I found a perfectly functional P-IV 1.9GHz/512Meg RAM/40Gig HD/Dual-headed-matrox in the dumpster at the recycling centre. Booted it up, and a spyware infested Win2000 popped up in my face. That was fixed with a Linux install. How old is the machine I just described? It's perfectly capable of running WinXP. Vista, probably not all that much....
When i worked for MS that was the exact configuration I used to run tests on vista. Now if i was doing actual work on it would want at least another 512 megs. But then i've been have machines with 2 gigs ram for the last 7 years. Of course personally I'm graphics heavy.
Well technically it wasn't NASA's it was one of two projects that NASA green lighted to be the X-33. However the X program really is nothing more then a test bed for new technologies. The DC-X used off the shelf parts for everything but the fuselage. Which is why the Lockheed project was decided on. I'm sure the engineers of the DC-X knew this and wanted to show their company that it could be done and cheaply.
Unfortunately political infighting with in NASA blocked money assigned for rental of space on the missile range where the DC-X tests were being done, and with the faulty landing, that what was its public death that the ones against the DC-X could have pointed to and said "It will never work". When it was cause the government funds to lease the space from the government was tied up in a NASA center that had no political right to use the test range.
Rocket science is not easy. You cannot cut corners on development and testing and there is no substitute for the decades of experience these companies have. Its not the companies that have these decades of experience, its the engineers in those companies that do. These Companies do not innovate because NASA doesn't ask them too. They are on Cost Plus contracts, that makes innovation detrimental to the bottom line. So the engineers who actually developed the products in the company are either, retiring, dieing or quiting to join these startups that are trying to innovate.
In 10 years the companies that rely solely on NASA for there aerospace buck will have no engineers, just production line operators, with no idea how to improve something if NASA ever did get the political balls to ask for it.
Supposedly this method will actually scale better to orbital flights then SpaceShipOne. (Get a room of space geeks and this will be a debatable statement:) )
Like its father, the DC-X, its thrusters are gimbled so it has directional thrust to keep it balanced in the air. The DC-X did remarkably well in high winds. But as this test flight was cancelled earlier due to high winds, I don't think it has progressed that far. I would expect a high winds test, when they convert to another fuel source. Were they can have more thrust. Though that's assuming they will be going to a duel propellant.
This craft is just a development craft, one that is to test flight software, different pump configurations (I'm guessing) But from I understand the goal is for it to be Single Stage To Orbit (SSTO) That that is immensely feasible, they said you need about a.92 fuel to dry weight ratio in the 60's for a SSTO craft. In the sixties the materials of the craft were too heavy for that but materials science has come a long way from that.
The goal of SSTO craft is to get cost per pound to below $100/lb to orbit. The shuttle is about $10,000/lb and the Proton is about $4,000/lb. The best hypothetical TSTO (Two stage to orbit) craft is about $400/lb. Even a reusable one. The trick for getting prices so low is to make them fly more often and a lot of flights, with a very low number of ground crew.
(The following are just numbers i made up for demonstration purposes of the concept)
Lets assume we have a SSTO craft and and MSTO craft (Multistage to orbit) like the shuttle. And assume they both have the same Costs for fuel ($100,000 per flight) for each launch and are 100% reusable. And both have a capability of putting 2,000lbs in orbit. And ground crew costs $100,000 per person per year. (Its a nice round number, just humor me)
Both vehicles launch and landing facilities come to $20 million a year
Due to its complexity the MSTO craft takes 1000 ground crew (100 million a year in labor), and 4 months between flights to get it ready for its next flight. That's 3 flights a year, at a cost of $120 Million / 3 flights $40 Million per flight.
Due to its lower complexity, the SSTO only needs a ground crew of 10 (1 million a year in labor), and takes a little over a day so it can fly 300 times a year. That's a cost of $21 Million / 300 flights $70,000 per flight.
