The Planetary Society published this (pdf) in collaboration with Griffin (he's listed as one of nine members of the 'study team') before he became head of NASA. The Planetary Society got their guy in and he's following the plan they sold to the administration and Congress. What the fuck is going on here?
If the peanut gallery over at the Planetary Society start jerking the Government's chain over settled NASA policy they're going to get stuff defunded. Most of our leading presidential candidates will take any excuse they can find to snatch away the funding and use it to buy votes some other way.
In other news... Researchers develop revolutionary hair splitting device. "We have developed a technology that precisely subdivides a human hair up to 18 times lengthwise", said researchers at the Seymour Skinner Institute for Pedantry.
the amount of damage (direct and indirect) that has been perpetrated on humanity in the name of vague ethereal omnipotent beings is so stunning That damage has and is now and will occur with or without various and sundry credited sky daddys. Mobs and tyrants are entirely capable of supplying sufficient deception to support their agendas and launder their crimes independent of religion. Railing against whatever religious icon you've been taught to rail against won't reduce or prevent whatever level of violence the species wants to and has decided to inflict. Not one little bit. Thinking it will is stupid and dangerous. Claiming it will is itself a crime.
You'll see a lot more of this crap in the next few years, along with a resurgence of the more traditional major and minor orders within the church organization, slowly displacing the more enlightened groups that gained a lot of power during John Paul's tenure. I agree. I detected no less disdain from the usual church-haters as a result of John Paul's limited liberalization. If you're ostracized by the enlightened regardless of your direction why engage in the effort?
I'm a agnostic that does not accept your rationalization of human evil. Your answer is too easy and shared by so many and repeated so often that it has become pure mantra with no more credibility to me than sky daddy talk. A cop out.
The Western World SANCTIONS other countries when exit polls conflict with actual results. The exit polls in NH matched the results.
Thank God
"WTF is going on?"
SOMETHING happened
we MUST find out Gullible fucking idiots.
Can this rat brain fly a plane? Probably, and why not? Flying is the product of billions of tiny brains all over the planet. Piloting an aircraft is comparatively easy to what we witness birds do routinely. Never mind that automated aircraft are flying sophisticated missions using computers a couple orders of magnitude smaller than an IBM Blue/Gene L, and several additional orders of magnitude less complex than a rat brain. Flying is easy, as far as nature and computers are concerned.
Yet no doubt when a competent emulation of a bird brain exists and is observed flying around, you will raise the bar again. Not long ago recognizing natural speech was offered as you offer the test of flight. We have since moved the bar because our inexpensive, portable, battery powered cell phones now understand the simple noises we make with accuracy approaching our own. Bipedal walking, land navigation, chess and facial recognition are more examples of tests offered that once solved, for some reason, no longer count.
Consider this; we're having to move the bar with greater frequency all the time. At what point does the realization occur that the problem of thought is finite and solvable? I believe that very soon we will have at least parity between ourselves and our machines. Not because the machines are tremendously powerful, but because we're not.
The count of neurons (100G+) and synapses (up to 10K per neuron) is well known. The switching speed of this finite set of electrical and chemical circuits is measured in (comparatively slow) milliseconds. Our brains run on a couple calories a minute and operate at approximately body temperature. In contrast to the infinite supply of uniform opinions offered here that effectively assert that the brain is too elaborate for it's own comprehension, there simply isn't enough space or energy involved to convince me that the brain is some unapproachably complex enigma forever beyond our capacity to emulate.
Every new milestone passed only reinforces my belief, regardless of how fast you raise the bar.
That's the slogan which appears on the Main_Page of Wikipedia. The provided link leads to Wikipedia:Introduction which states:
anyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold I presume the "almost any page" refers to that tiny subset of pages that are locked at any one moment. No criterion for who is and is not permitted to edit Wikipedia are provided.
Now, Wikipedia does maintain a NPOV policy that one might consider relevant to the case at hand. However, NPOV applies to the nature of contributed content, not the nature of the contributor. When he's not ordering political opponents assassinated, Putin is free to work to his own page, as long as the contributed content maintains a NPOV.
The Wikileaks page linked from our/. story lists the 60 edits in question. If you actually examine these edits you'll find they appear to have no general focus. Edits include grammar and spelling corrections, elaborations on pop culture topics and other matters. Since the vast majority of these edits lack any obvious political agenda, Wikileaks helpfully "highlights" the 5 controversial edits, otherwise you might miss them:
Remove one sentence containing a gitmo detainee ID number. Remainder of topic unmodified
Remove one sentence containing a gitmo detainee ID number. Remainder of topic unmodified
Remove one sentence containing a gitmo detainee ID number. Remainder of topic unmodified
Alter one word to characterize the current Afghanistan conflict as a "war" instead of an "invasion".
