And he certainly isn't going to cop to fronting someone who meant him no harm, not in front of his worshipful gamer-tots. But this is the bottom line: I did not know them, I had no negative feelings toward them, and I was neither rude nor discourteous to them. Never insulted them. Never wanted to insult them. Didn't do it consciously or reflexively. Just didn't do it. ALL insults and disparagement came from the surly teenager. Mr. Tycho shouldn't be defending his associate's bad behavior; after all, Mr. Tycho was standing right there beside me. My assertion is demonstrably more accurate than what the surly teenager posted to arouse his adolescent admirers. As verified by the CHAIRMAN OF THE FOOLSCAP CONVENTION, Hank Graham, who has stated very clearly THERE WAS NO JESTER'S HAT FOR ME. If that is so, then all that follows in the surly teenager's memoir is equally as skewed, equally as misinterpreted, and equally as unfair to me. We were in each other's company less than two minutes. We were all four--Gabe & Tycho, Hank Graham, myself--on the stage in a small room. They were making "gifts" to the Guests of Honor. The first was an orange peeler. I did the expected "take" and looked at this small plastic kitchen implement with mock humor and confusion. I then got a SECOND one, intended for Kathy Roche-Zujko (my ex-secretary, who now lives in Bellevue, with whom we hung during the weekend, and who had picked Susan and me up at Sea-Tac). It was a thankyou from the ConCommittee for her good offices. With TWO of these items, I continued to do the aversion shtick, edging backward toward the audience, past the surly teenager, with one of the orange peelers behind my back and, openly to the entire room, slipped it to someone in the audience. Everyone laughed. I then returned to my place next to the surly teenager, as Hank Graham placed jester's caps (signifying "foolscap") on Mr. Tycho and the surly teenager. Mr. Graham then handed me a lined yellow tablet in a plastic sleeve--foolscap, in the classic meaning of the word--and said, "Here's YOUR foolscap." I am a writer. Getting foolscap was appropriate. I am neither a clown nor an asshole, as so many of the PA adolescents who have no idea of my fifty-plus years' work perceive. It was fitting and proper that I should get a pad of ... well ... foolscap.
The surly teenager then asked me, not very loudly, "Don't you want to wear your hat?"
As there WAS NO HAT for me, I pretty much let slide the gibe.
Well, two aspects of the moment that followed:
1) Someone in the audience said something to ME, DIRECTLY, that I now understand as not having been heard or linked properly, by the surly teenager. I can't remember what it was, but it was a remark made my someone I knew, in a jocular vein, and I tossed over my shoulder the pro forma fuckyou or gofuckyerself or whatever it was. It was no more serious or rude a fuckyou than a Bart Simpson bite me or eat my shorts.
But it wasn't addressed to the surly teenager, who had already made snotty remarks at me, not once, but twice.
If the surly teenager misheard and thought he was
Asking someone why they aren't putting on their jester's cap isn't necessarily nice, either. Oh, they left that part out of the CGW article, but it's on their web page:
0 926.htm
http://www.penny-arcade.com/2005/09/26
So Tycho and I are up in front of the audience with Harlen, and Hank (the con organizer) presents us with some jester hats ("Fool's caps"). Tycho and I put ours on because we are polite, but Harlen - who is apparently too cool for school - refuses to wear his. I turn to him and say, "Don't you want your hat?" and he tells me to fuck off. This caught me off guard, I mean I have no clue who this fucking coot is. Then he points to a pad of paper he has and asks if I'm aware that his paper is also called foolscap. Now, I've never heard that term before, I pretty much just call it paper so I shake my head "no." This really isn't a fair question. I mean, it would be like me asking him about Photoshop or if he can remember what he had for lunch. The guy was essentially setting me up to look stupid in front of all these people. So then he asks me if I even attended college and I say "No, I did not." Then, he says "did you at least finish high school?"
Remember, Gabe and Tycho went into this expecting him to be a little testy, and with a plan to deliver a "zinger" when the opportunity arose, so I'm sure they took everything he said with that in mind. They theorized he was upset that he had to share the stage with them, and so tried to belittle them at the first opportunity. But it could just as easily be true that Harlan felt Gabe started it when he asked him to wear the hat.
