My phone company had a telemarketer call me to offer a 'no-telemarketers' service where they would put a block on my line that would prevent telemarketers from calling me.
I asked him if, had I already had the service, it would have blocked him. He said, 'No, of course not.'
Of course, a necessary postscript to any mention of G. Bull is how he decided to build his super gun for Iraq to lob artillery shells and Isreal's Mossad objected in the strongest possible way.
RIP Gerald Bull.
(this isn't any criticism of the method, it's neat technology, just an interesting element of the story)
Please note that during the first 2.5 minutes of every shuttle launch, there are NO abort modes that are survivable. If there are any problems with the SRBs, they cannot be turned off. If there are any catastrophic problems with the ET, it doesn't matter, you must continue your launch profile until the SRBs have stopped.
Three engine shutdown during SRB burn? Shuttle disintegration.
ET rupture? Shuttle disintegration.
Pretty much anything, dead astronauts.
The russians use 40 year old technology, but at least they have survivable aborts throughout the entire flight profile.
It's awfully kind of these posters to tell us how many hours of MPEG-4 'Moving Images' can be stored on 5GB. Seeing as how hard it is for this readership to understand 5 GB in other terms....
Ah, it seems you don't understand what 'building a computer' means. Twenty five years ago, building a computer involved soldering, and a lot of it. A friend of mine at work has an old Altair based computer he built, and he talks fondly about the day he made an RS-232 card for it so he could use a terminal to write programs.
What you're talking about is ASSEMBLING a computer from pre-built components. That's like ordering french fries at a restaurant, pouring ketchup on them, then bragging about how you cooked them yourself.
Gosh, read the byline for Slashdot and grab a clue.
I've got Ti wedding rings
on
The Sexiest Metal
·
· Score: 3, Informative
My wife and I got married back on March 24, and we are both wearing excellent titanium rings from www.boonerings.com.
My ring is styled after Ed Harris's ring from The Abyss, and my wife has a pair of helix rings, one that holds a diamond through tension in a spectacular manner not possible with softer metals.
In regards to safety, Titanium rings can be easilly removed using cutting tools present in most ERs.
Bandwidth crunch
on
Space Wars
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
One of the biggest roadblocks to military bandwidth is the number of TDRS satellites in orbit. These guys (Tracking Data Relay Satellites) are the backbone of modern space communications and have been in orbit since the early 80s.
The TDRS network was originally put in place to support the Space Shuttle and provide 24x7 communications access to ground control. Before TDRS, there had to be tracking stations around the world and in expensive ships crewed by hundreds. Before TDRS, re-entering spacecraft would experience a communications blackout because the ionized gases of the reentry blocked line of sight transmissions from the ground.
With TDRS, there is almost always a relay satellite around to link a spacecraft (or military satellite) to ground. Re-entering space shuttles now have contact with ground control through the entire entry sequence because the antennas can 'see' the TDRS network above them, unblocked by the plasma around the nose.
The problem? The TDRS network (which is continuosly refreshed with new satellites as older ones go out of service) is based on protocols from the 1970s that were supposed to provide voice and telemetry. Now, they're being tasked to channel still images and even video in some circumstances, and not just by the shuttle fleet and NASA. The military uses TDRS on occasion to get spy satellite data too, further sapping the infrastructure.
It's time to start upping a new network of satellites with K band or better transmitters and receivers (which use more power) and so on.
Of note, during the initial two and a half minutes of SRB boost, there is no method of aborting the flight or taking actions to save yourself (such as bailing out, etc).
For instance, if 30 seconds after launch or so (when the shuttle passes Max-Q) the Hydrazine tank in the nose ruptures and begins to fill the shuttle with toxic fumes or fire, the crew would not be able to do anything until two minutes later when the SRBs seperated. During this time, they could die, even as they stared at flames burning towards them over a period of a minute or two.
Additionally, if one of the high pressure SSMEs (the main engines) ruptured explosively during boost, shearing the retaining frame that holds the orbiter to the external tank, the tank would detach improperly, potentially knocking the shuttle into the airstream where, like with the Challenger, the aerodynamic forces would tear it apart. This could happen within less then a second, so once again, your analogy is in error.
Re:Camera as disappointing as expected
on
New Clie Handhelds
·
· Score: 2
Agreed, so why not save $100 and get the version w/o the camera? It's listed right there at $499.
> If one shut down, its mate on the opposite side automatically shut down to balance the thrust. (The Saturn V had similar control logic.)
Incorrect.
