..just how carefully and incrementally NASA proceeded. Suborbital flights before orbital flights, circumnavigating the Moon before trying to land on it, and so forth.
Right. Sending a man up to 100km in a capsule, while still blowing up every 3rd rocket.
Sending men around the Moon without testing an equal unmanned flight with a capsule, urgently, after seeing some vague photographs of Russian rockets allegedly pointed at the Moon.
Landing on the Moon with 30 seconds of fuel left.
Going there after calculating chances are around 50:50.
These weren't baby steps. Like Armstrong said, they were all giant leaps.
With boldness comes luck, and ironically conservativism too often causes mishaps because people loose motivation and alertness. They just tend to do their jobs, and oversights happen. Whereas, in a critical environment, everybody is sharp or replaced.
I agree it is sad. I also believe it is not speed, but patience, that is the spacefaring civilizations' most valuable asset. Once we have extended a human lifespan to 10.000 years, yeah, then we can talk 'space travel'.
If nothing else, going to the Moon serves as a motivation. "Lingering in Earth orbit" sounds depressing and boring (although it isn't) compared to "going to the Moon and beyond". We should press forward, it will be easier to work in orbit in parallel to Moon efforts. Think Skylab - how easy it was to put 283 cubic metres of habitable space up there after Moon landings.
Some possible causes that I can think of would be:
1.) User didn't have a computer before 2001 and has only used XP(possibly used 2k and XP only).
2.) Purchased MS product so feel the need to justify said purchase.
3.) Stole MS product and is under the disillusion that the product was free.
4.) Has never even attempted to use anything else.
5.) Believes everything they were taught in school.
I could probably add to this list.
I could probably add to this list: People will say good things about Windows simply because they are proud they've learned to use them.
Sometimes they don't even differentiate between a computer, Windows, and Word. They are just astonished that this wonderful world of computers finally cracked open a little bit for them. At first they may be frustrated, but if they succeed, they will certainly not say 'Bah, i've learned to use the "Windows" (computer), and it totally sucks'.
Because..
MS Windows is just a (relatively good) attack vector for MS Office, spam, trojans, DRM and viruses, so they can all easily and safely invade your computer.
Or even worse
This is a novel method of securing revenues from non-production by means of establishing a system for documenting on a first claim basis, cataloguing and categorising basic ideas to be later exploited for securing the mentioned revenues without having to explicitly produce any concrete manifestations. The resulting device is to be called 'vague patent'.
Yes, of course we'll see the few exceptions, to prove a point, but generally musicians are interested in the chord progression, melody, rhythm, instrumentation, etc. I agree with that, and I think the reason for that is that musicians usually are not interested in listening to music at all, but rather in making it, listening to it occasionally only to pick up those chords, progressions, melody, etc.
It's like programmers will usually use the simplest of tools like text editors etc. to make sophisticated software with nice GUI's and all, processing sensitive data.. Only using nice software to pick up slick gui elements etc.
Programmers are also rarely interested in sensible data in their test databases - most of the time they will use something like John Doe , xyas, asdasd, 34343,222 for tests.. They are interested more in classes, messages, patterns etc.
For us, users of the music, it should sound nice and beautiful, or harsh and direct, or whatever the style and mood, but we enjoy listening to it.
Or maybe Chinese will start selling good mods.
"Hi! I am Xin and I can mod you all the way up into the stratosphere. Using my 367 Slashdot identities, I am currently one of the most powerful mod-friend-helpers money can buy!"
Living on secrets is not good. I do not want to eat something with 'secret ingredients'.
If somebody wants to extort money from others because he has a secret, he must
count on being treated like an extortioner.
If you invest in creating something, then you should benefit from it, but there
is a good limit on that. You cannot invent cocaine and hook everybody onto it
and then extort money from addicts. Or can you?
I think they simply want to turn the Internet into a kind of TV. It's more controllable,
and non-techie people prefer video to text. And remotes have less buttons.
Unfortunately for now there is no other way but "break and fix" cycling. However, sometimes I feel people are too easily persuaded to buy into a new thing since 'The old one has been proven vulnerable, and this brand new shiny thing looks promising'.
You almost got it right. The reverse problem of a checksum is to produce the original file that will give the checksum.
