What tips could computer industry insiders offer to one who is willing to pursue an independent educational path towards a career in a Computer Science field?
Don't. I would trade places with you in a minute. There is nothing wrong with being a hobbiest.
I've definitely noticed in the last few mnths that Microsoft seems to be REALLY ramping up its PR war against Linux. They've been talking about it for a while, and now we're seeing it.
IBM has been running the Linux child TV commercials for many weeks now. I think they are very effective. The future is free!
I'm not sure how the crew can survive by "bailing out" of a doomed orbiter during re-entry (take-off is another matter entirely). Once the orbiter drops below a certain speed, a return to orbit is impossible anda very hot descent is inevitable. This "bail out" logic sounds like surviving an elevator crash by stepping out at the first floor to me.
For a system designed with virtually no abort capability it is interesting that that the crew compartment survived intact immediately after both shuttle disasters. Perhaps if the compartment designed to be detached in the extreme aerodynamic and thermal environment it could have slowed to subsonic speed and have been recoverable by parachute. B-1B bombers have a similar recovery system, though they do not fly in as extreme an environment.
Agreed entirely. However, I'm a little sad that NASA puts all the hype on Mars alone. Sure, exploring Mars is cool and potentially useful for future colonisation programs, but I reckon that planets such as Venus (to understand how the runaway greehouse gas effect happened), Europa (to map whatever's under the ice, possibly an ocean teeming with life) or Io are much more interesting from a science point of view.
The focus on Mars is understandable considering the challenging environments of some of the other planets and satellites. Venus surface is absurdly hot and corrosive. IO and Europa have a hideous radiation environment that wrecks electronics. Europa's putative ocean is somewhat inaccessable beneath several kilometers of ice. These challenges greatly add to the costs of missions. Missions to Venus/Jupiter will happen again, but these Mars missions are low hanging fruit.
So, finally: Through the initial mapping of the South polar cap on 18 January, OMEGA, the combined camera and infrared spectrometer, has already revealed the presence of water ice and carbon dioxide ice. This information was confirmed by the PFS, a new high-resolution spectrometer of unprecedented accuracy. The first PFS data also show that the carbon oxide distribution is different in the northern and southern hemispheres of Mars...
I am glad Mars Express' instruments are working well, but these are non-results. It has been known that there is solid H2O and CO2 in Mars for almost 100 years! Most recently the Mola experiment on Mars Global Surveyor has shown the the north polar cap is a large glacier. Mars Observer pictures have show recently active water runoff gullies. It is also very well known that more CO2 frost accumulates in the southern hemisphere than the north. The south is higher in elevation and southern winter corresponds to Mars orbital apoapse, so it is colder and more CO2 freezes out. I learned that in the 70's! Please tell us something new!
There's one major reason I use scheme instead of silly languages like Python or Perl, lack of static typing. Scheme's type predicates are much more flexible.
The Hubble has been an amazing success but $500M+
servicing missions take funds away from Dubya's new
moon efforts. Besides, maintaining Hubble's orbit
solves only part of the problem. The telescope gyros and instruments would still have to be replaced periodically. For those worried that the James Webb telescope will never reach its final orbit in one piece, I have this advice. Why build
one telescope when you can build two at twice the price.
The elevation angle to the horizon from the rover is very low, meaning that you are looking through a large airmass. This means that you are looking at a much longer column of dust which scatters pink light, making the horizon look pink. The sky overhead may very well be dark blue, but NASA has not released many pictures of the sky above the rover.
Like you I am also a long time member of the/.
community (40), but that is no reason to abandon
common sense. The climate does indeed seem to be warming, but how much of it is natural and how much man made? Global warming zealots have never provided a firm conclusion. All they provide the public are fragmentary, alarmist scenarios based on junk science. And worse, these ideas are picked up by misguided polititians and converted to policy (Kyoto). The idea that you can manipulate climate in some favorable way by adjusting greenhouse gas emissions is absurd. Do you know what is worse than global warming? Global cooling!
6 billion people seeking a better life will leave their mark and will displace other species. That is natural.