The KORD engine control system on the N1 would shut off the engine on the opposite side because the engines were non gimballing. The N1 only had a handful of gimballed engines in the center.
The Saturn V only had 5 engines on the first stage and could not afford to lose 2 engines. If one engine was shut down, the control system would gimbal all of the other engines to keep the thrust along the center of mass.
I have a question about the specific mechanics of this: What is the behaviour of 802.11b cards passing multiple nodes at high speed?
If you're driving down a highway with continuous 802.11b coverage and all the APs are set up to allow external access using some common agreed upon collection of settings (no WEP, a standard network name, etc), how well would a card support switching from AP to AP within seconds of each other?
2002-02-07 23:16:27 McAfee sued for prohibiting product reviews (yro,news) (rejected)
(sigh)
Now, since I know this'll probably get modded down as 'Sour Grapes', I'll make a note on how it doesn't matter because of a flaw in the Karma Kap.
I think the karma cap probably results in a slight net loss in signal vs. noise on Slashdot.
In the Soviet Union, workers weren't rewarded for going beyond the call of duty. Productivity and quality both suffered, not because they were bad workers, but because there was no incentive. The great thing about Karma is that it has no material value, but many people will strive to gain more and more. It's a free way to enhance the quality of conversation here, and this karma cap is almost a form of Karma Kommunism, in the sense that once you hit 50, there's no incentive for us packrats to care anymore. For some people, further effort is the equivalent of mental masturbation.
The irony of the above statement is obvious, and I can't defend it on the merits of cultural superiority. I just think it's a basic lizard brain truth about the people who post here.
Even though you're AC, you ask a good question. It's not that I NEED a reward, it's not that simple of an equation. I should clarify that I am more likely to put a lot of effort into contributing to a conversation if I think I might get some validation.
It's not as pathetic as it sounds, I think it's basic applied Pavlovian response.
I think the karma cap probably results in a slight net loss in signal vs. noise on Slashdot.
In the Soviet Union, workers weren't rewarded for going beyond the call of duty. Productivity and quality both suffered, not because they were bad workers, but because there was no incentive. The great thing about Karma is that it has no material value, but many people will strive to gain more and more. It's a free way to enhance the quality of conversation here, and this karma cap is almost a form of Karma Kommunism, in the sense that once you hit 50, there's no incentive for us packrats to care anymore. For some people, further effort is the equivalent of mental masturbation.
The irony of the above statement is obvious, and I can't defend it on the merits of cultural superiority. I just think it's a basic lizard brain truth about the people who post here.
I suspect that the person is Peter Chambers, and I offer the following evidence:
1. The administrative contact for jasker.com is Peter Chambers.
2. A search on Google.com identifies a Peter Chambers as an alumni of Brunel University with a degree in Mechanical Engineering, issued 1972. This is 29 years ago. If he got his degree when he was 29, not unlikely, that would make him the 58 year old unnamed inventor.
Just a thought, and it all hinges on the assumption that the two are the same Peter Chambers and that he got the degree at 29.
If it's bollox, I'm at my Karma cap anyhow, so I can afford to lose the points. With a cap of 50, there's no real reason to make every comment super insightful, seeing as how there's no reward once you get to 50.
Ok, I was a dumbass when I posted my message in the form of an interview question. Mea culpa, I didn't read the text above close enough.
HOWEVER, I _did_ say that 'a project like this preclude apple from actually using his design' which means (for those people responding my original message that were too dumb to understand) "I KNOW YOU DID NOT COPY HIM". The purpose of my post was to ask what he THOUGHT about the guys claims.
My post was hardly flamebait, but the jackasses that modded it such + those that responded to my message believing I was saying apple had copied this guy = a bunch of darn jackasses.
What was your reaction when you first heard about the Wired article where a Belgian designer suggests Apple copied him becase he had sketches that match the new iMac online last year? His sketches are interesting because they appear to have port locations and stuff down as well.
I know that the lead times of a project like this preclude apple from actually using his design, but when you saw the article, what was your reaction?
I don't know if it's just my browser or what, but the photo of three Boeing jets in the article seems a bit corrupted. The lead jet appears to be either burning or mangled right after the trailing edge of the left wing.
In articles about airliners, you'd think that this specific type of compression artifact would be noticed earlier.....
I'm sure a bunch of code nazis will disagree with me (please note the clever way I attempt to pre-emptively undermine their arguments by labeling them as 'nazis') but sometimes massive engineering re-writes are not necessary.
Your tangled mass of spaghetti code paths are probably full of almost incomprehensible little design decisions and seemingly out of place declarations and functions, but most of those were probably added as specific fixes for bugs encountered under real-world use.
