(almost?) all the data that would be recorded by such a black box is already being transmitted to the ground.
Yes, but what if that communication link is lost? For example, suppose the antenna gets crunched well before the system's electronics stop working. Wouldn't it potentially be useful to have that data? Granted, it may not show the proximate cause. Then again, we don't know that it wouldn't.
In addition, such a black box could only monitor a few systems.
Somewhere all of the sensor data is being multiplexed into a data stream for tansmission. I'm sure it's a reasonably wideband transmission, but it can't be THAT much data. It would seem simple enough to snapshot that data into a box that saves the last, oh, 15 minutes of data.
The problem is that there is massive competition in terms of volume and weight for items to go into the shuttle. Every gram and cc used for a "black box" is one less gram and cc available for mission equipment. So you really have to have a strong justification, and I can see why a "black box" wouldn't make the cut. Still, it might have proven useful in this case.
It really is too bad the media doesn't report enough on education from the technical side.
Journalists generally have a liberal arts education, and liberal arts students (and faculty) basically think engineering colleges are trade schools, not real higher education.
Or did you honestly think I was speaking of universal truths regarding the deletrious effects of radiative power?
You certainly appeared to think you were. And it wouldn't be the silliest thing ever posted on/. (Now, there's a competition!) At best your terminology was imprecise and subject to misinterpretation. Clearly, though, you're not interested in hearing that. Your loss.
Re:A few corrections...
on
Reflections
·
· Score: 1
And if you had read what I actually wrote...
What you actually wrote was: "As for power being irrelevant, it is when we're talking about radiation that is about 6 orders of magnitude too low in frequency..."
As for "deeply flawed," the photoelectric effect is fairly clear - for two sources of the same power, the one with the higher frequency is the one with the greater ability to effect electron transitions (ie, breaking bonds in DNA).
But that's simply not the issue for nonionizing radiation, which is the flaw in your analysis.
I repeat: At these frequencies the principal known deleterious effect is heating and is a strong function of power. Your statement that power is irrelevant is simply incorrect. Now, if what you meant was to limit that to cell-phone levels, fine. But that's not what you said. Claiming ex post facto that it should be obvious is weak.
And, by the way, if you're not able to hear objective criticism of your statements without taking it personally, maybe you would be better served not to make them.
Re:A few corrections...
on
Reflections
·
· Score: 1
I'm not sure on what basis you define microwave as "not radio," but leave that aside for a moment.
It is simply incorrect to say that radio-frequency (RF) signals are incapable of causing damage irrespective of power. Your analysis is deeply flawed and ignores a wealth of literature that shows the effects of strong electromagnetic fields on humans and animals.
It is correct that what we're discussing here is nonionizing radiation. It is not correct that the deleterious effect of RF is related solely to the particle energy. Another significant factor is the degree to which the signal is absorbed by the human body. The human body is not transparent to RF; neither is it a conductor. It absorbs energy from an RF field, energy that is converted into heat. When the energy is sufficiently high, this heat can damage cells. This is particularly true in some areas of the body such as the eyes. And the body does not absorb energy at all frequencies equally. In fact, the FCC RF exposure regulations allow less power density at 30-300 MHz than they do at frequencies above that. (And, yes, power does matter, very much.) That's because the specific absorption rate (SAR) of the human body peaks at approximately 100 MHz.
Some useful background can be found on the FCC's RF Safety page.
Let's see... the FBI says the report wasn't true, the city librarian says the report wasn't true, the reporter says the report wasn't true, and the reporter's two anonymous sources say the story wasn't true. And the delusional/. editor's response? "Since the FBI has little incentive to tell the truth on this count, I don't see what incentive anyone has to believe their denial."
So you see, Homer ran a very typical Internet company. The only thing notable about it was the very untypical way it ended (for a dot-com, that is), with Bill Gates showing up in person to trash Homer's office.
Your implications that O'Reilly is being paid off by Microsoft are childish, to say the least. What article have you been reading?
In the world of Michael, merely being in business is prima facie evidence of one's lack of ethics. So there's really nothing at all suprising about him making asinine accusations against Tim O'Reilly.
I assume Michael backs up to the pay window at VA in order to collect his weekly stipend.
My boss, in particular, would prefer to use software backed by a company with a history of profitability. His fear is that we could be on our own next year if the company goes under.
It RH as an AOL/TW entity loses money, you think AOL/TW will continue it? Sure, AOL/TW will still be in business. They just won't be in the business of making or supporting a Linux distribution. Worse, this could well happen even if RH does make some money if the profits aren't what the "street" expects from an AOL/TW division -- can't have RH dragging down those P/E ratios! (Okay, RH would be such a drop in the bucket to AOL/TW that its profit or loss would be about 6 places to the right of the decimal point in AOL/TW's earnings reports.) In fact, the corporate drones could shut it down at any time for any reason. Such as, for example, they decided to make nice with Microsoft.