Now lets not forget about insurance for what ever is on board. say a 100 million dollar com sat. At first the premiums on both vehicles will be high, say an assumed 1% failure rate. That's an additional million a flight. but has the vehicles are flown and its real reliability is shown say a 1 in 1000 failure rate on the SSTO after 3 years, no failures have occurred. they reduce the rates on the SSTO down to 100,000 on insurance per flight. I'm not an insurance adjuster but i believe it works something like this. And if there are multiple vehicles being launched without failures then the insurance costs go down even lower.
so the totals per flight are now (Fuel + Operations + Insurance) MSTO: $100,000 + $40,000,000 + $1,000,000 = $41,100,000 SSTO: $100,000 + $70,000 + $100,000 = $270,000
Now lets be fair to the shuttle, and make it have 12 flights a year (What it was supposed to fly), the insurance will not change much if at all, so its operations costs per flight comes down to 10 mill a flight so MSTO2 : $100,000 + $10,000,000 + $1,000,000 = $11,100,000 MST02: $5,550/lb
That's the philosophy behind SSTO craft, you lower the complexity of the vehicle, raises its frequency of flights and that's what lowers cost per pound. Of course this doesn't take in development costs, construction costs and non labor maintenance costs. But frequency reduces the first two. And low maintenance costs are all but required to have low frequency. Almost goes hand in hand with low complexity.
Oh that's a good thing, if I knew that before I'd have been following them closer then I have. I still believe in the DC-X. They were about 150 million away from the full scale prototype. Just too bad that landing gear buckled AND that NASA played its political infighting with the funds slated for the DC-X's testing. The DC-X didn't fail due to the crash caused by the landing strut buckled, the vehicle itself was still mostly intact. It was the funds slated to them to test on the missile range was tied up at a different NASA center and wasn't released, so they had to leave the missile range. Now they are on a private ranch.. Yippee!
I consider myself between the the "IPOD/Web" Generation and the space generation. I was born just after the last mission to the moon. But I am a space nut and been feeling quite depressed the last few years on this. I'm a space nut for the environmental and economical benefits to earth.
So I firmly believe the modern day equivalents of Columbus's reasons for Casus Astra (Reasons for Space) are there. Specially with today's energy prices. Solar Powered Satellites (SPS) and platinum group metals (PGM) will allow for more energy Independence and less carbon emissions while still being more profitable then the oil based economy we are still on. The PGMs we mine today have toxic methods of extraction and actually come from asteroid impacts, and there are plenty of PGMs on the moon. PGMs are important in this case for the production of hydrogen fuel cells. The SPSs will give cheap (over the long term) abundant electrical energy to split the water into hydrogen for these fuel cells.
However even with the price of oil going up where it is economically viable over the long term, it still takes that initial investment. Columbus only had to convince one person for the funding of his economic expedition. We have to convince many orders of magnitude more. Not only of the SPS/PGM investment, but what would really make it extremely profitable, Cheap Access To Space (CATS)
NASA isn't really committed to this. the private industry wants a destination to make the development of CATS economically feasible. But the SPS/PGM wouldn't be a sure thing unless there is CATS. So its a catch 22. The way to do this is to have the government help fund or invest in private industry's development of CATS without NASA's interference, this is a near impossible political task. And due to certain companies vested interest in not having CATS, the government needs to do this to at least 3 companies, and preferably 5. How this can be done to reduce the possibility of corruption, I have no idea. That will take political and finical experts to figure out.
Much older then that I used the term in a high school paper in the early nineties. Can't remember where i heard the term before. Nova, or some other PBS show I'm sure.
of course its "We" in the headlines, so either they are saying that they the Magazine itself didn't know these before, or mayhaps its the royal "We" and saying its what The Queen didn't know last year.
This driver is a 64Bit driver so its only effects Windows 2003 64Bit and and Windows XP 64Bit (which is just win 2003 with XP UI) and maybe Linux 64 bit that uses it if the NDIS windows wrappers work on 64bit. but i'm not 100% sure on that.
32 bit os's with broadcom chipsets should be using a different driver anyways.
I went to The Evergreen State Collage in Olympia WA and my senior course in 95/96 was called Student Originated Software, which did exactly that from feasibility study to first beta.
umm no i'd send him to college and then after he graduates put him in athe real world for a couple of years. (Only thing in college that is worth it is how to attack problems from different angles, but getting really far from the metaphore LOL)
As to what needs to happen in the coming decades:
Increase in computing power 1000 fold (or more) for cellular stimulation runs of human cells representative of all the phenotypes.