Funny thing is these rovers have radioisotope heaters. Nobody made a peep when they launched. Compare that to the launch of Cassini which was nearly canceled because of its big RTG's. One thing is for sure, further progress in planetary missions will depend on nuclear power.
Sending a rover into more "interesting" terrain is too risky. If the rover comes down in a crevasse, in a crater (this may have happened to Beagle 2), or hits a large rock, it's game over. The selected landing sites are chosen as a compromise between safety and scientific interest.
I think the more robust and long lived nuclear powered rovers that are planned should solve the problem. They will land in safe areas and move longer distances to more dangerous ones.
I'm no geologist but I guess the best area for a stratigraphic section would be inside a canyon, correct me if I'm wrong. But unless you land on top of it and give a look at it from above I think they'd have problems with solar arrays and daily sunlight exposure, not mentioning problems in pointing antennas and such. Guess current kind of rovers wouldn't do much good in a canyon situation.
I am a geologist and you are completely right. Basic surface geologic mapping on earth is done by examining local outcrops, roadcuts, and stream beds, and making structural inferences (connecting the dots). Seizmic imaging is also used. Real stratigraphic mapping on Mars is problematic for an automated rover for the reasons you cite. Yet this is the idea that the science team seems to be putting forward. It doesn't help the cause of Mars exploration to land in an area just because there is something interesting 20m below that we can't see or sense.
Any new pictures of the Martian landscape are very cool, but I have to question the choice of the landing site. Gusev Crater may be very interesting in a macro sense, it probably contains lacustrine sediments. But are these sediments accessable to the rover which has landed in the middle of a featureless plain? I doubt it. It is more likely that it will just sample the ubiquitous dust and rock ejecta, again. There may be no significant exposures of the stratigraphic section nearby. When will one of these missions truely explore the fantastic landscape revealed from orbit?
A spacestation at one of the Langrange points would be even less useful than the ISS is now. It would take far more energy to reach than a LEO station, it offers minimal improvement as a
science platform, it would have the same (weak) justification as ISS. The "stepping stone"
arguments have not panned out in 40 years. A lunar
base set up and administered along the lines of
the Antarctic science stations is the only goal
that makes sense.
The cheapest way with current technology might well be to use Russian rockets. 'Course that puts a big ding in the presidential pride, right? A bit like the way the last series of American rockets using Russian engines only worse.
The successful Atlas V rocket uses a Russian design RD-180 engine. The Russian's have accelled at developing high efficiency Kerosene/Oxygen lower stage engines. Lockheed Martin was smart enough to realise this when they developed the Atlas III/V series. But the key to success of American rockets which, sets them apart from Russia and Europe, is the use of LH2 in the upper stages. The Pratt and Whitney RL-10 engine, the J2, Rocketdyne SSME and RS-68 are all spectacularly successful designs.
Personally, I'd be a lot happier if it was an international effort. That way when the US Government gets cold feet again, or is unable to meet its end of the bargain again, the mission will continue and mankind as a whole gets something out of it.
One has only to look at the International Space Station as an example to see how an "international effort" might work. The U.S. should go it alone and send back TV pictures for the rest of the world.
How long would it take one of these assemblers to make a cup of "Tea, Earl Grey, Hot"?
This is modded as funny but it raises a significant point. The atomic world is not rigid at all scales. Atoms can diffuse, dislocate, etc. Thermal motion and entropy must be considered. How can a deterministic molecular assempler allow for these?
When the Galileo/China announcement was made on this forum a while back, I wrote that the project was becoming a strategic military threat to the U.S., mainly because China was participating and will put the capability to military use. By allowing the system to be jammed in time of war Europe shows that it takes these concerns seriously and that the project will be for civilian use only.
(for example, look at actions taken before and during the last presidential election in Florida -- and I am not referring to chards). Frankly, the US is not well placed to criticize those in other countries for trying to conserve their power by improper means.
I disagree. Despite the pandemonium surrounding the 2000 election, the despute was resolved through normal legal channels and there was an orderly transfer of power. The U.S. is uniquely well positioned to criticize the despotic regimes of the world.
Because of the lack of significant erosionMartian dust storms?
On earth over geologic time virtually all surface features are eroded: mountains, strip mines... Martain dust erosion/accumulation is miniscule in comparison, which is why I used the word significant.
