It's not the cost of the propellant (or rather oxidiser) that matters - it's the MASS (and that of the associated tankage etc). Every kilogram of mass saved increases the payload - which in turn drops the $/kg launch cost.
There are actually FIVE countries that have successfully tested scramjets in flight - the list should include Australia. What is more, the Australian project (HySHot run from the University of Queensland) was the FIRST successful scramjet flight (in July 2002).
The advice given was nearly unanimous: an iOS device. So you'll try an Android since there's "an app you need that only runs on Android." So why did you ask us then? At least include all relevant information next time.
Simple reason for not including that info - I wanted to hear opinions on all possibilities, not just limited to Android. Good functionality will trump one particular App. My friend doesn't have access to that App now so continuing not to have it is not the real issue - useable, portable email and web access is much more important.
Many thanks for all the feedback. I will talk to the Blind Association here in Australia and then take my friend to try out a few tablets. For software reasons, I am hoping that Android will do enough on a large tablet (there's an app that doesn't run on IOS that I know he would like to have access to), but we'll go and look at iPads as well!
If there are any more comments, please do post them - I'll check back several times over the next few days.
As a slightly different slant on this troll rousing topic, it is worth noting a few things. 1) Per capita, Australia is the worlds highest emitter of greenhouse gases as we use mostly coal to generate electricity. Furthermore, we are one of the worlds largest coal miners/exporters and so contribute significantly to global CO2 production elsewhere. 2) In September, Australia elected a new government that is predominantly in the hands of climate change deniers. The Prime Minister (Tony Abbott) is on the public record saying that climate change is "crap" (http://blogs.abc.net.au/victoria/2009/12/climate-change-is-crap-tony-abbot-said-to-the-pyrenees-advocate.html). Amongst the new government's first acts was to defund the Climate Commission (along with several other "green" initiatives of previous governments). They are also committed to repealing the existing Carbon Tax legislation, but cannot (yet) force this through the upper house (Senate) which they do not control. 3) In response to its defunding, the Climate Commission reformed itself as the Climate Council, raising around $1 million in under two weeks. Whilst not big bikkies in US terms, this is extremely significant in a small population country like Australia that demonstrates that many Australians feel very strongly about climate change - strongly enough to not only make a one off donation but to commit to regular, monthly donations to support the ongoing public information work of the Climate Council.
From their "about" page http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/about-us/ "The Climate Council is an independent non-profit organisation funded by donations by the public. Our mission is to provide authoritative, expert advice to the Australian public on climate change."
In 1959, John Wyndham (the Day of the Triffids, the Chrysalids etc) wrote a set of linked short stories about a family participating in the colonisation of space. In one of these, the USA, Russia and the UK have nuclear armed moon bases.
An interesting case of art imitating life - even if the the life was top secret at the time!
If you look at the list of companies that were sued (and have settled), you will notice that none of them is an Australian company. It was Australian tax payer dollars that funded this research (and the patenting process), so just how does the Australian government tax all those non-Australain companies??? The ONLY way to do it is with patents so that the companies making money from the technology in many countries around the world pay a part of their profits back to the inventors.
As has been said, the CSIRO will use this money to fund further research - such as the "pure" radio astronomy work which resulted in this spin off piece of technology in the first place!
Bias up front: I am an ex academic (in engineering), bored early retiree who is now teaching senior Maths/Physics at high school (in Australia) - including 10th grade Maths. As well as being an academic, I worked in the private sector (including my own business), so I have some idea as to what I would expect of general clerical staff.
I am truly astonished that a "well educated" person could not solve the sort of problems referenced in the article. Simple Maths problems like these do not just show Mathematical capability, but also demonstrate logical reasoning skills - the sort of skills I would look for when hiring someone for a general clerical position.
That said, quite a few of my (middle to lower ability class) kids in 10th grade this year failed to meet this sort of standard, although with most of these it was lack of effort/application not innate ability that determined their outcome. Quite a few of these kids said they couldn't care less as "Maths was irrelevant" to their area of career interest (despite solid examples that demonstrated that idea to be incorrect).
I have the feeling that many kids regard Maths as hard and "you can do well without it" as a socially accepted truth. Yet we live in an increasingly technical (numerate, Mathematical) world, so I can't help but feel this widely accepted "truth" will (or quite probably already is going to) bite us in the bum: without logical, (mathematically literate) people to run our world, it will fall into a hole...
This is really a reinvention and extension of 1940's British technology.