Most companies that decide to massively re-engineer their code (do a big rewrite) usually end up regretting it because it forces them to re-fix the problems that caused the original strange looking code in the first place.
Does your CGI nest work? If so, maybe you should leave it alone. If you are fixing specific problems, then go ahead, but if this is a generalized attempt to fix the 'not invented here' syndrome that plagues engineers (who will almost universally agree that it is easier to write code then it is to read it), perhaps you should reconsider.
If you took even the briefest moment to visit the site before trying to get 'fp props' or something, you would have been able to read that the unit has a 10 hour playback on one charge.
It's not clear what this was 10 hours of playing, eg, is it the same for video versus music?
No you won't. Like most people, you're trying to throw the virtual weight of your 'maybe dollars' around to influence people.
If you are REALLY interested in change, put your actual money where your mouth is. Identify a company that is going in a direction you like and purchase their products. The only person a company listens to is someone it has a financial relationship with, not just a 'potential'.
When the first thoughts of networking computers was realized, the US Government did not say 'well... I'll fund this only if it does super reallistic streaming video.' They decided that they liked the potential that a non-centralized communication system had, so they put their money into developing something that originally could barely send plain text.
Look where we are now? Bottom line, spend money, don't make vague demands.
I'm amazed that they posted it. It seems as if most government agencies (NASA included) are using the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to pull information offline.
Please note that NASA has become increasingly unwilling to divulge information about what happens on the space station. Routine information such as the 'ships log' and audio feeds are no longer shared or available.
I apologize for this off-topic message, but more people should understand that this article, while fascinating, is nothing compared to the reams of important data that is being maliciously sequestered by an organization paid for with tax dollars. For every piece on meteor sounds, there are 10 pages of technical data on spaceflight, human research, and more that is being systematically hidden.
I predict that the information will become available through some type of Lexis-Nexus style pay system in the future so that you can have the privilege of paying for the data twice.
Bread and circuses, my friend. Look at the rest of the story, and make NASA give us what we own.
Slashdot Mirror
My phone company had a telemarketer call me to offer a 'no-telemarketers' service where they would put a block on my line that would prevent telemarketers from calling me.
I asked him if, had I already had the service, it would have blocked him. He said, 'No, of course not.'
The funniest part, he didn't see the irony of it.
I told him I'd pass.
Of course, a necessary postscript to any mention of G. Bull is how he decided to build his super gun for Iraq to lob artillery shells and Isreal's Mossad objected in the strongest possible way.
RIP Gerald Bull.
(this isn't any criticism of the method, it's neat technology, just an interesting element of the story)
Aside from Challenger?
Please note that during the first 2.5 minutes of every shuttle launch, there are NO abort modes that are survivable. If there are any problems with the SRBs, they cannot be turned off. If there are any catastrophic problems with the ET, it doesn't matter, you must continue your launch profile until the SRBs have stopped.
Three engine shutdown during SRB burn? Shuttle disintegration.
ET rupture? Shuttle disintegration.
Pretty much anything, dead astronauts.
The russians use 40 year old technology, but at least they have survivable aborts throughout the entire flight profile.
It's awfully kind of these posters to tell us how many hours of MPEG-4 'Moving Images' can be stored on 5GB. Seeing as how hard it is for this readership to understand 5 GB in other terms....
Ah, it seems you don't understand what 'building a computer' means. Twenty five years ago, building a computer involved soldering, and a lot of it. A friend of mine at work has an old Altair based computer he built, and he talks fondly about the day he made an RS-232 card for it so he could use a terminal to write programs.
What you're talking about is ASSEMBLING a computer from pre-built components. That's like ordering french fries at a restaurant, pouring ketchup on them, then bragging about how you cooked them yourself.
NEWSFLASH: I am a geek!
Gosh, read the byline for Slashdot and grab a clue.
My wife and I got married back on March 24, and we are both wearing excellent titanium rings from www.boonerings.com.
My ring is styled after Ed Harris's ring from The Abyss, and my wife has a pair of helix rings, one that holds a diamond through tension in a spectacular manner not possible with softer metals.
See: http://www.boonerings.com/large/helixxlite.htm
In regards to safety, Titanium rings can be easilly removed using cutting tools present in most ERs.
One of the biggest roadblocks to military bandwidth is the number of TDRS satellites in orbit. These guys (Tracking Data Relay Satellites) are the backbone of modern space communications and have been in orbit since the early 80s.