Add the sentence "Fidel Castro is an admitted transexual."
Having read all of the same edits myself I can confirm that these 5 edits constitute the complete propaganda attack. I can only speculate why someone from Gitmo might feel the need to remove detainee ID numbers; perhaps the practice is obsolete. Who knows? The detainee topics themselves weren't harmed in any substantive way by the lack of ID numbers. The petty "war" verses "invasion" thing; they're both wrong. The only NPOV word that comes to mind for me is "conflict". As for the transsexual bit; puerile crap like this appears at a frequency of several Hz on Wikipedia, and is removed almost as quickly by various bots and many diligent editors. Ascribing this to some propaganda machine when it could just as easily have been some twit among the 3000+ active duty troops in Gitmo is a real stretch.
There you have it; 3 unexplained detainee ID removals which failed to significantly propagandize anything, a single word edit war in which both sides are guilty of violating NPOV and some vandalism.
I saw Orange doing this on their wireless network in Lyon about 3 years ago. Have also seen it on various hotel networks.
Still get my personal uplink from a small, privately owned ISP that doesn't have anything like enough on-staff talent to wiggle into every aspect of my traffic. About 1/2 has fast as any given nearby Comcast cable uplink. Costs about $20 more a month too. For all that you can take your trafficshaped, mutiliated $29.95/month interweb pipe and <censored>
If you're going to line up at the troth with the other sheep, lower your expectations.
I agree, watching people mature through an infusion of reality is always good to see.
Her mention of "base load" is interesting. Here is a bit of back of the napkin computation to place the idea of replacing fossil fuel with atomic power in perspective:
At the moment about 50% of electrical energy in the US is coal. A bit less than 20% is atomic. The rest is natural gas and hydroelectric, with everything else safely labeled "other". A credible reference for this may be found here (pp. 224). Fossil fuel accounts for more than 70% of base load power generation.
At this moment there are 104 operational reactors at 65 sites in the US. To eliminate fossil fuel from electrical power generation, we must increase nuclear power from the current 20% of supply to 90%. That means the US will need a total of 540 operating reactors at approximately 330 sites (assuming equivalent reactor output and the ratio of reactors to sites, both of which are entirely probable.)
540 reactors, or more than 10 per state... Is that politically feasible? Not unless a whole mess of anti-nuke folks pull similar 180s and begin vigorously campaigning for nuclear power.
Now consider this; we have so far only examined electrical supply and consumption. Electricity does not directly serve transportation in the US to any significant degree. About 30% of the total energy consumed is attributable to transportation. Let's say two thirds of that could be supplanted by electricity if we all buy Chevy Volts in the next decade (because we probably won't live to see electric airliners...) Now we need several hundred more nukes.
In the end, you (unless you're a farmer living in b.f.e.) will be within driving distance of a 1-3GW nuclear facility. Yes, you. You'll probably pass it twice a day going to and from whatever server room you nurse burning all that power.
At this scale we'll need more than traditional natural Uranium burning reactors. We'll need an advanced fuel cycle involving true breeder reactors.
What does Congress have against funding for exploration of Mars? At the present time Mars exploration is an inefficient method of purchasing voters. The money will instead flow to those interests that leverage the largest constituency of the dominant party. What those interests are can be found here, here, here and here, but mostly here. All public proselytizing aside the recent change in US political party dominance has not and will not cause substantial disruption in the flow of funds here, because nothing raises the cost of voters for incumbent rulers as rapidly as martial humiliation.
The good news is that inevitably a rivalry will develop between the US mob and some other nation's mob and NASA will once again be an efficient vote purchasing mechanism. With any luck the US will have a solid launch platform ready for that eventuality despite current shifts in political priorities. We'll have the wisdom of an engineer (in not coupling the fate of launch platform development to Mars exploration,) to thank for this when it comes to pass.
The fact that launch platform development is not coupled directly to Mars Exploration makes this anti-Mars Exploration language from Congress largely symbolic anyhow; NASA will go right on developing the necessary rockets. That fact is the single best argument I can think of against this naive and now very dead notion.