Barnes Wallis (of the bouncing "Dam Buster" bomb fame) designed a 5 tonne bomb (Tallboy) in 1943. The larger 10 tonne bomb (Grand Slam) was introduced in early 1945. It was dropped from a Lancaster bomber (by 617 squadron - the Dam Buster squadron) from about 20,000 ft and was close to sonic (320 m/s) when it hit the ground. It was designed as a penetrator, only detonating when well underground. It was used with devastating effect against the German U Boat pens, canals, bridges and viaducts where the "earthquake" effect of a deep explosion undermined foundations.
The Grand Slam used 4,144 kg of explosives (Torpex)which is considerably more than the heavier bomb proposed by the US DoD with an earth penetration design depth of 40m. I would imagine that the higher impact speed of the US bomb requires a much stronger casing, but I am surprised at the small ordinance load.
It is interesting to note that (as with much British technology) design data for the Grand Slam was shared with the US and a US version was made, but not (as far as I am aware) used in WWII.
RobHart
I am a gliding instructor in Australia. We are currently introducing new technology to assist in avoiding collisions (an unhappy concommitant of gliding as we frequently fly very close to many other gliders). This is GPS based system (see http://www.rf-developments.com/page008.html).
Gliding, more than any other air sport, has put considerable resources into training glider pilots to have and use excellent lookout skills - and yet mid air collisions with other gliders still happen (one person was killed, one injured and two gliders written off in such an incident last year).
We are at the trial stage of this new technology - we had 60 gliders fitted with the units at a competition just before Christmas - and there is considerable debate as to whether this technology is a good idea or not. Collision warning systems like this can only warn you about other gliders that have ozFLARM fitted - and can do nothing to alert you of gliders or the many other users of the air (including large eagles) that are not fitted with this equipment - or if the unit in your glider fails. So - it is essential that we continue to train pilots to acquire and maintain excellent lookout skills if (as seems likely) we will require this equipment in competition gliders and recommend it for all other gliders.
In other words, we train for equipment failure as well as in using the new equipment.
Unfortunately, current driving training does not seem to do this - and yet there is an increasing amount of extremely important safety equipment in most vehicles. Probably the anti-lock braking system (ABS) is the most critical.
Learning how to avoid skids and how to handle them if they do occur is probably the most vital piece of driver safety training!
I was intimately involved in the initial design of the RHCE (which started back in 1997). Red Hat asked for (and received) extensive community input into the design of the program via a public mailing list. Many of the criticisms of IT certification that are occurring in this discussion were very thoroughly explored in that forum.
Red Hat required a certification program to handle two related needs
1) Red Hat needed to know that its partners had sufficient technical expertise to deliver Red Hat Linux to our mutual customers. This is an essentail part of our QA process and our ability to deliver on our promise of quality to our customers.
2) Companies wishing to deploy Red Hat Linux needed to know that there were high level qualified Linux people who could perform on the job - ie who had the skills and knowledge at a detailed level AND who had shown their ability to produce quality solutions to problems under pressure.
Resulting directly from the discussions, Red Hat decided that its certification program had to require more than passing a multiple choice exam. We finally settled on a performance based (ie hands on) examination as this is the only real way to test for on the job performance.
The hands on examination lasts most of a full day and is very tough. You get a 'broken' system and have to find out what is wrong - and fix it, then we break it again and you get to fix it again, and so on.
Because of this performance based examination, the RHCE is in no way comparable to almost all other IT certification programs (the exception being the Cisco program which is also performance based). Neither the MSCE nor the CNE have performance based examinations.
The content and level of knowledge of the RHCE was also determined through the community discussion process. The archives of this discussion are extensive and detailed - for example, including discussion of the level of detailed sendmail config knowledge we should require.
I would agree that much IT certification is of very limited value. It was for this specific reason that Red Hat, with the benefit of extensive community involvement, decided to design the RHCE the way it did.
I hope this helps to clarify some of the discussion that is occurring here.
Please note that Red Hat does have significant presence in Asia-Pacific, with its Asia-Pacific HQ in Brisbane, Australia and offices in Singapore and Hong Kong. Red Hat also has a large office in Japan.
Official Red Hat Linux is already available in both Japanese and Korean btw.
Also, it is worth noting that the survey reported at http://www.redhat.com/about/2000/press_marketleade r.html shows that Red Hat has significant mindshare in markets it has yet to enter!
John Wyndham is a fairly old SF author (and long dead now). However, his books such as "The Day of teh Triffics", "The Chysalids" (my favourite), "The Midwych Couckoos" and his short stories are still classics and worth a read.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to disagree. The fact that Linux (and much other FOSS) exists is evidence to support my claim.
Back in the 1990s, there was no "market model" for FOSS. That came later than the products themselves.