All in all, I'd rather stick with an independent RH whose future is controlled by people who at least give a damn. Its future is much brighter that way.
Re:More Walls for Divide and Conqure!
on
Slashdot Code Update
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Now we have a friend, neutral, foe system on top of a moderating system
One thing you didn't make clear was whether the satellites in question are geostationary or low-earth orbit (LEO). I'm guessing it's the latter since most scientific satellites get little benefit from geostationary positioning. (Which is dramatically more expensive than LEO and puts your earth sensors -- if that's what you're using -- farther away from the earth's surface.)
If they're LEO, there will be periods of time during which you will be line-of-sight to the satellites but the attacker will not -- unless the attacker is either at your location or has multiple uplink sites. Even if the attacker has a strong transmitter and can DoS you while he sees the satellite, once he's out of the footprint of the bird and you are in it, you'll be able to command it.
In late-breaking developments, the U.S. Department of Justice now wants the Microsoft anti-trust proceedings moved from the Federal Court to a military tribunal.
I've been a victim of the PowerQuest upgrade cycle myself, and it pisses me off as much as it pisses the next guy off. The software isn't worth $50 per year, but that's what they manage to drag out of me because of their harsh policies.
Obviously it is worth $50 per year or you wouldn't be paying it.
Problematic. What would make more sense is to have some sort of collective subscription system. Suppose you could go to some site and pay a reasonable fee for an annual subscription to say 10 sites. You choose the sites. Such a mechanism would allow for relatively small per-site payments without requiring either the payer or the payee to deal with small-change payments.
[RMS] is simply saying that the GNU project shouldn't be telling it's users, "Hey, look at this neat proprietary software. Who cares if it is not free it runs on Linux so it must be good."
That's right, they should be saying "...it runs on GNU/Linux..."!
"I spend about $250 a month with you guys, would you rather have me walk through without showing my receipt, or would you rather have my money go somewhere else?"
Of course, they could just eliminate the checking altogether to protect your "rights." But then that $250 will become about $300 because they'll have to raise their prices to cover the increase in undetected shoplifting. What's that you say? So let them do less invasive security? You mean like hidden cameras watching your every move, as most department stores have?
But then, maybe you're willing to pay the extra cash to subsidize theft in order to avoid the trauma of having your receipt checked. Trouble is, most people aren't that well heeled. They'll opt for the competition -- the one that still has receipt checking and consequently lower prices, and your no-recipt-checking store won't be around for long. Retail is a low-margin business.
"Tough," you say, "if their prices go up I'll just shop somewhere else." But of course, that somewhere else faces the same problems as Fry's. (Actually, is there anyplace else like Fry's?)
So, you see, all the alternatives are as bad or worse. I suggest an alternate plan. Next time, hand your receipt to the checker and say, "How 'bout those Giants?" (Okay, 'Niners.) Have a conversation with him. Discover that he's a human being, too. In short, stop acting like such an insufferable prig.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but what if that communication link is lost? For example, suppose the antenna gets crunched well before the system's electronics stop working. Wouldn't it potentially be useful to have that data? Granted, it may not show the proximate cause. Then again, we don't know that it wouldn't.
In addition, such a black box could only monitor a few systems.
Somewhere all of the sensor data is being multiplexed into a data stream for tansmission. I'm sure it's a reasonably wideband transmission, but it can't be THAT much data. It would seem simple enough to snapshot that data into a box that saves the last, oh, 15 minutes of data.
The problem is that there is massive competition in terms of volume and weight for items to go into the shuttle. Every gram and cc used for a "black box" is one less gram and cc available for mission equipment. So you really have to have a strong justification, and I can see why a "black box" wouldn't make the cut. Still, it might have proven useful in this case.
I prefer Blacula.
Journalists generally have a liberal arts education, and liberal arts students (and faculty) basically think engineering colleges are trade schools, not real higher education.
You certainly appeared to think you were. And it wouldn't be the silliest thing ever posted on /. (Now, there's a competition!) At best your terminology was imprecise and subject to misinterpretation. Clearly, though, you're not interested in hearing that. Your loss.
What you actually wrote was: "As for power being irrelevant, it is when we're talking about radiation that is about 6 orders of magnitude too low in frequency..."
As for "deeply flawed," the photoelectric effect is fairly clear - for two sources of the same power, the one with the higher frequency is the one with the greater ability to effect electron transitions (ie, breaking bonds in DNA).
But that's simply not the issue for nonionizing radiation, which is the flaw in your analysis.
I repeat: At these frequencies the principal known deleterious effect is heating and is a strong function of power. Your statement that power is irrelevant is simply incorrect. Now, if what you meant was to limit that to cell-phone levels, fine. But that's not what you said. Claiming ex post facto that it should be obvious is weak.