As for Harlan, here's what he had to say:
http://harlanellison.com/heboard/archive/unca2005
Geeewhiz, I seem to have aroused the feral bleats of Gabe & Tycho's aficionados.
Met the co-guests of honor at Foolscap for all of two minutes.
One of them seemed to me a pleasant man with a nice manner.
The other struck me as a superannuated teen-age golem with a slack jaw, a slow manner, a typical pointless surliness at a world unwilling or unable to accept him as Superlative, and on sum a twerp easy to dismiss.
But then, I'm known for my compassion.
Harlan
Harlan doesn't suffer fools, and especially not gladly. Gabe came off as a boob making snarky comments from the start, and when Harlan tried to engage him intellectually, Gabe showed further weakness by not knowing what he was talking about. Did Harlan take advantage of this to snark back? Sure, but rather than take it in stride, Gabe then went for the comment he had pre-planned to make... a comment which Harlan would regard as a pretty unsophisticated zinger at that, which only made things worse for Gabe.
In any case, perhaps Harlan through Gabe said something else. Or perhaps Harlan didn't say what Gabe thought he said. We do know for sure, though, that Gabe and Tycho entered the frey intended to provoke an exchange from Harlan, and they got exactly what they wanted. I don't see Harlan is to blame for that. Oh, but I see, you figure it's just "coincidence" that Harlan was hostile, that it wasn't Gabe's intent at all, and of course that just confirms your pre-existing evaluation of Harlan's personality.
In the final analysis, I don't know what exactly happened or who is to blame. But I do know something about talking with Harlan, and that's what I posted about. Yes, Harlan has probably pissed off more people in the sf arena than any other author, but the number of people who have managed to get along fine with him still far surpass those few incidents. The man's personality may have sharper corners than most, but that doesn't mean you should intentionally thrust your knee into one just to demonstrate that.
Bruce
Harlan is a lot like me (and many other geeks), in that we can often be opinionated, blunt assholes who insist their current view is the right one, and will defend it with passion and vigor. It isn't because we don't think we could be wrong, but because we rarely offer opinions without some serious thought behind them. This turns off a lot of "ordinary" folks (and even some of the geekier ones), who are so insecure about their own beliefs that they can't really wrap their head around someone else who is so secure in theirs. And those people don't like to be shown to be wrong, either; it just makes them hurt and hostile.
I knew all this and read all the stories about Harlan before I ever talked to the man, and when I finally did spend an hour with him chatting and discussing various topics, I treated him with a little common courtesy and respect and he was completely charming and reasonable. We squabbled over a couple of points, had some good laughs, and we both came away having enjoyed our conversation.
Yes, the man will bite your hand off if you stick your finger in his eye, and while watching him get riled up may be amusing, one should not then complain about his temperment. If the PA guys had been nice to him, he would have been nice in turn. I'm sure the PA guys can thoroughly understand this, too.
Bruce
Umm, you need to check out something called CALTRAIN. It'll take you from San Jose to San Francisco in just under an hour (or about 1 hour, 20 minutes on a non-express), with stops along the way through Silicon Valley, and it's extremely cheap. Now, you might have to take the bus to the nearest CalTrain stop, but you don't really expect the rail to have stops at every corner, do you?
However, it's quite true that mass transit outside of that is a total mess.
Bruce
While I agree that it's true that people should expect that nothing is guaranteed if you overclock the memory beyond its specification, you have to remember that manufacturers are submitting their memory to THG for testing specifically KNOWING it's going to be OCed! They want to look as good as possible. Sure, a FooCo-533 may perform just as good as a BarCo-533, but if the FooCo-533 fails when overclocked 566 and the BarCo-533 doesn't, BarCo comes out looking like they have a higher-quality product. And even if the consumer doesn't intent to overclock his memory, might he not feel SAFER with the BarCo memory? After all, if the FooCo memory can't handle a litte overclocking, how many FooCo-533 modules are unreliable even at 533? Such a conclusion is not logical, and not supported by the evidence, but it is how some consumers think.