Cheaper and automated recombintive techniques, so you can create variations fast and cheaply to test in at least a p3 biohazard environment. Then use those on testing of the human cell cultures to backup the simulations above.
ANd most of all better understanding of the genome we are trying to alter.
until that happens the only GM that should happen is adding genes from from other edible plants. These aswaping genes from animals to plants is too much of an unkown.
only problem with that logic is weve been co-evolving with our food. If we GM our food, we will need to GM ourselves to keep up:) Though in 20-50 years we would be able to tailor GM food so its harmless to nautral humans. but the tech to know all the sideeffects just isn't there yet.
Another way to look at this, would you trust a 16 year old to program genes in the food you eat, or the firewall you use?
I'd rather let the tech mature a bit more.
probly used an a deprecaited API call, or a relied on a buggy behavior of an api call. They either got fixed or removed from SP2. Or somesort of registry hack. There are alot of ways software could have broke, and most of them (not all) can be avoided when write the software, or updated them for SP1. And an unusual way of doing things can be missed in MS testing.
Actually no its not multiplayer. But what you create in the game can be packed very small and sent to a cetral database. The game will also keep track of your playstyle and that will be saved too. So when you get to the galactic phase the universe will be populated by creatures and civilizations other people made.
So you won't be playing against others just against what others have made.
The first couple of weeks maybe a little boring while enough people make the civilzations to populate the galaxy. But maybe the DB will be filled with stuff from beta.
The division of Sony that makes em broke off and formed their own company. Its Corporate forcing the games division on what hardware must be put in. They are still living in the past trying to make money off the consoles on other technology what the PSO did for DVDs in Japan.
Back in the 90's before the PSO came out DVDs were not very popular in japan. but they had a strong foothold in the states, with a lot of content already out in the format. They included a DVD player with the PSO. and soon after people in Japan started trying DVDs and DVD sale then went up in Japan. But since the format already took off in the US and there were plenty of content (although different region) The existing manufacturers could cheaply put stuff out for the different region.
So when the Games division wanted do put a hard drive in the PSP, the higher ups wanted to promote the UMD format so they forced them to use that instead. And the UMD has failed, and there isn't much good content for the PSP.
Now when they come out with PS3, the other divisions had Blu-Ray, and so corporate force the games folx to include that hardware.
Sony forgot although they made DVD format popular in Japan with the PSO, there were large libraries of content already out for it in the rest of the world.
That would be a bad company to work for then while the VP is still over that org. Sounds like he would micromanage everyone. He doesn't respect or trust his direct reports. I've had a few vp hired to lead my org that were like that. Those were bad years, both for the org and the company as a whole.
The exact certs, all depends on the job itself. But more importantly if you took it more then 6 months ago and don't use the knowledge regularly, IMHO its become almost useless. Unless you have photographic memory.
Day in, day out useage of the area is more important then any class one has taken. Not only because its a use it or lose it thing, but the area may have changed alot since the class you took.
Lists of certs alone means little to your future manager, its what youve done with those certs thats important. They want to know your thought processes. Thats what you should try and convey on your resume. Then reinforce it at the interview.
untill December of last year i was a sysadmin for a large ISP, and when i left we still had 30+ phsing scams caught per day. Phishing is a social hack, and those are always more effective then just plain tech hacks.
And yes blocking is more effective then warning.
in 1992, when Ross Perot was invited. He showed both mainstream candiates up. Because of this both the NDC and the GOP came to gether and formed the Commision for Presidential Debates. Which controlls who are allowed on the debates. And since they are a partnership of both parties they will not allow their candiates on any debate they don't have absolute say on. ANd of course they won't allow third party cadnidates on thier debates.
So if the networks want to have a presidental debate that include either the rebuplican or democratic canidate, they have to follow the rules of the CPD. Which means no one else can come. Its sick its twisted and its one of the reasons i haven't voted in a presdential election except the one in 1992.
I am with George Washington on this one.. I'm against the party system. In his farewell address he warned aginst the dangers of a party system.