I used to do a lot of business with Shentech. Time was they stocked good gear. You could find the best parts in stock at one online store. Something happened; after building four machines (last one was a dual PIII machine) using Shentech stock exclusively I found they started to neglect keeping current with the sort of components I wanted (the usual home build gaming/poweruser sort of stuff.) I drifted away, found alternatives and haven't been back in many years.
the aircraft would be capable of Mach 3 Highly unlikely. Large, fixed geometry wings and an apparent lack of variable inlets precludes that sort of speed. An example of what is required to attain Mach 3 is the Blackbird; those large cones at the inlet of each engine adjust to control the shock front of incoming air. This is a requirement of extreme velocity jets and the F-22 simply doesn't have this or anything equivalent. This is qualified by the fact that not every aspect of F-22 design is public.
The F-22 is a fast aircraft, but not in the classic sense of absolute velocity at altitude. It cruises fast and it dogfights fast. Usable speed the competition can't match.
It's a very aerodynamic design coupled to a fantastically powerful engine F-22 aerodynamics are compromised for stealth and optimized for maneuverability (large wings, less wing loading.) Without variable inlets those fantastically powerful engines can not play in the Mach 3 regime. Accelerate vertically, yes. >Mach 1 turns, yes. Mach 3? Not likely.
The F-22 can cruise at Mach 2 without using afterburners The F-22 can not 'cruise' at Mach 2. That would be even more buck rogers than the aircraft is already. Exceeding Mach 2 in an F-22 requires afterburners and this, in the parlance of military aircraft, is not 'cruise.' What an F-22 can do is supercruise (exceed Mach 1 without afterburners, thus high fuel efficiencies which means good range and therefore viable in bombing missions) at about Mach 1.7.
The F-22 can dogfight (maneuver at high-G and operate weapons) above Mach 1 which is a major advantage as most of it's contemporaries must be below Mach 1 to do much more than cover ground. Dropping JDAMS at high speed and altitude is another huge advantage which is, as you speculate, what this is probably intended to validate.
Elon Musk intends his Falcon rockets to put ~500 lbs in LEO for ~$8 million. Two failures to date and another attempt coming up early next year (SpaceX dates being rather fluid.) Of course this is only the cost of the launch, not the experiment/science etc. Anyhow, the NASA numbers seem reasonable.
What choices have you made provisioning hardware for production MySql systems? Specifically, what do you rely on for storage; raid levels, hardware vs. software, etc. What, if any, tools do you use for performance analysis of production systems beyond the usual *nix monitoring programs (sysstat etc.)?
Here is another example of how one might choose to phrase a report of the exact same event:
House Democrats on Tuesday narrowly managed to avert a bruising debate on a proposal to impeach Dick Cheney after Republicans, in a surprise maneuver, voted in favor of taking up the measure. You see, the Republicans supported Kucinich's latest hail mary because they know it would be an embaressment to the Democrats. With that support the vote passed and the house 'leadership' was force to bury it in a committee.
I wonder if this has any implications for Dell's partnership with EMC. Dell just released the MD3000i which sort of obviates the AX-150. Buying EqualLogic doesn't give Dell a FC platform to obviate the EMC CX gear they're reselling. Perhaps they'll put FC phys on the PS boxes...
I've always thought of EqualLogic as the NetApp of iSCSI; excellent design and performance but very expensive. Last I heard they had just over 3000 customers. Buying EqualLogic gives Dell the iSCSI SAN assets to compete with EMC/NetApp/IBM enterprise iSCSI.
HP should'a bought 'em. Perhaps they'll snap up LeftHand instead.
**cough** slashvertisement **cough** This is the sort of place where one takes hardware; those who come here appreciate this. Cool bit of kit, cheap yet capable. Machines this small, versatile and low cost? You could make a garage door opener out of this. You could fly a UAV on 5W.
Anyhow that's where you are and welcome. Just us hardware fiends.:)
If Ben was around today I'm sure he would approve of the open source movement and he would likely be called a smelly long haired communist and have chairs thrown at him. Ever seen a 100USD bill? If Ben were around today he'd be civilly and criminally prosecuted for having held slaves, his later abolitionism most definitely not withstanding. It's too bad we're occupied with purging our schools of the wisdom of dead white guys; Franklin's thoughts on patents will remain obscure.
The link you provide leads to this explanation:
When you're not actively using your computer, background tasks--including automatic backup programs and antivirus scans--run when they will least disturb you. These background tasks can take up system memory space that your programs had been using. On Windows XP-based PCs, this can slow progress to a crawl when you attempt to resume work. Low priority background processes are flushing pages needed by foreground processes which leads to a lengthy series of page loads when you resume work with those processes. Solution: hide some memory on the storage device where the pager can't screw it up. Brilliant.
Disclaimer: this problem is most emphatically NOT unique to Microsoft platforms.