But perhaps more to the point, pointing out how a manufacturer's memory sample may not be representative of retail quality isn't so much as to say "Gotcha!" to the manufacturer, but rather to help the hardcore computer hobbyists KNOW which memory they can trust to overclock. If Tom's doesn't test retail-quality memory, then the consumers can't necessarily trust the results. By providing a comparison study like the current one, it actually does help them evaluate products better, regardless of the fact that they're using these products out-of-spec.
Bruce
>A few of us geezers can remember when Reagan bought into the "Star
>Wars" defense in the mid-1980s on the basis of flimsy experiments.
>Twenty years lter they have yet to pan out, even in the most
>contrived missile tests.
Uh... what? Your comment makes no sense. That's like saying there were plans to go to send men to Mars in the 1980s, but 20 years later, they have yet to pan out -- so, therefore, sending me to Mars is impossible. That's just stupid. It hasn't "panned out" because it was never actually FUNDED, fully DEVELOPED, and then DEPLOYED. The initial plan for space-based missile defense was never followed.
However, we currently DO have a GROUND-based missile defense system in place, TODAY, and it is OPERATIONAL. Every year, the system is tested multiple times and it is gradually proving itself capable against increasingly sophisticated targets. Will it actually work well enough against a REAL attack? Let's hope we never have to find out.
Bruce
The problem with Holodeck porn is that, while the fantasy goes away when you "end program", all of your own -- shall we say, genetic material -- remains. And holodeck rooms are limited in dimension, so when you think you've gone up the stairs or into another room, you actually haven't. So all that -- residue -- which was held in check by forcefields all over the place will, when the program ends, finally become subject to gravity. Who do you think gets to clean up the place afterwards? Quark or some poor Engsin Redshirt?
Bruce
Hell, I'd like to get one of these devices for myself. But I have a feeling it would generate way too many false positives, or perhaps more importantly, inconsequential positives. The are times when people are bored, but they're trying to be polite and conversational, and pressuring them to make them more interested in what you're saying isn't going to help. Also, although this device may help an autistic person know the other person isn't engaged, do they even know what to do in order to facilitate engagement?
Bruce
The parent post is riddled with mistakes and is, frankly, wrong. Check out this chart and the associated data:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget
For specifics, look at the numbers at the bottom.
>1) He cut NASA's budget by a third his first 3 years in office.
False, see the chart above.
>Not until we invaded Iraq did it recieve any re-funding, and even
>then the new funds were earmarked for use in military technologies -
>not NASA's area in the first place. NASA had to use that money to
>support launching of military satelites and whatnot.
False. NASA doesn't launch the vast majority of military satellites and hasn't in quite some time. The military buys launch vehicles from aerospace constractors like Boeing and Lock-Mart and they're launched from Air Force stations.
>To this day, NASA's budget is lessthan 80% of what it was when Bill
>Clinton left office. And that's 80% not adjusting for inflation or
>time, which means it's around 72% of what it was after adjustments.
False; see the chart above. While NASA's budget in 1996 dollars is still not as high as it was under the highest level of Clinton's era, it's still higher than it was the last few years of Clinton's tenure, including when he left office. If you look closely, you can see Clinton was the one who was cutting NASA down from the recent highs it enjoyed under the 4 years of Bush I. This was mostly Space Station cuts... taking Freedom, which was becoming way more expensive than anyone wanted to pay, and saddling us with the ugly albatross of the ISS.
I believe the CPI for the past few years has also been lower than projected, so NASA's budget has actually done even better, but I'm not 100% sure on that particular point.
Bruce
Yes. From reading elsewhere, they have spent $257M; the total price tag is estimated at $446M. So they still have $189M to go. Cancelling the mission would have saved them $175M, which will now probably come out of the CEV-related budgets.
Bruce
All of the art, and 20% of the dev team, was dropped. Just thought I should clarify.
Bruce
How many kitchen tables are in a football field? Damn metric system; can't they just use normal units?!?
Bruce
I think the problem is there was no space in the numbers so google maps wouldn't handle cut-n-paste. I've reposted with direct links.