The TDRS network was originally put in place to support the Space Shuttle and provide 24x7 communications access to ground control. Before TDRS, there had to be tracking stations around the world and in expensive ships crewed by hundreds. Before TDRS, re-entering spacecraft would experience a communications blackout because the ionized gases of the reentry blocked line of sight transmissions from the ground.
With TDRS, there is almost always a relay satellite around to link a spacecraft (or military satellite) to ground. Re-entering space shuttles now have contact with ground control through the entire entry sequence because the antennas can 'see' the TDRS network above them, unblocked by the plasma around the nose.
The problem? The TDRS network (which is continuosly refreshed with new satellites as older ones go out of service) is based on protocols from the 1970s that were supposed to provide voice and telemetry. Now, they're being tasked to channel still images and even video in some circumstances, and not just by the shuttle fleet and NASA. The military uses TDRS on occasion to get spy satellite data too, further sapping the infrastructure.
It's time to start upping a new network of satellites with K band or better transmitters and receivers (which use more power) and so on.
Of note, during the initial two and a half minutes of SRB boost, there is no method of aborting the flight or taking actions to save yourself (such as bailing out, etc).
For instance, if 30 seconds after launch or so (when the shuttle passes Max-Q) the Hydrazine tank in the nose ruptures and begins to fill the shuttle with toxic fumes or fire, the crew would not be able to do anything until two minutes later when the SRBs seperated. During this time, they could die, even as they stared at flames burning towards them over a period of a minute or two.
Additionally, if one of the high pressure SSMEs (the main engines) ruptured explosively during boost, shearing the retaining frame that holds the orbiter to the external tank, the tank would detach improperly, potentially knocking the shuttle into the airstream where, like with the Challenger, the aerodynamic forces would tear it apart. This could happen within less then a second, so once again, your analogy is in error.
Agreed, so why not save $100 and get the version w/o the camera? It's listed right there at $499.
> If one shut down, its mate on the opposite side automatically shut down to balance the thrust. (The Saturn V had similar control logic.)
Incorrect.
The KORD engine control system on the N1 would shut off the engine on the opposite side because the engines were non gimballing. The N1 only had a handful of gimballed engines in the center.
The Saturn V only had 5 engines on the first stage and could not afford to lose 2 engines. If one engine was shut down, the control system would gimbal all of the other engines to keep the thrust along the center of mass.
Er, the price is actually closer to $500. Sprint eats about $300 off the sticker to get you to sign up w/ a contract.
Honestly, you don't think those 5190s and stuff are actually FREE, do you?
I have a question about the specific mechanics of this: What is the behaviour of 802.11b cards passing multiple nodes at high speed?
If you're driving down a highway with continuous 802.11b coverage and all the APs are set up to allow external access using some common agreed upon collection of settings (no WEP, a standard network name, etc), how well would a card support switching from AP to AP within seconds of each other?
2002-02-07 23:16:27 McAfee sued for prohibiting product reviews (yro,news) (rejected)
(sigh)
Now, since I know this'll probably get modded down as 'Sour Grapes', I'll make a note on how it doesn't matter because of a flaw in the Karma Kap.
I think the karma cap probably results in a slight net loss in signal vs. noise on Slashdot.
In the Soviet Union, workers weren't rewarded for going beyond the call of duty. Productivity and quality both suffered, not because they were bad workers, but because there was no incentive. The great thing about Karma is that it has no material value, but many people will strive to gain more and more. It's a free way to enhance the quality of conversation here, and this karma cap is almost a form of Karma Kommunism, in the sense that once you hit 50, there's no incentive for us packrats to care anymore. For some people, further effort is the equivalent of mental masturbation.
The irony of the above statement is obvious, and I can't defend it on the merits of cultural superiority. I just think it's a basic lizard brain truth about the people who post here.
It's just my opinion, not any One True Truth.
Even though you're AC, you ask a good question. It's not that I NEED a reward, it's not that simple of an equation. I should clarify that I am more likely to put a lot of effort into contributing to a conversation if I think I might get some validation.
It's not as pathetic as it sounds, I think it's basic applied Pavlovian response.
I think the karma cap probably results in a slight net loss in signal vs. noise on Slashdot.
In the Soviet Union, workers weren't rewarded for going beyond the call of duty. Productivity and quality both suffered, not because they were bad workers, but because there was no incentive. The great thing about Karma is that it has no material value, but many people will strive to gain more and more. It's a free way to enhance the quality of conversation here, and this karma cap is almost a form of Karma Kommunism, in the sense that once you hit 50, there's no incentive for us packrats to care anymore. For some people, further effort is the equivalent of mental masturbation.