Mining the moon or Mars makes a lot less sense than mining asteroids for lots of reasons.
Near earth asteroids have widely varying compositions. Some are entirely metallic with high concentrations of valuable strategic metals. The moon and Mars have relatively metal poor surfaces in comparison.
Asteroids are accessable. IT requires far less energy to travel to and from Earth and an asteroid that the moon or mars. This should make it less expensive to transport mined materials back to earth.
Polical reasons. If China unilaterally set up shop on the moon for mining, the rest of the world would be rightly up in arms. If they grabbed an asteroid who would care? (It might even assuage their anger over losing Taiwan!)
There are lots of asteroids but 1 moon and 1 Mars. You can trash thousands of asteroids and no one would care. Because of the lack of significant erosion on the Moon or Mars any mining activity will quickly and irreversably mar the surface. I would argue that the scientific and aesthetic value of a minimally disturbed planetary surface would be worth more in the long run.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't. I would trade places with you in a minute. There is nothing wrong with being a hobbiest.
IBM has been running the Linux child TV commercials for many weeks now. I think they are very effective. The future is free!
For a system designed with virtually no abort capability it is interesting that that the crew compartment survived intact immediately after both shuttle disasters. Perhaps if the compartment designed to be detached in the extreme aerodynamic and thermal environment it could have slowed to subsonic speed and have been recoverable by parachute. B-1B bombers have a similar recovery system, though they do not fly in as extreme an environment.
What a great site. An important historical record. Perhaps the Python would explain why the site is so slow. Python is a scourge.
The focus on Mars is understandable considering the challenging environments of some of the other planets and satellites. Venus surface is absurdly hot and corrosive. IO and Europa have a hideous radiation environment that wrecks electronics. Europa's putative ocean is somewhat inaccessable beneath several kilometers of ice. These challenges greatly add to the costs of missions. Missions to Venus/Jupiter will happen again, but these Mars missions are low hanging fruit.
I wish they'd use the old uwm as the standard. I find its simplicity appealing. Twm would be a bad choice either.
So, finally: Through the initial mapping of the South polar cap on 18 January, OMEGA, the combined camera and infrared spectrometer, has already revealed the presence of water ice and carbon dioxide ice. This information was confirmed by the PFS, a new high-resolution spectrometer of unprecedented accuracy. The first PFS data also show that the carbon oxide distribution is different in the northern and southern hemispheres of Mars...
I am glad Mars Express' instruments are working well, but these are non-results. It has been known that there is solid H2O and CO2 in Mars for almost 100 years! Most recently the Mola experiment on Mars Global Surveyor has shown the the north polar cap is a large glacier. Mars Observer pictures have show recently active water runoff gullies. It is also very well known that more CO2 frost accumulates in the southern hemisphere than the north. The south is higher in elevation and southern winter corresponds to Mars orbital apoapse, so it is colder and more CO2 freezes out. I learned that in the 70's! Please tell us something new!
There's one major reason I use scheme instead of silly languages like Python or Perl, lack of static typing. Scheme's type predicates are much more flexible.
The Hubble has been an amazing success but $500M+ servicing missions take funds away from Dubya's new moon efforts. Besides, maintaining Hubble's orbit solves only part of the problem. The telescope gyros and instruments would still have to be replaced periodically. For those worried that the James Webb telescope will never reach its final orbit in one piece, I have this advice. Why build one telescope when you can build two at twice the price.
The elevation angle to the horizon from the rover is very low, meaning that you are looking through a large airmass. This means that you are looking at a much longer column of dust which scatters pink light, making the horizon look pink. The sky overhead may very well be dark blue, but NASA has not released many pictures of the sky above the rover.
Like you I am also a long time member of the /.
community (40), but that is no reason to abandon
common sense. The climate does indeed seem to be warming, but how much of it is natural and how much man made? Global warming zealots have never provided a firm conclusion. All they provide the public are fragmentary, alarmist scenarios based on junk science. And worse, these ideas are picked up by misguided polititians and converted to policy (Kyoto). The idea that you can manipulate climate in some favorable way by adjusting greenhouse gas emissions is absurd. Do you know what is worse than global warming? Global cooling!
