They fucked up by not having adequate backup power systems.
Everything in the generator hall was fine AFAIK except outside power was down and backup generators were trashed by the tsunami. And that was is, there were no better protected generators, no generators that could run from the heat of the reactor, and no plan to fly in working generators. Derp.
I'm with you there. I wonder how this little beastie connects to the internet. Through the HDMI enabled monitor, or through the keyboard and mouse!?!
I guess you'd connect it to a USB hub.
These images look nice, interesting angles. They probably look slick because they've been post resized sharpened, the smaller versions on Gizmodo have been gently sharpened to make them pop a bit, it's a common photographic trick.
Even if you have a sharp 12-24 megapixel image, it can always use some sharpening when it's downsized for the web. If you don't sharpen after downsizing, photographs still look great but not as crisp as they could.
(And yes, if you sharpen the full size image and then downsize, the downsizing obliterates the sharpening done at full size.)
The Sr perchlorate injectors of the PSLV (the predecessor to GSLV) go into the 1st stage main engine (the solid), but those plumbing problems were with the GSLV's strap-ons. The PSLV had solid strap-ons, so I would guess they could not steer. The GSLV has liquid strap-ons, so I would guess they don't bother steering the main engine at all.
I didn't read this before my original post, but the GSAT-5P wiki article and linked reference say that the strap-ons stopped responding to commands, and the vehicle was destroyed by range safety. I suspect we're being given an oversimplified version of things there, unless self-destruct is a two stage thing. I think either it lost it's top, then was self-destructed ~10 secs later, or it wasn't self destructed at all and just progressively failed because of aero loads after loss of control of the strap-ons.
I'm not an expert with inside knowledge, I'm just reading the reports and trying to interpret.
Here's a deshaked version of the failure (done by me from ). You can see the vehicle rolls towards the camera, with some yaw to the left, then stage 3 falls off. Then through to stage 1+2 destruction.
So it looks like the GSLV yawed beyond limits, upper stages (I think stage 3 plus payload) broke off (0:34 on video), then stage 1+2 kept going, initially with decreased yaw (it got knocked back on course upon stage 3 separation), but then increasing yaw until 0:45 when stage 2 broke away from stage 1 and the strap-ons broke off too.
The orange cloud at 0:45 should be the hypergolics in the strap-on boosters, I believe that's what caused the orange cloud in the Challenger disaster.
According to the wiki article on the GSLV's predecessor the first stage injects chemicals (aqueous strontium perchlorate solution) into the nozzle to control yaw. I wonder if this has been problematic in the past?
Uh yeah, what's the deal? Youtube can go up to 4000 horizontal lines, and this is supposed to be sourced from "high definition" and film, so it should be available at least in 720p. It was posted 3 days ago, so that should be plenty of time for youtube to encode hidef.
Or he was, you know, joking. Like he said. Just sayin'.
Whoops, you busted me not RTFA. I thought it was Dan Lyons and not his alter ego. Actually I thought Fake Steve Jobs was retired after we found out who was behind it. Oh well, consider me a troll.
If they change the terms of the contract then those contracts are no longer valid, allowing customers to cancel them prematurely.
Given that those contracts are used to subsidize the cost of the phones, I don't think it's going to happen.
Not really, there is always force majeur. They could use this "digital flashmob" to change their plans permanently, and carriers and ISP's in the US have been wanting to introduce bandwidth caps for a while now...
Either Dan Lyons is a complete fool, or is a man on the inside trying to change the attitude to bandwidth permanently. So who is Newsweek owned by?
I strongly suspect this is a stunt for the corporations, not to humiliate them.
Well OK then, he maneuvered his way into the presidency without corruption or favours or an army of spin doctors, and has significantly changed the style with which the U.S. engages with the rest of the world.
I still feel this is a significant shift of the Nobel committee from observer and awarder to well established figures, to influencer of current affairs. This is either just pandering to populism or out-and-out lobbying, and we don't need another lobby group.
I think he may possibly deserver [sic] the prize, but its too early to say. Shouldn't they have waited to see if he manages to sort out Iraq, bring peace to the Middle East or something like that? After all if he does manage it now there will be nothing to reward him with.
That's what a lot of people are thinking. The Nobel Prize is famous for being conservative, waiting decades after the achievements of individuals before they give the prize, and then only if they're still living!
The concensus of the nay-sayers is that Obama doesn't have any achievements, he's only 8 months into his first term.
I think this is populist sh*t, same with the prize for the inventors of the CCD--the photodiode was physics, the CCD was a superb engineering effort based off the photodiode. The CCD in combination with fibre optics made it possible for us to see thousands of photos of teenage girls taken in their bathroom mirror. All hail the Internet.
What I don't get is why we don't just buy some Soyuz spacecraft off the Russians and be done with it. The Soyuz has a proven track record, the damned things are built like tanks, it is solid and dependable.