It's not the cost of the propellant (or rather oxidiser) that matters - it's the MASS (and that of the associated tankage etc). Every kilogram of mass saved increases the payload - which in turn drops the $/kg launch cost.
There are actually FIVE countries that have successfully tested scramjets in flight - the list should include Australia. What is more, the Australian project (HySHot run from the University of Queensland) was the FIRST successful scramjet flight (in July 2002).
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyShot
The advice given was nearly unanimous: an iOS device. So you'll try an Android since there's "an app you need that only runs on Android." So why did you ask us then? At least include all relevant information next time.
Simple reason for not including that info - I wanted to hear opinions on all possibilities, not just limited to Android. Good functionality will trump one particular App. My friend doesn't have access to that App now so continuing not to have it is not the real issue - useable, portable email and web access is much more important.
Many thanks for all the feedback. I will talk to the Blind Association here in Australia and then take my friend to try out a few tablets. For software reasons, I am hoping that Android will do enough on a large tablet (there's an app that doesn't run on IOS that I know he would like to have access to), but we'll go and look at iPads as well!
If there are any more comments, please do post them - I'll check back several times over the next few days.
Again, my thanks!
Robert Hart
As a slightly different slant on this troll rousing topic, it is worth noting a few things.
1) Per capita, Australia is the worlds highest emitter of greenhouse gases as we use mostly coal to generate electricity. Furthermore, we are one of the worlds largest coal miners/exporters and so contribute significantly to global CO2 production elsewhere.
2) In September, Australia elected a new government that is predominantly in the hands of climate change deniers. The Prime Minister (Tony Abbott) is on the public record saying that climate change is "crap" (http://blogs.abc.net.au/victoria/2009/12/climate-change-is-crap-tony-abbot-said-to-the-pyrenees-advocate.html). Amongst the new government's first acts was to defund the Climate Commission (along with several other "green" initiatives of previous governments). They are also committed to repealing the existing Carbon Tax legislation, but cannot (yet) force this through the upper house (Senate) which they do not control.
3) In response to its defunding, the Climate Commission reformed itself as the Climate Council, raising around $1 million in under two weeks. Whilst not big bikkies in US terms, this is extremely significant in a small population country like Australia that demonstrates that many Australians feel very strongly about climate change - strongly enough to not only make a one off donation but to commit to regular, monthly donations to support the ongoing public information work of the Climate Council.
From their "about" page http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/about-us/
"The Climate Council is an independent non-profit organisation funded by donations by the public. Our mission is to provide authoritative, expert advice to the Australian public on climate change."
In 1959, John Wyndham (the Day of the Triffids, the Chrysalids etc) wrote a set of linked short stories about a family participating in the colonisation of space. In one of these, the USA, Russia and the UK have nuclear armed moon bases.
An interesting case of art imitating life - even if the the life was top secret at the time!
If you look at the list of companies that were sued (and have settled), you will notice that none of them is an Australian company. It was Australian tax payer dollars that funded this research (and the patenting process), so just how does the Australian government tax all those non-Australain companies??? The ONLY way to do it is with patents so that the companies making money from the technology in many countries around the world pay a part of their profits back to the inventors.
As has been said, the CSIRO will use this money to fund further research - such as the "pure" radio astronomy work which resulted in this spin off piece of technology in the first place!
RobHart
Bias up front: I am an ex academic (in engineering), bored early retiree who is now teaching senior Maths/Physics at high school (in Australia) - including 10th grade Maths. As well as being an academic, I worked in the private sector (including my own business), so I have some idea as to what I would expect of general clerical staff.
I am truly astonished that a "well educated" person could not solve the sort of problems referenced in the article. Simple Maths problems like these do not just show Mathematical capability, but also demonstrate logical reasoning skills - the sort of skills I would look for when hiring someone for a general clerical position.
That said, quite a few of my (middle to lower ability class) kids in 10th grade this year failed to meet this sort of standard, although with most of these it was lack of effort/application not innate ability that determined their outcome. Quite a few of these kids said they couldn't care less as "Maths was irrelevant" to their area of career interest (despite solid examples that demonstrated that idea to be incorrect).
I have the feeling that many kids regard Maths as hard and "you can do well without it" as a socially accepted truth. Yet we live in an increasingly technical (numerate, Mathematical) world, so I can't help but feel this widely accepted "truth" will (or quite probably already is going to) bite us in the bum: without logical, (mathematically literate) people to run our world, it will fall into a hole...