Bruce
Okay, repost with google maps links:
4 7%22S+16+18'18.43%22E&ll=-20.758522,16.299934&spn= 0.110436,0.1581&t=k
3 5%22S+16+17'28.12%22E&ll=-20.736208,16.294184&spn= 0.055226,0.07905&t=k
0 %22S+16+7'48.59%22E&ll=-20.818864,16.130161&spn=0. 110392,0.1581&t=k
0 7%22N+34+27'54.14%22E&ll=22.707472,34.46497&spn=0. 108949,0.1581&t=k
There's two very interesting structures in Namibia, and I'm almost certain one of them is a crater:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=20+46'24.
You can see the multiple rings and the raised central structure. Also, just north of it is a smaller structure which may be associated with the first impact (sometimes you get crater chains):
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=20+43'56.
Also, there's a very strange (to a layman) structure to the SW that would have to be a very oblique impact crater if it is one, but I've never seen a crater like that; it looks more like a natural circular feature:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=20+49'8.0
And finally, the Gebel el Naga ring complex in Egypt:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=22+42'27.
Bruce
Is this one too obvious? It's the Gebel el Naga ring complex in Egypt:
2242'27.07"N
3427'54.14"E
It seems to be a known site, but I don't know any reference to it being of meteoritic origin.
Bruce
There's two very interesting structures in Namibia, and I'm almost certain one of them is a crater:
2046'24.47"S
1618'18.43"E
You can see the multiple rings and the raise central structure. Also, just north of it is a smaller structure which may be associated with the first impact (sometimes you get crater chains):
2043'56.35"S
1617'28.12"E
Finally, there's a very strange (to a layman) structure to the SW that would have to be a very oblique impact crater if it is one, but I've never seen a crater like that; it looks more like a natural circular feature:
2049'8.00"S
16 7'48.59"E
If any geologist can look into this, let me know. I'd bet money the first one is an impact structure, though!
Bruce
... I got 3.6 Billion Degree Gas just by eating at Taco Bell last week.
Bruce
>Or you could walk to the stores. Of course, the last time I was in
>the USA I got laughed at for asking how I walked the 2 miles from
>hotel to restaurant. And got told I'd probably be arrested for kerb crawling.
Your story doesn't make any sense at all, for the following reasons:
1. Kerb (or curb) crawling requires driving slowly, and so wouldn't be applicable to someone walking 2 miles.
2. It refers to trying to pick up prostitutes, which again, wouldn't really apply here.
3. Kerb crawling is a British phrase, not an American one.
I suppose what you might mean is the person suggested that if you walked 2 miles downtown, you'd be probably be arrested because someone would think you were looking for a prostitute. I suppose this would make sense if you were in a highly trafficked "strip" area where prostitutes are known to hang out, but you wouldn't get arrested just for walking past them.
Bruce
>The Atlas HLV consists of 95% elements that have already flown. It flies
>off the same pad and infrastructure as all Atlas V's.
Again, this isn't what I've been told. I can't tell you precisely the issue, nor could I find a reference at the moment, but I think right now certain infrastructure isn't big enough to handle a top-end HLV.
>It is available in 2 years. CLV might be here in 7. CLV is $10B HLV is less
>than $300M. For an additional $2B LM could fly six HLV's off to build
>confidence before the CLV ever cuts first chips.
See what you did there? You made a logical fallacy. You say the Atlas LL be ready in 2 years, but the CLV MIGHT be ready in 7. You make inherent assumptions there. It's fairer to say the CLV MIGHT be ready in 2. Then you have to consider, as I already pointed out, how the development costs of CLV save costs for the CaLV, which the Atlas HLV can't replace. Suddenly when you view things in the proper context, the "obvious" advantages of the HLV in the way you framed the argument melt away. The HLV still may be cheaper and faster, but not by as much as you suggest.
>The time to orbit is a nearly trivial dial with respect to safety during ascent.
Well, it's nice you think so. More experienced rocket engineers disagree.
>What is more important is how many times you have flown that hardware. If
>the number is small then regardless of your desirements and analysis the
>vehicle is unproven and has a low reliability. By 2012 the EELV fleet will
>have many dozens of flights under their belts and CLV will have zip. At
>planned flight rates they will NEVER overtake the EELV fleet.