Actually, the functions are called hash functions, and they can be written as:
H(file) = h
H() is the hash function, h is the hash value (checksum) the reverse would be RH()
RH(h) = file
Now we can of course prove that reverse is not a unique function, since any fixed-length h has a limited number of possible values, whereas file can be of any length.
Therefore, reverse has many possible solutions, and in a simple case like the real checksum of bits (having two values 1 and 0) has a simple reverse algorithm, too. Given the value of h, produce the file == easy.
Complex hash functions like MD5 have the interesting property of difficulty of reversion : it is difficult to even produce any file that will compute to any given MD5 value, hence it is difficult to fake it.
It has been known all along that reverse is possible, and has many solutions, but it was thought they are too difficult to find. Now it has turned out that some can be, and were, found.
Of course, but the trick is to find algorithms that are hard to reverse, that is to find a plaintext for any given checksum.
Re:I like it, but I also have questions and doubts
on
NASA's New Shuttle
·
· Score: 1
Actually, NASA has been called the most socialist agency in the US government (see e.g. here, here, or here).
Still, it doesn't beat the ex-Soviet Korolev Design Bureau;)
One could say that a socialist centrally-planned development plan is more efficient in the short run (and NASA's goal was to beat the Russians fast) but much worse on the long run (and NASA is struggling to do as well as in the 1960s, while the Russian space agency has become much more aggressive, capitalist-like, and operates on a shoestring budget...)
One Could... but then Soyuz is, as you have said, so reliable because it was based on old design, which in turn was based on an even older design going back to the R-4. I wouldn't say central planning is only better short-term (for national projects), it is better long-term because it doesnt abruptly change direction. just think about Soyuz, the rockets AND the spaceships, MIR, then about Russian vacuum tubes etc.
RSA operates on a small budget (now), but on a large legacy. NASA operates on a large budget, and on a large legacy. Concorde operates.. wait, Concorde went out of business;)
Re:Innovation is obviously lacking at Nasa
on
NASA's New Shuttle
·
· Score: 1
Shuttle is failure-prone because it is a monster glider (unpowered) weighing 100+ tons. Much easier to land a small capsule.
Nasa will become redundant as enterprises will opt for a more forward thinking and fruitfull space programs
Well, NASA isn't a commercial space launch service, and this is not the idea. The idea is that NASA does what commercially doesn't pay right now.
I think Nasa is on the brink of ruin if this is what they can come up with after 40+ years of innovation.
Well, when designs don't change over years that means there is nothing wrong with them. Like the wheel, the hammer, the fork, or reproduction mechanisms, for that matter.
This is not a step forward...(going back to the Moon)
Traveling in space is nothing like exploring the ocean, where (the ocean) allows a ship to go to any place, choosing speed and direction as one wishes.
Spacefaring is more like hopping from one stone to another across a river, where the first hop is the orbit, then the Moon, Mars, and so forth. Only that the first leap is a giant one, then the Moon is not far away, but Mars is another huge leap, let us not discuss other destinations.
Re:I like it, but I also have questions and doubts
on
NASA's New Shuttle
·
· Score: 1
The Delta 2 and the Ariane 4 were not man-rated either. The Shuttle and Ariane 5 are/were supposed to be. Given their failure rates, which would you rather be on?
Well, on Soyuz. On a man-rated Soyuz, which hasn't had an accident in a long time.
Cynically, a rocket developed in a non-commercially oriented socialist environment beats them all on market these days.
... I believe 'Undo' should be very easy to implement on a quantum computer.
But possibly also erasing human memory.. hmm, like Calculus I, if you don't pay the scholarship .. hmm, makes me wonder if this really hasn't been invented before ?
Who could've put this better than a Monty Python..
Was he also a Troll like me?
But to answer the Japanese GO / Chinese Chess dilemma : probably the greatest GO player of 20th century is a Chinese (Go Seigen), and the game was invented in China and brought to Japan.. of course.
If you stop space research for a couple of decades, China will own you.
Which may be a good thing, from my perspective.
At least they:
1. Look more peaceful.
2. Have invented the wheel.
3. Have a better-looking space program right now.
4. Play Go beter than you do.
5. Cook way better than Mac this and Coca that.
6. They always put on a wide grin.
.. and keep our upper orbital atmosphere a nice fence of shrapnel traveling at thousands of miles per-hour.