It's tiny, three astronauts have to be squeezed in there. It's basically a stepping stone to a proper spacecraft, but they didn't go to the next step because the U.S. had already won the race to the moon. It's good enough to transport astronauts to and from the ISS, and can be modified (Progress) as an unmanned resupply vehicle for the ISS. Not much use beyond that.
They really need a bigger vehicle for long duration missions beyond LEO.
be the first to sell pr0n to little kids without any age-rating?
I think there'll be other laws to cover that, like p@edophile laws.
(I know parent is a joke)
I wonder why they don't just change the names and dates on a copy of the old law, get a chorum at the house of commons, get trusted speed readers to check that the old and new laws are the same, and pass it as some sort of emergency act. Surely the don't need Europe to sign their own emergency legislation in Britain?
The loophole probably won't be exploited by any shopfront stores.
OK, I'll bite, how would NASA using Russia or China (however unlikely the latter is) benefit anyone in NASA or the U.S. congress, eg, Shelby*? Is it not the case that the only reliance on Russia under NASA's current plan is crew ferry to and from the ISS during 2011-2015? Surely this is nothing more than minor and temporary hurt to the pride of U.S. space expertise? No technical transfer, no hit to unmanned spaceflight, where 90%** of the science is done anyway?
*Apart from saving money in NASA and giving it to other US domestic programs, giving a different distribution of US Fed money. And do you mean Richard Shelby?
**Number is a guess, but all they do is crystal, plasma and minor biology research on the ISS/SpaceHab.
What overhead does this approach have? Are the benefits worth it? link
RTFA. The amount of work required is staggering (four years, 200,000 theorems to prove) but since it's a verification of code, not additional testing code, there is zero overhead when the system is running. link
Yeah, it's not like debug code or something similar. The code is written and now it's trusted on a high level by theorists etc. It could be fast and highly reliable, as reliable as the theorists are.
And what exactly do you mean by false? Do you mean, for example, if a word processing program were formally specified to print 2 character for every single keystroke that would be false? Or do you mean it would "lock up" and not work properly for a human? Or do you mean "generate non-existent instruction code and cause CPU to reset"?
I suspect the correct answer is the second example I give, but not exactly.
It does contain machine code however, so it could be #3 too.
... WikiLeaks, revealing billions in insider loans, and...
Wikileaks says:
Not long after producing this internal report, the...
The slashdot summary is making unproven claims, with the only source cited the WikiLeaks article. I think we'll see a correction of this article summary at some time. The Iceland Weather Report article doesn't mention insider trading either.
I stand corrected. And holy crap! I guess if old Koreans still prefer to do their banking face-to-face like the west, then it is true that in Korea only old people use Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
Everything in the generator hall was fine AFAIK except outside power was down and backup generators were trashed by the tsunami. And that was is, there were no better protected generators, no generators that could run from the heat of the reactor, and no plan to fly in working generators. Derp.
I'm with you there.
I wonder how this little beastie connects to the internet. Through the HDMI enabled monitor, or through the keyboard and mouse!?! I guess you'd connect it to a USB hub.
These images look nice, interesting angles. They probably look slick because they've been post resized sharpened, the smaller versions on Gizmodo have been gently sharpened to make them pop a bit, it's a common photographic trick.
Even if you have a sharp 12-24 megapixel image, it can always use some sharpening when it's downsized for the web. If you don't sharpen after downsizing, photographs still look great but not as crisp as they could.
(And yes, if you sharpen the full size image and then downsize, the downsizing obliterates the sharpening done at full size.)
Exactly, that's a much better price point. Don't hold your breath waiting for it though, I don't think it will ever happen for CPU's again.
I tend to agree with other posters, it's not worth voiding your warranty for. I've paid 20% extra for extended warranty before.
I just checked a price list, the price difference is about AU$80-100, ~$390 compared to $480. I wonder how long that difference will stay.
The Sr perchlorate injectors of the PSLV (the predecessor to GSLV) go into the 1st stage main engine (the solid), but those plumbing problems were with the GSLV's strap-ons. The PSLV had solid strap-ons, so I would guess they could not steer. The GSLV has liquid strap-ons, so I would guess they don't bother steering the main engine at all.
I didn't read this before my original post, but the GSAT-5P wiki article and linked reference say that the strap-ons stopped responding to commands, and the vehicle was destroyed by range safety. I suspect we're being given an oversimplified version of things there, unless self-destruct is a two stage thing. I think either it lost it's top, then was self-destructed ~10 secs later, or it wasn't self destructed at all and just progressively failed because of aero loads after loss of control of the strap-ons.
I'm not an expert with inside knowledge, I'm just reading the reports and trying to interpret.
Here's a deshaked version of the failure (done by me from ). You can see the vehicle rolls towards the camera, with some yaw to the left, then stage 3 falls off. Then through to stage 1+2 destruction.