6 billion people seeking a better life will leave their mark and will displace other species. That is natural.
Steve Balmer reminds me of Baghdad Bob.
How about MacroHard?
Funny thing is these rovers have radioisotope heaters. Nobody made a peep when they launched. Compare that to the launch of Cassini which was nearly canceled because of its big RTG's. One thing is for sure, further progress in planetary missions will depend on nuclear power.
I think the more robust and long lived nuclear powered rovers that are planned should solve the problem. They will land in safe areas and move longer distances to more dangerous ones.
I am a geologist and you are completely right. Basic surface geologic mapping on earth is done by examining local outcrops, roadcuts, and stream beds, and making structural inferences (connecting the dots). Seizmic imaging is also used. Real stratigraphic mapping on Mars is problematic for an automated rover for the reasons you cite. Yet this is the idea that the science team seems to be putting forward. It doesn't help the cause of Mars exploration to land in an area just because there is something interesting 20m below that we can't see or sense.
Any new pictures of the Martian landscape are very cool, but I have to question the choice of the landing site. Gusev Crater may be very interesting in a macro sense, it probably contains lacustrine sediments. But are these sediments accessable to the rover which has landed in the middle of a featureless plain? I doubt it. It is more likely that it will just sample the ubiquitous dust and rock ejecta, again. There may be no significant exposures of the stratigraphic section nearby. When will one of these missions truely explore the fantastic landscape revealed from orbit?
A spacestation at one of the Langrange points would be even less useful than the ISS is now. It would take far more energy to reach than a LEO station, it offers minimal improvement as a science platform, it would have the same (weak) justification as ISS. The "stepping stone" arguments have not panned out in 40 years. A lunar base set up and administered along the lines of the Antarctic science stations is the only goal that makes sense.
The cheapest way with current technology might well be to use Russian rockets. 'Course that puts a big ding in the presidential pride, right? A bit like the way the last series of American rockets using Russian engines only worse.
The successful Atlas V rocket uses a Russian design RD-180 engine. The Russian's have accelled at developing high efficiency Kerosene/Oxygen lower stage engines. Lockheed Martin was smart enough to realise this when they developed the Atlas III/V series. But the key to success of American rockets which, sets them apart from Russia and Europe, is the use of LH2 in the upper stages. The Pratt and Whitney RL-10 engine, the J2, Rocketdyne SSME and RS-68 are all spectacularly successful designs.
Personally, I'd be a lot happier if it was an international effort. That way when the US Government gets cold feet again, or is unable to meet its end of the bargain again, the mission will continue and mankind as a whole gets something out of it.
One has only to look at the International Space Station as an example to see how an "international effort" might work. The U.S. should go it alone and send back TV pictures for the rest of the world.
How long would it take one of these assemblers to make a cup of "Tea, Earl Grey, Hot"?
This is modded as funny but it raises a significant point. The atomic world is not rigid at all scales. Atoms can diffuse, dislocate, etc. Thermal motion and entropy must be considered. How can a deterministic molecular assempler allow for these?
When the Galileo/China announcement was made on this forum a while back, I wrote that the project was becoming a strategic military threat to the U.S., mainly because China was participating and will put the capability to military use. By allowing the system to be jammed in time of war Europe shows that it takes these concerns seriously and that the project will be for civilian use only.
(for example, look at actions taken before and during the last presidential election in Florida -- and I am not referring to chards). Frankly, the US is not well placed to criticize those in other countries for trying to conserve their power by improper means.
I disagree. Despite the pandemonium surrounding the 2000 election, the despute was resolved through normal legal channels and there was an orderly transfer of power. The U.S. is uniquely well positioned to criticize the despotic regimes of the world.
I don't know if GTK or KDE are too complex but these names sure are:
Rayiner Hashem, Havoc Pennington, Eugenia Loli-QueruWhat ever happen to Dick and Jane?
On earth over geologic time virtually all surface features are eroded: mountains, strip mines... Martain dust erosion/accumulation is miniscule in comparison, which is why I used the word significant.
Mining the moon or Mars makes a lot less sense than mining asteroids for lots of reasons.