Sounds like the real reason for sw is to stop the Martian invasion by a fence of orbital waste..
Slashdot Mirror
What about the good old natural evaporation? Why do you need a dryer when you can just hang the laundry on a wire and wait?
It also surprises me that eve tech savvy people still can't read the power ratings - the wattage, hence the consumption, is written on the label.
..just how carefully and incrementally NASA proceeded. Suborbital flights before orbital flights, circumnavigating the Moon before trying to land on it, and so forth.Right. Sending a man up to 100km in a capsule, while still blowing up every 3rd rocket.
Sending men around the Moon without testing an equal unmanned flight with a capsule, urgently, after seeing some vague photographs of Russian rockets allegedly pointed at the Moon.
Landing on the Moon with 30 seconds of fuel left.
Going there after calculating chances are around 50:50.
These weren't baby steps. Like Armstrong said, they were all giant leaps.
With boldness comes luck, and ironically conservativism too often causes mishaps because people loose motivation and alertness. They just tend to do their jobs, and oversights happen. Whereas, in a critical environment, everybody is sharp or replaced.
I agree it is sad. I also believe it is not speed, but patience, that is the spacefaring civilizations' most valuable asset. Once we have extended a human lifespan to 10.000 years, yeah, then we can talk 'space travel'.
If nothing else, going to the Moon serves as a motivation. "Lingering in Earth orbit" sounds depressing and boring (although it isn't) compared to "going to the Moon and beyond". We should press forward, it will be easier to work in orbit in parallel to Moon efforts. Think Skylab - how easy it was to put 283 cubic metres of habitable space up there after Moon landings.
I could probably add to this list:
People will say good things about Windows simply because they are proud they've learned to use them.
Sometimes they don't even differentiate between a computer, Windows, and Word. They are just astonished that this wonderful world of computers finally cracked open a little bit for them. At first they may be frustrated, but if they succeed, they will certainly not say 'Bah, i've learned to use the "Windows" (computer), and it totally sucks'.
Because.. MS Windows is just a (relatively good) attack vector for MS Office, spam, trojans, DRM and viruses, so they can all easily and safely invade your computer.
Hmm, what about encryption? Your data is encrypted and unusable to anybody else. The key is on a smartcard you keep at your place.
Or even worse
This is a novel method of securing revenues from non-production by means of establishing a system for documenting on a first claim basis, cataloguing and categorising basic ideas to be later exploited for securing the mentioned revenues without having to explicitly produce any concrete manifestations. The resulting device is to be called 'vague patent'.
It's like programmers will usually use the simplest of tools like text editors etc. to make sophisticated software with nice GUI's and all, processing sensitive data.. Only using nice software to pick up slick gui elements etc.
Programmers are also rarely interested in sensible data in their test databases - most of the time they will use something like John Doe , xyas, asdasd, 34343,222 for tests.. They are interested more in classes, messages, patterns etc.
For us, users of the music, it should sound nice and beautiful, or harsh and direct, or whatever the style and mood, but we enjoy listening to it.
Or maybe Chinese will start selling good mods. "Hi! I am Xin and I can mod you all the way up into the stratosphere. Using my 367 Slashdot identities, I am currently one of the most powerful mod-friend-helpers money can buy!"
One needs tools to make better tools to make
One also has to break tools to make room for new ones. That's what I do.
Ah well this reminds me of the story that claimed that a Cray computer has been used to design the new Apple Mac (I don't remember which one).
When Seymour Cray was told this he supposedly replied with "That's funny, because I'm using an Apple computer to design(the Cray supercomputers)".
Living on secrets is not good. I do not want to eat something with 'secret ingredients'.
If somebody wants to extort money from others because he has a secret, he must count on being treated like an extortioner.
If you invest in creating something, then you should benefit from it, but there is a good limit on that. You cannot invent cocaine and hook everybody onto it and then extort money from addicts. Or can you?
I think they simply want to turn the Internet into a kind of TV. It's more controllable, and non-techie people prefer video to text. And remotes have less buttons.
Unfortunately for now there is no other way but "break and fix" cycling. However, sometimes I feel people are too easily persuaded to buy into a new thing since 'The old one has been proven vulnerable, and this brand new shiny thing looks promising'.