This is really a reinvention and extension of 1940's British technology. Barnes Wallis (of the bouncing "Dam Buster" bomb fame) designed a 5 tonne bomb (Tallboy) in 1943. The larger 10 tonne bomb (Grand Slam) was introduced in early 1945. It was dropped from a Lancaster bomber (by 617 squadron - the Dam Buster squadron) from about 20,000 ft and was close to sonic (320 m/s) when it hit the ground. It was designed as a penetrator, only detonating when well underground. It was used with devastating effect against the German U Boat pens, canals, bridges and viaducts where the "earthquake" effect of a deep explosion undermined foundations. The Grand Slam used 4,144 kg of explosives (Torpex)which is considerably more than the heavier bomb proposed by the US DoD with an earth penetration design depth of 40m. I would imagine that the higher impact speed of the US bomb requires a much stronger casing, but I am surprised at the small ordinance load. It is interesting to note that (as with much British technology) design data for the Grand Slam was shared with the US and a US version was made, but not (as far as I am aware) used in WWII. RobHart
I am a gliding instructor in Australia. We are currently introducing new technology to assist in avoiding collisions (an unhappy concommitant of gliding as we frequently fly very close to many other gliders). This is GPS based system (see http://www.rf-developments.com/page008.html).
Gliding, more than any other air sport, has put considerable resources into training glider pilots to have and use excellent lookout skills - and yet mid air collisions with other gliders still happen (one person was killed, one injured and two gliders written off in such an incident last year).
We are at the trial stage of this new technology - we had 60 gliders fitted with the units at a competition just before Christmas - and there is considerable debate as to whether this technology is a good idea or not. Collision warning systems like this can only warn you about other gliders that have ozFLARM fitted - and can do nothing to alert you of gliders or the many other users of the air (including large eagles) that are not fitted with this equipment - or if the unit in your glider fails. So - it is essential that we continue to train pilots to acquire and maintain excellent lookout skills if (as seems likely) we will require this equipment in competition gliders and recommend it for all other gliders.
In other words, we train for equipment failure as well as in using the new equipment.
Unfortunately, current driving training does not seem to do this - and yet there is an increasing amount of extremely important safety equipment in most vehicles. Probably the anti-lock braking system (ABS) is the most critical.
Learning how to avoid skids and how to handle them if they do occur is probably the most vital piece of driver safety training!
Given the international makeup of /. readership, a more appropriate and informative headline would indicate that the story deals with US universities.
/. suggesting that there are no 'top' universities elsewhere?
Or is
I was intimately involved in the initial design of the RHCE (which started back in 1997). Red Hat asked for (and received) extensive community input into the design of the program via a public mailing list. Many of the criticisms of IT certification that are occurring in this discussion were very thoroughly explored in that forum.
Red Hat required a certification program to handle two related needs
1) Red Hat needed to know that its partners had sufficient technical expertise to deliver Red Hat Linux to our mutual customers. This is an essentail part of our QA process and our ability to deliver on our promise of quality to our customers.
2) Companies wishing to deploy Red Hat Linux needed to know that there were high level qualified Linux people who could perform on the job - ie who had the skills and knowledge at a detailed level AND who had shown their ability to produce quality solutions to problems under pressure.
Resulting directly from the discussions, Red Hat decided that its certification program had to require more than passing a multiple choice exam. We finally settled on a performance based (ie hands on) examination as this is the only real way to test for on the job performance.
The hands on examination lasts most of a full day and is very tough. You get a 'broken' system and have to find out what is wrong - and fix it, then we break it again and you get to fix it again, and so on.
Because of this performance based examination, the RHCE is in no way comparable to almost all other IT certification programs (the exception being the Cisco program which is also performance based). Neither the MSCE nor the CNE have performance based examinations.
The content and level of knowledge of the RHCE was also determined through the community discussion process. The archives of this discussion are extensive and detailed - for example, including discussion of the level of detailed sendmail config knowledge we should require.
I would agree that much IT certification is of very limited value. It was for this specific reason that Red Hat, with the benefit of extensive community involvement, decided to design the RHCE the way it did.
I hope this helps to clarify some of the discussion that is occurring here.
Please note that Red Hat does have significant presence in Asia-Pacific, with its Asia-Pacific HQ in Brisbane, Australia and offices in Singapore and Hong Kong. Red Hat also has a large office in Japan.
e r.html shows that Red Hat has significant mindshare in markets it has yet to enter!
Official Red Hat Linux is already available in both Japanese and Korean btw.
Also, it is worth noting that the survey reported at http://www.redhat.com/about/2000/press_marketlead
John Wyndham is a fairly old SF author (and long dead now). However, his books such as "The Day of teh Triffics", "The Chysalids" (my favourite), "The Midwych Couckoos" and his short stories are still classics and worth a read.