Slashdot Mirror
I found a perfectly functional P-IV 1.9GHz/512Meg RAM/40Gig HD/Dual-headed-matrox in the dumpster at the recycling centre. Booted it up, and a spyware infested Win2000 popped up in my face. That was fixed with a Linux install. How old is the machine I just described? It's perfectly capable of running WinXP. Vista, probably not all that much....
When i worked for MS that was the exact configuration I used to run tests on vista. Now if i was doing actual work on it would want at least another 512 megs. But then i've been have machines with 2 gigs ram for the last 7 years. Of course personally I'm graphics heavy.Well technically it wasn't NASA's it was one of two projects that NASA green lighted to be the X-33. However the X program really is nothing more then a test bed for new technologies. The DC-X used off the shelf parts for everything but the fuselage. Which is why the Lockheed project was decided on. I'm sure the engineers of the DC-X knew this and wanted to show their company that it could be done and cheaply.
Unfortunately political infighting with in NASA blocked money assigned for rental of space on the missile range where the DC-X tests were being done, and with the faulty landing, that what was its public death that the ones against the DC-X could have pointed to and said "It will never work". When it was cause the government funds to lease the space from the government was tied up in a NASA center that had no political right to use the test range.
Its not the companies that have these decades of experience, its the engineers in those companies that do. These Companies do not innovate because NASA doesn't ask them too. They are on Cost Plus contracts, that makes innovation detrimental to the bottom line. So the engineers who actually developed the products in the company are either, retiring, dieing or quiting to join these startups that are trying to innovate.
In 10 years the companies that rely solely on NASA for there aerospace buck will have no engineers, just production line operators, with no idea how to improve something if NASA ever did get the political balls to ask for it.
Thats sounds right considering the DC-X's team motto was "Build a little, Fly a little"
Supposedly this method will actually scale better to orbital flights then SpaceShipOne. (Get a room of space geeks and this will be a debatable statement :) )
Plus SSO wouldn't work on the moon, or Mars.
Like its father, the DC-X, its thrusters are gimbled so it has directional thrust to keep it balanced in the air. The DC-X did remarkably well in high winds. But as this test flight was cancelled earlier due to high winds, I don't think it has progressed that far. I would expect a high winds test, when they convert to another fuel source. Were they can have more thrust. Though that's assuming they will be going to a duel propellant.
This craft is just a development craft, one that is to test flight software, different pump configurations (I'm guessing) But from I understand the goal is for it to be Single Stage To Orbit (SSTO) That that is immensely feasible, they said you need about a .92 fuel to dry weight ratio in the 60's for a SSTO craft. In the sixties the materials of the craft were too heavy for that but materials science has come a long way from that.
/lb
The goal of SSTO craft is to get cost per pound to below $100/lb to orbit. The shuttle is about $10,000/lb and the Proton is about $4,000/lb. The best hypothetical TSTO (Two stage to orbit) craft is about $400/lb. Even a reusable one. The trick for getting prices so low is to make them fly more often and a lot of flights, with a very low number of ground crew.
(The following are just numbers i made up for demonstration purposes of the concept)
Lets assume we have a SSTO craft and and MSTO craft (Multistage to orbit) like the shuttle. And assume they both have the same Costs for fuel ($100,000 per flight) for each launch and are 100% reusable. And both have a capability of putting 2,000lbs in orbit. And ground crew costs $100,000 per person per year. (Its a nice round number, just humor me)
Both vehicles launch and landing facilities come to $20 million a year
Due to its complexity the MSTO craft takes 1000 ground crew (100 million a year in labor), and 4 months between flights to get it ready for its next flight. That's 3 flights a year, at a cost of
$120 Million / 3 flights
$40 Million per flight.
Due to its lower complexity, the SSTO only needs a ground crew of 10 (1 million a year in labor), and takes a little over a day so it can fly 300 times a year. That's a cost of
$21 Million / 300 flights
$70,000 per flight.