You almost got it right. The reverse problem of a checksum is to produce the original file that will give the checksum.
Actually, the functions are called hash functions, and they can be written as:
H(file) = h
H() is the hash function, h is the hash value (checksum) the reverse would be RH()
RH(h) = file
Now we can of course prove that reverse is not a unique function, since any fixed-length h has a limited number of possible values, whereas file can be of any length.
Therefore, reverse has many possible solutions, and in a simple case like the real checksum of bits (having two values 1 and 0) has a simple reverse algorithm, too. Given the value of h, produce the file == easy.
Complex hash functions like MD5 have the interesting property of difficulty of reversion : it is difficult to even produce any file that will compute to any given MD5 value, hence it is difficult to fake it.
It has been known all along that reverse is possible, and has many solutions, but it was thought they are too difficult to find. Now it has turned out that some can be, and were, found.
Unfortunately there is no way of guaranteeing they wont be found next month.
Of course, but the trick is to find algorithms that are hard to reverse, that is to find a plaintext for any given checksum.
Actually, NASA has been called the most socialist agency in the US government (see e.g. here, here, or here). ;)
.. wait, Concorde went out of business ;)
Still, it doesn't beat the ex-Soviet Korolev Design Bureau
One could say that a socialist centrally-planned development plan is more efficient in the short run (and NASA's goal was to beat the Russians fast) but much worse on the long run (and NASA is struggling to do as well as in the 1960s, while the Russian space agency has become much more aggressive, capitalist-like, and operates on a shoestring budget...)
One Could... but then Soyuz is, as you have said, so reliable because it was based on old design, which in turn was based on an even older design going back to the R-4. I wouldn't say central planning is only better short-term (for national projects), it is better long-term because it doesnt abruptly change direction. just think about Soyuz, the rockets AND the spaceships, MIR, then about Russian vacuum tubes etc.
RSA operates on a small budget (now), but on a large legacy. NASA operates on a large budget, and on a large legacy. Concorde operates
Shuttle is failure-prone because it is a monster glider (unpowered) weighing 100+ tons. Much easier to land a small capsule.
Nasa will become redundant as enterprises will opt for a more forward thinking and fruitfull space programs
Well, NASA isn't a commercial space launch service, and this is not the idea. The idea is that NASA does what commercially doesn't pay right now.
I think Nasa is on the brink of ruin if this is what they can come up with after 40+ years of innovation.
Well, when designs don't change over years that means there is nothing wrong with them. Like the wheel, the hammer, the fork, or reproduction mechanisms, for that matter.
This is not a step forward...(going back to the Moon)
Traveling in space is nothing like exploring the ocean, where (the ocean) allows a ship to go to any place, choosing speed and direction as one wishes.
Spacefaring is more like hopping from one stone to another across a river, where the first hop is the orbit, then the Moon, Mars, and so forth. Only that the first leap is a giant one, then the Moon is not far away, but Mars is another huge leap, let us not discuss other destinations.
The Delta 2 and the Ariane 4 were not man-rated either. The Shuttle and Ariane 5 are/were supposed to be. Given their failure rates, which would you rather be on?
Well, on Soyuz. On a man-rated Soyuz, which hasn't had an accident in a long time.
Cynically, a rocket developed in a non-commercially oriented socialist environment beats them all on market these days.
... I believe 'Undo' should be very easy to implement on a quantum computer.
.. hmm, like Calculus I, if you don't pay the scholarship
.. hmm, makes me wonder if this really hasn't been invented before ?
But possibly also erasing human memory
I like Chinese
Who could've put this better than a Monty Python..
Was he also a Troll like me?
But to answer the Japanese GO / Chinese Chess dilemma : probably the greatest GO player of 20th century is a Chinese (Go Seigen), and the game was invented in China and brought to Japan.. of course.
If you stop space research for a couple of decades, China will own you.
Which may be a good thing, from my perspective.
At least they:
1. Look more peaceful.
2. Have invented the wheel.
3. Have a better-looking space program right now.
4. Play Go beter than you do.
5. Cook way better than Mac this and Coca that.
6. They always put on a wide grin.
.. and keep our upper orbital atmosphere a nice fence of shrapnel traveling at thousands of miles per-hour.
Sounds like the real reason for sw is to stop the Martian invasion by a fence of orbital waste..