The grandparent's question is a good one. I think the answer is 'yes', but it would require virtual memory management that incorporated far more knowledge about usage patterns of pages. Apparently such things are intolerably ugly to those who engineer virtual memory managers.
Have 'they' solved the problem of the limited number of writes a flash device device can handle. If it's only going to last a few months and then wear out I won't consider it! Pity the poor fool that forgets to turn off atime updates.
Slashdot Mirror
The Planetary Society published this (pdf) in collaboration with Griffin (he's listed as one of nine members of the 'study team') before he became head of NASA. The Planetary Society got their guy in and he's following the plan they sold to the administration and Congress. What the fuck is going on here?
If the peanut gallery over at the Planetary Society start jerking the Government's chain over settled NASA policy they're going to get stuff defunded. Most of our leading presidential candidates will take any excuse they can find to snatch away the funding and use it to buy votes some other way.
I'm a agnostic that does not accept your rationalization of human evil. Your answer is too easy and shared by so many and repeated so often that it has become pure mantra with no more credibility to me than sky daddy talk. A cop out.
Pour on the anecdotes...
Microsoft has had to license a mass of proprietary protocol documentation.
Yet no doubt when a competent emulation of a bird brain exists and is observed flying around, you will raise the bar again. Not long ago recognizing natural speech was offered as you offer the test of flight. We have since moved the bar because our inexpensive, portable, battery powered cell phones now understand the simple noises we make with accuracy approaching our own. Bipedal walking, land navigation, chess and facial recognition are more examples of tests offered that once solved, for some reason, no longer count.
Consider this; we're having to move the bar with greater frequency all the time. At what point does the realization occur that the problem of thought is finite and solvable? I believe that very soon we will have at least parity between ourselves and our machines. Not because the machines are tremendously powerful, but because we're not.
The count of neurons (100G+) and synapses (up to 10K per neuron) is well known. The switching speed of this finite set of electrical and chemical circuits is measured in (comparatively slow) milliseconds. Our brains run on a couple calories a minute and operate at approximately body temperature. In contrast to the infinite supply of uniform opinions offered here that effectively assert that the brain is too elaborate for it's own comprehension, there simply isn't enough space or energy involved to convince me that the brain is some unapproachably complex enigma forever beyond our capacity to emulate.
Every new milestone passed only reinforces my belief, regardless of how fast you raise the bar.
Merry Xmas, happy new years etc.
A short but more technical story found here.
Now, Wikipedia does maintain a NPOV policy that one might consider relevant to the case at hand. However, NPOV applies to the nature of contributed content, not the nature of the contributor. When he's not ordering political opponents assassinated, Putin is free to work to his own page, as long as the contributed content maintains a NPOV.
The Wikileaks page linked from our
Having read all of the same edits myself I can confirm that these 5 edits constitute the complete propaganda attack. I can only speculate why someone from Gitmo might feel the need to remove detainee ID numbers; perhaps the practice is obsolete. Who knows? The detainee topics themselves weren't harmed in any substantive way by the lack of ID numbers. The petty "war" verses "invasion" thing; they're both wrong. The only NPOV word that comes to mind for me is "conflict". As for the transsexual bit; puerile crap like this appears at a frequency of several Hz on Wikipedia, and is removed almost as quickly by various bots and many diligent editors. Ascribing this to some propaganda machine when it could just as easily have been some twit among the 3000+ active duty troops in Gitmo is a real stretch.
There you have it; 3 unexplained detainee ID removals which failed to significantly propagandize anything, a single word edit war in which both sides are guilty of violating NPOV and some vandalism.
Wow.
I saw Orange doing this on their wireless network in Lyon about 3 years ago. Have also seen it on various hotel networks.
Still get my personal uplink from a small, privately owned ISP that doesn't have anything like enough on-staff talent to wiggle into every aspect of my traffic. About 1/2 has fast as any given nearby Comcast cable uplink. Costs about $20 more a month too. For all that you can take your trafficshaped, mutiliated $29.95/month interweb pipe and <censored>
If you're going to line up at the troth with the other sheep, lower your expectations.
I agree, watching people mature through an infusion of reality is always good to see.
Her mention of "base load" is interesting. Here is a bit of back of the napkin computation to place the idea of replacing fossil fuel with atomic power in perspective:
At the moment about 50% of electrical energy in the US is coal. A bit less than 20% is atomic. The rest is natural gas and hydroelectric, with everything else safely labeled "other". A credible reference for this may be found here (pp. 224). Fossil fuel accounts for more than 70% of base load power generation.