Now lets not forget about insurance for what ever is on board. say a 100 million dollar com sat. At first the premiums on both vehicles will be high, say an assumed 1% failure rate. That's an additional million a flight. but has the vehicles are flown and its real reliability is shown say a 1 in 1000 failure rate on the SSTO after 3 years, no failures have occurred. they reduce the rates on the SSTO down to 100,000 on insurance per flight. I'm not an insurance adjuster but i believe it works something like this. And if there are multiple vehicles being launched without failures then the insurance costs go down even lower.
so the totals per flight are now (Fuel + Operations + Insurance)
MSTO: $100,000 + $40,000,000 + $1,000,000 = $41,100,000
SSTO: $100,000 + $70,000 + $100,000 = $270,000
Costs per pound:
MSTO: $20,550 / lb
SSTO: $135 / lb
Now lets be fair to the shuttle, and make it have 12 flights a year (What it was supposed to fly), the insurance will not change much if at all, so its operations costs per flight comes down to 10 mill a flight so
MSTO2 : $100,000 + $10,000,000 + $1,000,000 = $11,100,000
MST02: $5,550
That's the philosophy behind SSTO craft, you lower the complexity of the vehicle, raises its frequency of flights and that's what lowers cost per pound. Of course this doesn't take in development costs, construction costs and non labor maintenance costs. But frequency reduces the first two. And low maintenance costs are all but required to have low frequency. Almost goes hand in hand with low complexity.
You operate it like you would an airplane.
Oh that's a good thing, if I knew that before I'd have been following them closer then I have. I still believe in the DC-X. They were about 150 million away from the full scale prototype. Just too bad that landing gear buckled AND that NASA played its political infighting with the funds slated for the DC-X's testing. The DC-X didn't fail due to the crash caused by the landing strut buckled, the vehicle itself was still mostly intact. It was the funds slated to them to test on the missile range was tied up at a different NASA center and wasn't released, so they had to leave the missile range. Now they are on a private ranch.. Yippee!
So I firmly believe the modern day equivalents of Columbus's reasons for Casus Astra (Reasons for Space) are there. Specially with today's energy prices. Solar Powered Satellites (SPS) and platinum group metals (PGM) will allow for more energy Independence and less carbon emissions while still being more profitable then the oil based economy we are still on. The PGMs we mine today have toxic methods of extraction and actually come from asteroid impacts, and there are plenty of PGMs on the moon. PGMs are important in this case for the production of hydrogen fuel cells. The SPSs will give cheap (over the long term) abundant electrical energy to split the water into hydrogen for these fuel cells.
However even with the price of oil going up where it is economically viable over the long term, it still takes that initial investment. Columbus only had to convince one person for the funding of his economic expedition. We have to convince many orders of magnitude more. Not only of the SPS/PGM investment, but what would really make it extremely profitable, Cheap Access To Space (CATS)
NASA isn't really committed to this. the private industry wants a destination to make the development of CATS economically feasible. But the SPS/PGM wouldn't be a sure thing unless there is CATS. So its a catch 22. The way to do this is to have the government help fund or invest in private industry's development of CATS without NASA's interference, this is a near impossible political task. And due to certain companies vested interest in not having CATS, the government needs to do this to at least 3 companies, and preferably 5. How this can be done to reduce the possibility of corruption, I have no idea. That will take political and finical experts to figure out.
Compared to us, Columbus had it easy.
Much older then that I used the term in a high school paper in the early nineties. Can't remember where i heard the term before. Nova, or some other PBS show I'm sure.
of course its "We" in the headlines, so either they are saying that they the Magazine itself didn't know these before, or mayhaps its the royal "We" and saying its what The Queen didn't know last year.
StarGate: Wormhole Extreme
oops sorry that was the 32bit driver.. i swore i saw 64.sys at the end of the file name. Gues i been testing too many 64 bit drivers lately :)
This driver is a 64Bit driver so its only effects Windows 2003 64Bit and and Windows XP 64Bit (which is just win 2003 with XP UI) and maybe Linux 64 bit that uses it if the NDIS windows wrappers work on 64bit. but i'm not 100% sure on that.
32 bit os's with broadcom chipsets should be using a different driver anyways.
I went to The Evergreen State Collage in Olympia WA and my senior course in 95/96 was called Student Originated Software, which did exactly that from feasibility study to first beta.
thats the joke..
umm no i'd send him to college and then after he graduates put him in athe real world for a couple of years. (Only thing in college that is worth it is how to attack problems from different angles, but getting really far from the metaphore LOL)
As to what needs to happen in the coming decades:
Increase in computing power 1000 fold (or more) for cellular stimulation runs of human cells representative of all the phenotypes.