Ahh, there you go again. See, you compare ALL EELV flights... in all configurations... to one configuration, the CLV. To fairly compare, you'd need to compare only the Atlas HLV flights to the CLV... and you know what? There probably won't be any Atlas HLV flights by then (the 30t model) because no one will buy one. Now, maybe you want to say you can figure the HLV's reliability based on hardware that it has in common with other Atlas models. Fair enough. But THEN, you need to compare the CLV the same way, with the Shuttle flights. And in that case, I think you'll find the shuttle "hardware" that the CLV uses has many, many flights under its belt. And the Shuttle hardware matches up statistically to just about every other launcher on the market. You know that as well as I do. There are way too few flights for ANY rocket to say within a sigma or two that one rocket is "really" 98% and another is "really" 95%.
>The supposed low cost SSME for CaLV will get no benefit from CLV and it too
>is essentially unproven. Especially in a five cluster. Even the upper stage
>elements for CaLV are different from the CLV upper stage- at least at
>present. The amount of common hardware between the two is limited to the
>solids - pretty slim pickings.
Wow, your information is outdated. NASA changed their plans recently to specifically make the CLV and CaLV have more hardware in common. Part of that was 5-segment boosters for both and J-2X upper stages for both. You can read about it on space.com or wherever. So there goes that underpinning of your argument.
Again, the point isn't to say that CLV is the best solution. Using EELVs might make more sense in the short run. But it's far from the terrible idea that you make it out to be.
Bruce
>The "new expendables" you refer to are the prime source of the problem.
>The CLV development cost is now at $10B and will likely rise. This to get
>a rocket that lifts 24.5t to LEO. We can already do this with an Atlas HLV.
Your post is somewhat misleading. The Atlas HLV doesn't exist yet; it's a hypothetical configuration that's never been tried. I agree that it (should) be cheaper to arrange one of those to launch than develop a new CLV, but it's not like we can arrange one tomorrow. An Atlas of such a configuration would require entirely new laucnh facilities to support; the proposed CLV can use existing facilities.
Another advantage is the CLV has a much faster time to orbit than equivalent EELVs, minimizing some of the risk and providing a different set of abort options. Also, the CLV is built upon the same technologies that will be used for the CaLV, so it helps save on development costs for the CaLV.
>Alternatively you could lift nearly every payload to ISS faster and
>cheaper on EELV's and Ariane V's. They have more performance than Shuttle
>at roughly 1/5th the price.
No, you couldn't. First of all, all the EELVs have LESS performance than Shuttle... you're forgetting that the Shuttle drags its own ass into orbit along with payload, as well as providing return payload capability. But most importantly, all the ISS payloads are sized for the Shuttle and many require the Shuttle, its arm, and its crew to put the payload in place. You can't do this with an EELV. So the Shuttle is still "required" for ISS completion. So you would have to pretty much abandon the ISS, as you suggested before.
If you look at it fairly, and not through the lens of rosy alternatives, you'll see that the CEV/CLV/CaLV design is actually pretty sound.
Bruce
Statistically speaking, Soyuz capsules are no safer than the Shuttle. More people have died on the Shuttle, but more people have been carried by it. Most of Soyuz's failures were early in the program, and changes have been made. But so, too, have changes been made with the Shuttle.
And you have to look at non-fatal failures as well. Frankly, the Soyuz capsule and the Soyuz booster have had a number of failures which could very well have been failure had they happened on the right flight at the right time. You've really got a very small statistical sample to say for sure which is reall safer, and in the end you're quibbling over a couple of percent at best.
And you can't say Apollo capsules are safer, either. They got very lucky at least twice, and there's very few flights to measure them with.
That being said, it's clearly the shuttle is less safe than we'd like, and it's clear that the debris issue is something that can't easily be solved in a side-side configuration, but instead should be addressed with an in-line configuration. What's on top doesn't necessarily have to be a capsule; it could be a lifting body. But it's wrong to characterize the Shuttle as being particularly unsafe, or the characterize capsule designs as inherently safer. Yes, they do address some problems, but given the number of possible failure modes and the low frequency of space flights, statistically the differences matter very little.
Bruce