The irony of the above statement is obvious, and I can't defend it on the merits of cultural superiority. I just think it's a basic lizard brain truth about the people who post here.
It's just my opinion, not any One True Truth.
I suspect that the person is Peter Chambers, and I offer the following evidence:
1. The administrative contact for jasker.com is Peter Chambers.
2. A search on Google.com identifies a Peter Chambers as an alumni of Brunel University with a degree in Mechanical Engineering, issued 1972. This is 29 years ago. If he got his degree when he was 29, not unlikely, that would make him the 58 year old unnamed inventor.
Just a thought, and it all hinges on the assumption that the two are the same Peter Chambers and that he got the degree at 29.
If it's bollox, I'm at my Karma cap anyhow, so I can afford to lose the points. With a cap of 50, there's no real reason to make every comment super insightful, seeing as how there's no reward once you get to 50.
Ok, I was a dumbass when I posted my message in the form of an interview question. Mea culpa, I didn't read the text above close enough.
HOWEVER, I _did_ say that 'a project like this preclude apple from actually using his design' which means (for those people responding my original message that were too dumb to understand) "I KNOW YOU DID NOT COPY HIM". The purpose of my post was to ask what he THOUGHT about the guys claims.
My post was hardly flamebait, but the jackasses that modded it such + those that responded to my message believing I was saying apple had copied this guy = a bunch of darn jackasses.
Sincerely,
Chairboy
I know that the lead times of a project like this preclude apple from actually using his design, but when you saw the article, what was your reaction?
Didja think it had been leaked?
I don't know if it's just my browser or what, but the photo of three Boeing jets in the article seems a bit corrupted. The lead jet appears to be either burning or mangled right after the trailing edge of the left wing.
In articles about airliners, you'd think that this specific type of compression artifact would be noticed earlier.....
I'm sure a bunch of code nazis will disagree with me (please note the clever way I attempt to pre-emptively undermine their arguments by labeling them as 'nazis') but sometimes massive engineering re-writes are not necessary.
Your tangled mass of spaghetti code paths are probably full of almost incomprehensible little design decisions and seemingly out of place declarations and functions, but most of those were probably added as specific fixes for bugs encountered under real-world use.
Most companies that decide to massively re-engineer their code (do a big rewrite) usually end up regretting it because it forces them to re-fix the problems that caused the original strange looking code in the first place.
Does your CGI nest work? If so, maybe you should leave it alone. If you are fixing specific problems, then go ahead, but if this is a generalized attempt to fix the 'not invented here' syndrome that plagues engineers (who will almost universally agree that it is easier to write code then it is to read it), perhaps you should reconsider.
If you took even the briefest moment to visit the site before trying to get 'fp props' or something, you would have been able to read that the unit has a 10 hour playback on one charge.
It's not clear what this was 10 hours of playing, eg, is it the same for video versus music?
No you won't. Like most people, you're trying to throw the virtual weight of your 'maybe dollars' around to influence people.
If you are REALLY interested in change, put your actual money where your mouth is. Identify a company that is going in a direction you like and purchase their products. The only person a company listens to is someone it has a financial relationship with, not just a 'potential'.
When the first thoughts of networking computers was realized, the US Government did not say 'well... I'll fund this only if it does super reallistic streaming video.' They decided that they liked the potential that a non-centralized communication system had, so they put their money into developing something that originally could barely send plain text.
Look where we are now? Bottom line, spend money, don't make vague demands.
I'm amazed that they posted it. It seems as if most government agencies (NASA included) are using the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to pull information offline.
Please note that NASA has become increasingly unwilling to divulge information about what happens on the space station. Routine information such as the 'ships log' and audio feeds are no longer shared or available.
I apologize for this off-topic message, but more people should understand that this article, while fascinating, is nothing compared to the reams of important data that is being maliciously sequestered by an organization paid for with tax dollars. For every piece on meteor sounds, there are 10 pages of technical data on spaceflight, human research, and more that is being systematically hidden.
I predict that the information will become available through some type of Lexis-Nexus style pay system in the future so that you can have the privilege of paying for the data twice.
Bread and circuses, my friend. Look at the rest of the story, and make NASA give us what we own.
I can't offer evidence on any website or refer to a book, but I'm part of the development organization, so I know.
Norton Personal Firewall/Internet Security detects and stops this software from operating, as a personal firewall program is designed to do.
If McAfee does not, then they should be investigated by the FTC for marketing a low quality product.