At this moment there are 104 operational reactors at 65 sites in the US. To eliminate fossil fuel from electrical power generation, we must increase nuclear power from the current 20% of supply to 90%. That means the US will need a total of 540 operating reactors at approximately 330 sites (assuming equivalent reactor output and the ratio of reactors to sites, both of which are entirely probable.)
540 reactors, or more than 10 per state... Is that politically feasible? Not unless a whole mess of anti-nuke folks pull similar 180s and begin vigorously campaigning for nuclear power.
Now consider this; we have so far only examined electrical supply and consumption. Electricity does not directly serve transportation in the US to any significant degree. About 30% of the total energy consumed is attributable to transportation. Let's say two thirds of that could be supplanted by electricity if we all buy Chevy Volts in the next decade (because we probably won't live to see electric airliners...) Now we need several hundred more nukes.
In the end, you (unless you're a farmer living in b.f.e.) will be within driving distance of a 1-3GW nuclear facility. Yes, you. You'll probably pass it twice a day going to and from whatever server room you nurse burning all that power.
At this scale we'll need more than traditional natural Uranium burning reactors. We'll need an advanced fuel cycle involving true breeder reactors.
The good news is that inevitably a rivalry will develop between the US mob and some other nation's mob and NASA will once again be an efficient vote purchasing mechanism. With any luck the US will have a solid launch platform ready for that eventuality despite current shifts in political priorities. We'll have the wisdom of an engineer (in not coupling the fate of launch platform development to Mars exploration,) to thank for this when it comes to pass.
The fact that launch platform development is not coupled directly to Mars Exploration makes this anti-Mars Exploration language from Congress largely symbolic anyhow; NASA will go right on developing the necessary rockets. That fact is the single best argument I can think of against this naive and now very dead notion.
I used to do a lot of business with Shentech. Time was they stocked good gear. You could find the best parts in stock at one online store. Something happened; after building four machines (last one was a dual PIII machine) using Shentech stock exclusively I found they started to neglect keeping current with the sort of components I wanted (the usual home build gaming/poweruser sort of stuff.) I drifted away, found alternatives and haven't been back in many years.
Looks like they've gone way down hill.
The F-22 is a fast aircraft, but not in the classic sense of absolute velocity at altitude. It cruises fast and it dogfights fast. Usable speed the competition can't match. It's a very aerodynamic design coupled to a fantastically powerful engine F-22 aerodynamics are compromised for stealth and optimized for maneuverability (large wings, less wing loading.) Without variable inlets those fantastically powerful engines can not play in the Mach 3 regime. Accelerate vertically, yes. >Mach 1 turns, yes. Mach 3? Not likely.
The F-22 can dogfight (maneuver at high-G and operate weapons) above Mach 1 which is a major advantage as most of it's contemporaries must be below Mach 1 to do much more than cover ground. Dropping JDAMS at high speed and altitude is another huge advantage which is, as you speculate, what this is probably intended to validate.
Elon Musk intends his Falcon rockets to put ~500 lbs in LEO for ~$8 million. Two failures to date and another attempt coming up early next year (SpaceX dates being rather fluid.) Of course this is only the cost of the launch, not the experiment/science etc. Anyhow, the NASA numbers seem reasonable.
What choices have you made provisioning hardware for production MySql systems? Specifically, what do you rely on for storage; raid levels, hardware vs. software, etc. What, if any, tools do you use for performance analysis of production systems beyond the usual *nix monitoring programs (sysstat etc.)?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813135057
$9 more, NVidia graphics processor, Athlon 3200+, same 0-MB of RAM...
You'll need a heat sink. Avoid installing >1 DIMM. Does that qualify as 'close'?
I've always thought of EqualLogic as the NetApp of iSCSI; excellent design and performance but very expensive. Last I heard they had just over 3000 customers. Buying EqualLogic gives Dell the iSCSI SAN assets to compete with EMC/NetApp/IBM enterprise iSCSI.
HP should'a bought 'em. Perhaps they'll snap up LeftHand instead.
Anyhow that's where you are and welcome. Just us hardware fiends.
Happy Friday.
Disclaimer: this problem is most emphatically NOT unique to Microsoft platforms.
The grandparent's question is a good one. I think the answer is 'yes', but it would require virtual memory management that incorporated far more knowledge about usage patterns of pages. Apparently such things are intolerably ugly to those who engineer virtual memory managers.
Disclaimer 2: IANAKD
Have 'they' solved the problem of the limited number of writes a flash device device can handle. If it's only going to last a few months and then wear out I won't consider it! Pity the poor fool that forgets to turn off atime updates.
Read. Think. Then respond, or do something else.