So it looks like the GSLV yawed beyond limits, upper stages (I think stage 3 plus payload) broke off (0:34 on video), then stage 1+2 kept going, initially with decreased yaw (it got knocked back on course upon stage 3 separation), but then increasing yaw until 0:45 when stage 2 broke away from stage 1 and the strap-ons broke off too.
The orange cloud at 0:45 should be the hypergolics in the strap-on boosters, I believe that's what caused the orange cloud in the Challenger disaster.
According to the wiki article on the GSLV's predecessor the first stage injects chemicals (aqueous strontium perchlorate solution) into the nozzle to control yaw. I wonder if this has been problematic in the past?
I am going to see if Matt can get me the original files in higher resolution to upload.
Uh yeah, what's the deal? Youtube can go up to 4000 horizontal lines, and this is supposed to be sourced from "high definition" and film, so it should be available at least in 720p. It was posted 3 days ago, so that should be plenty of time for youtube to encode hidef.
Whoops, you busted me not RTFA. I thought it was Dan Lyons and not his alter ego. Actually I thought Fake Steve Jobs was retired after we found out who was behind it. Oh well, consider me a troll.
Not really, there is always force majeur. They could use this "digital flashmob" to change their plans permanently, and carriers and ISP's in the US have been wanting to introduce bandwidth caps for a while now...
Either Dan Lyons is a complete fool, or is a man on the inside trying to change the attitude to bandwidth permanently. So who is Newsweek owned by?
I strongly suspect this is a stunt for the corporations, not to humiliate them.
Well OK then, he maneuvered his way into the presidency without corruption or favours or an army of spin doctors, and has significantly changed the style with which the U.S. engages with the rest of the world.
I still feel this is a significant shift of the Nobel committee from observer and awarder to well established figures, to influencer of current affairs. This is either just pandering to populism or out-and-out lobbying, and we don't need another lobby group.
That's what a lot of people are thinking. The Nobel Prize is famous for being conservative, waiting decades after the achievements of individuals before they give the prize, and then only if they're still living!
The concensus of the nay-sayers is that Obama doesn't have any achievements, he's only 8 months into his first term.
I think this is populist sh*t, same with the prize for the inventors of the CCD--the photodiode was physics, the CCD was a superb engineering effort based off the photodiode. The CCD in combination with fibre optics made it possible for us to see thousands of photos of teenage girls taken in their bathroom mirror. All hail the Internet.
Don't feed the trolls, but I'm the author of this worst submission ever.
First link is to text-only release from NASA, link at end goes to NASA Hubble page, http://www.nasa.gov/hubble
Last link is to HubbleSite, All 52 release images. Site still has server issues it seems, but nasa.gov link works smoothly.
It's tiny, three astronauts have to be squeezed in there. It's basically a stepping stone to a proper spacecraft, but they didn't go to the next step because the U.S. had already won the race to the moon. It's good enough to transport astronauts to and from the ISS, and can be modified (Progress) as an unmanned resupply vehicle for the ISS. Not much use beyond that.
They really need a bigger vehicle for long duration missions beyond LEO.
I think there'll be other laws to cover that, like p@edophile laws.
(I know parent is a joke)
I wonder why they don't just change the names and dates on a copy of the old law, get a chorum at the house of commons, get trusted speed readers to check that the old and new laws are the same, and pass it as some sort of emergency act. Surely the don't need Europe to sign their own emergency legislation in Britain?
The loophole probably won't be exploited by any shopfront stores.
*Apart from saving money in NASA and giving it to other US domestic programs, giving a different distribution of US Fed money. And do you mean Richard Shelby?
**Number is a guess, but all they do is crystal, plasma and minor biology research on the ISS/SpaceHab.
Yeah, it's not like debug code or something similar. The code is written and now it's trusted on a high level by theorists etc. It could be fast and highly reliable, as reliable as the theorists are.
And what exactly do you mean by false? Do you mean, for example, if a word processing program were formally specified to print 2 character for every single keystroke that would be false? Or do you mean it would "lock up" and not work properly for a human? Or do you mean "generate non-existent instruction code and cause CPU to reset"?
I suspect the correct answer is the second example I give, but not exactly.
It does contain machine code however, so it could be #3 too.
Wikileaks says:
The slashdot summary is making unproven claims, with the only source cited the WikiLeaks article. I think we'll see a correction of this article summary at some time. The Iceland Weather Report article doesn't mention insider trading either.
Wikileaks doesn't actually use the phrase "insider loans," they use the phrase "internal documents."
I think slashdot summariser may have made a mistake. [jon jonson]
Perhaps Soulskill would like to correct.
The WL page history shows no changes since 31-Jul.
This is a joke-fail by me. See here http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1298207&cid=28647907 and http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1298207&cid=28647945.
I stand corrected. And holy crap! I guess if old Koreans still prefer to do their banking face-to-face like the west, then it is true that in Korea only old people use Linux.
Oh no you're wrong, I hear a lot of people in Korea use Linux for everything, and just jump on a Windows box for gaming. A common misconception.