And, by the way, if you're not able to hear objective criticism of your statements without taking it personally, maybe you would be better served not to make them.
It is simply incorrect to say that radio-frequency (RF) signals are incapable of causing damage irrespective of power. Your analysis is deeply flawed and ignores a wealth of literature that shows the effects of strong electromagnetic fields on humans and animals.
It is correct that what we're discussing here is nonionizing radiation. It is not correct that the deleterious effect of RF is related solely to the particle energy. Another significant factor is the degree to which the signal is absorbed by the human body. The human body is not transparent to RF; neither is it a conductor. It absorbs energy from an RF field, energy that is converted into heat. When the energy is sufficiently high, this heat can damage cells. This is particularly true in some areas of the body such as the eyes. And the body does not absorb energy at all frequencies equally. In fact, the FCC RF exposure regulations allow less power density at 30-300 MHz than they do at frequencies above that. (And, yes, power does matter, very much.) That's because the specific absorption rate (SAR) of the human body peaks at approximately 100 MHz.
Some useful background can be found on the FCC's RF Safety page.
Let's see... the FBI says the report wasn't true, the city librarian says the report wasn't true, the reporter says the report wasn't true, and the reporter's two anonymous sources say the story wasn't true. And the delusional /. editor's response? "Since the FBI has little incentive to tell the truth on this count, I don't see what incentive anyone has to believe their denial."
Un-fucking-believable.
Yeah, he usually delegates that to Ballmer.
Yeah, if you average about 110 mph and don't take any piss breaks.
Yes, despite what your GF told you, size does matter.
In the world of Michael, merely being in business is prima facie evidence of one's lack of ethics. So there's really nothing at all suprising about him making asinine accusations against Tim O'Reilly.
I assume Michael backs up to the pay window at VA in order to collect his weekly stipend.
Is that where that's coming from?
Not at all!
Well, of course they don't have people left reading the open literature. That's because they shot them all in Three Days of the Condor!
It RH as an AOL/TW entity loses money, you think AOL/TW will continue it? Sure, AOL/TW will still be in business. They just won't be in the business of making or supporting a Linux distribution. Worse, this could well happen even if RH does make some money if the profits aren't what the "street" expects from an AOL/TW division -- can't have RH dragging down those P/E ratios! (Okay, RH would be such a drop in the bucket to AOL/TW that its profit or loss would be about 6 places to the right of the decimal point in AOL/TW's earnings reports.) In fact, the corporate drones could shut it down at any time for any reason. Such as, for example, they decided to make nice with Microsoft.
All in all, I'd rather stick with an independent RH whose future is controlled by people who at least give a damn. Its future is much brighter that way.
*plonk*
If they're LEO, there will be periods of time during which you will be line-of-sight to the satellites but the attacker will not -- unless the attacker is either at your location or has multiple uplink sites. Even if the attacker has a strong transmitter and can DoS you while he sees the satellite, once he's out of the footprint of the bird and you are in it, you'll be able to command it.
It's not hard at all: http://www.google.com/search?q=fuck
Tune in the Universe -- Amateur Radio and the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence
In late-breaking developments, the U.S. Department of Justice now wants the Microsoft anti-trust proceedings moved from the Federal Court to a military tribunal.
Obviously it is worth $50 per year or you wouldn't be paying it.
What, they're never in the same place at the same time? Kinda like Clark Kent and Superman? Hey, wait a minute.... hmmmm.
Problematic. What would make more sense is to have some sort of collective subscription system. Suppose you could go to some site and pay a reasonable fee for an annual subscription to say 10 sites. You choose the sites. Such a mechanism would allow for relatively small per-site payments without requiring either the payer or the payee to deal with small-change payments.
I dunno, it seems like a natural to me.
That's right, they should be saying "...it runs on GNU/Linux..."!
Of course, they could just eliminate the checking altogether to protect your "rights." But then that $250 will become about $300 because they'll have to raise their prices to cover the increase in undetected shoplifting. What's that you say? So let them do less invasive security? You mean like hidden cameras watching your every move, as most department stores have?
But then, maybe you're willing to pay the extra cash to subsidize theft in order to avoid the trauma of having your receipt checked. Trouble is, most people aren't that well heeled. They'll opt for the competition -- the one that still has receipt checking and consequently lower prices, and your no-recipt-checking store won't be around for long. Retail is a low-margin business.
"Tough," you say, "if their prices go up I'll just shop somewhere else." But of course, that somewhere else faces the same problems as Fry's. (Actually, is there anyplace else like Fry's?)
So, you see, all the alternatives are as bad or worse. I suggest an alternate plan. Next time, hand your receipt to the checker and say, "How 'bout those Giants?" (Okay, 'Niners.) Have a conversation with him. Discover that he's a human being, too. In short, stop acting like such an insufferable prig.