Cheaper and automated recombintive techniques, so you can create variations fast and cheaply to test in at least a p3 biohazard environment. Then use those on testing of the human cell cultures to backup the simulations above.
ANd most of all better understanding of the genome we are trying to alter.
until that happens the only GM that should happen is adding genes from from other edible plants. These aswaping genes from animals to plants is too much of an unkown.
only problem with that logic is weve been co-evolving with our food. If we GM our food, we will need to GM ourselves to keep up :) Though in 20-50 years we would be able to tailor GM food so its harmless to nautral humans. but the tech to know all the sideeffects just isn't there yet.
Another way to look at this, would you trust a 16 year old to program genes in the food you eat, or the firewall you use?
I'd rather let the tech mature a bit more.
probly used an a deprecaited API call, or a relied on a buggy behavior of an api call. They either got fixed or removed from SP2. Or somesort of registry hack. There are alot of ways software could have broke, and most of them (not all) can be avoided when write the software, or updated them for SP1. And an unusual way of doing things can be missed in MS testing.
Actually no its not multiplayer. But what you create in the game can be packed very small and sent to a cetral database. The game will also keep track of your playstyle and that will be saved too. So when you get to the galactic phase the universe will be populated by creatures and civilizations other people made.
So you won't be playing against others just against what others have made.
The first couple of weeks maybe a little boring while enough people make the civilzations to populate the galaxy. But maybe the DB will be filled with stuff from beta.
Oh yeah I am. Cant belives dvds only been around for such a short time. sorry about that.
The division of Sony that makes em broke off and formed their own company. Its Corporate forcing the games division on what hardware must be put in. They are still living in the past trying to make money off the consoles on other technology what the PSO did for DVDs in Japan.
Back in the 90's before the PSO came out DVDs were not very popular in japan. but they had a strong foothold in the states, with a lot of content already out in the format. They included a DVD player with the PSO. and soon after people in Japan started trying DVDs and DVD sale then went up in Japan. But since the format already took off in the US and there were plenty of content (although different region) The existing manufacturers could cheaply put stuff out for the different region.
So when the Games division wanted do put a hard drive in the PSP, the higher ups wanted to promote the UMD format so they forced them to use that instead. And the UMD has failed, and there isn't much good content for the PSP.
Now when they come out with PS3, the other divisions had Blu-Ray, and so corporate force the games folx to include that hardware.
Sony forgot although they made DVD format popular in Japan with the PSO, there were large libraries of content already out for it in the rest of the world.
That would be a bad company to work for then while the VP is still over that org. Sounds like he would micromanage everyone. He doesn't respect or trust his direct reports. I've had a few vp hired to lead my org that were like that. Those were bad years, both for the org and the company as a whole.
Your friend will find a better place.
The exact certs, all depends on the job itself. But more importantly if you took it more then 6 months ago and don't use the knowledge regularly, IMHO its become almost useless. Unless you have photographic memory.
Day in, day out useage of the area is more important then any class one has taken. Not only because its a use it or lose it thing, but the area may have changed alot since the class you took.
Lists of certs alone means little to your future manager, its what youve done with those certs thats important. They want to know your thought processes. Thats what you should try and convey on your resume. Then reinforce it at the interview.
untill December of last year i was a sysadmin for a large ISP, and when i left we still had 30+ phsing scams caught per day. Phishing is a social hack, and those are always more effective then just plain tech hacks. And yes blocking is more effective then warning.
in 1992, when Ross Perot was invited. He showed both mainstream candiates up. Because of this both the NDC and the GOP came to gether and formed the Commision for Presidential Debates. Which controlls who are allowed on the debates. And since they are a partnership of both parties they will not allow their candiates on any debate they don't have absolute say on. ANd of course they won't allow third party cadnidates on thier debates. So if the networks want to have a presidental debate that include either the rebuplican or democratic canidate, they have to follow the rules of the CPD. Which means no one else can come. Its sick its twisted and its one of the reasons i haven't voted in a presdential election except the one in 1992. I am with George Washington on this one.. I'm against the party system. In his farewell address he warned aginst the dangers of a party system.