from TFA: "I have 100% confidence in the Japanese battery manufacturers," he says. "And my guess is that they never had the problems they're seeing now when the same batteries were manufactured from start to finish in Japan."
Okay, fine - you had a "critical emergency system" that apparently wasn't critical-enough to be worth having a backup controller? What will happen when it _finally_ craps-out and the "critical emergency system" isn't running anymore? ?:)
I'm talking about parallel development: split-off the input and run it to the original system AND the new one under development. Essentially running a simulation with real data and making sure that the new system's output duplicates the old system's output with the same input. You're doing all the new work while the old one is still running so that you'll have something ready when the original dies (a case of "anything is better than nothing" when "nothing" is what you have right now).
I wonder exactly how much of an effort it would be to "build" new hardware - receivers are receivers and their output is the same, and I'm sure they're decent receivers since I can't figure that they would throw-away the installation & dishes if the receivers failed. It's the 1970's computers that are the weak link.
It would be nice to see some sort of theory of operation of the downlink chain to see what the old hardware is doing. Most of the effort would be in progamming and I'm sure they could find hackers to do it for free just to see their names in lights.
Could you imagine seeing an 'all points' posting on/. linking to the source, descriptions of function and operation, and the platform it would be run on? Interested parties would be welcome to submit their works for informal testing, and the project could proceed from there on spare time.
My point was that, from reading the article, it looks like they have no fallback resources if the earthside computers fail: and I sure as hell wouldn't want to be the guy responsible for humanity's farthest-out satellite probes that are still functioning and me having to one day explain to the world why we don't have the capacity to listen to still-functioning satellites anymore because the original hardware crapped out and we haven't duplicated the functions of the 30-odd-year-old hardware on systems that are orders of magnitude better (during the intervening 30-odd years)...
(from TFA): "The Voyager technology is so outmoded," said Tidbinbilla's spokesman, Glen Nagle, "we have had to maintain heritage equipment to talk to them."
This man sounds like an asshole.
Wouldn't you figure that they ought to be doing some parallel development of a new system just in case the earthside hardware craps out before the satellite does? So that he doesn't come-off looking like a bigger one? Maybe they are; but the article makes no mention of it.
That is because the ageing probes can only chat at a sluggish 32 bits a second, far too slow for modern computers.
The author sounds like one too.
(parent:)If you have to design both the hardware and the software, it's going to be expensive. Not to say untested. And with the probes being where they are, it's not like you get a second chance if there's a bug. Things have to work perfectly, every time. You'd have a hard time convincing anyone that your emulation would be perfect enough to replace something that's aced the test of time for 25 years.
Until the first earthquake, brushfire, or mindless vandal comes along and sh*ts all over your 'test of time' theology.:) Like I said - parallel development running a sim of the real system using the same input until it's been been massaged to bulletproofness.
C'mon - if you're reading/. then you're better than believing that the hardware will continue on and that having a backup system is unnecessary.
>>Time to start reviving your library card, before the DMCA goes 1984 on you.
Nonono! Didn't you read 'Fallen Angels'? (get it here, from the publishers, for free: http://www.webscription.net/s-83-jerry-pournelle.a spx) You start using a library card and the gubmint will be sure to "tag you for future study"!:)
Many years ago before I got interested in science fiction I got interested in book sales/fairs (having near-zero disposable income at the time was a considerable motivation). And since then I have neverNeverNEVER bought a 'new' book for recreational reading and I never plan to do so - what you see on the store shelves this season will be on the sale/fair tables next, and 9/10 times what you pay is going to a good cause.
By this timing, I can confidently say that I've never bought 'new' science fiction, but I've read the cream of the crop (too many authors to enumerate here) over the intervening years as far back as 40's pulps and know that nothing written in the past too-many years can hold a candle to the works that defined the genre. Occasionally I browse the 'sci-fi' shelves at the local B&N and other chains and, honestly, don't see stuff I would even purchase used.
I guess the SFWA, Pournelle, et.al. don't like me for not helping to line their pockets. S'be't.
HOW F*CKING HARD is it to make a secure voting machine?!? The thing counts and keeps track of votes!
I cannot see WHY they feel they have to network them to accumulate the results. Best way to propagate a virus: wire them all together (or, worse, through the internet - however "secure" the connection).
I still can't see anything wrong with using the machines to accumulate the votes and then polling each machine, by hand, to copy the tallies - having enough witnesses from all parties will keep the results accurate and they can still be communicated to the appropriate location as they've always been.
I thought the main purpose of new machines over the older mechanical ones was the reduction of complexity of the machines (hence increasing their reliability), accessibility by the handicapped, and ease of recounting (just run the forms through another scanner and see if they total identically) - at least that's the line parroted by our idiot secretary of state (bysiewicz, Connecticut).
It's obvious that machines wired to each other can be more completely tampered-with than individual machines, SO WHY DO IT?
I read in one of the opening-day articles that someone bought an iPhone and added it to her existing ATT contract ($10 a month for each additional phone) - maybe have a friend who's got an ATT contract who would let you do the same?
I know right now that if _I_ go put another phone on _my_ ATT contract that's what it'll cost, and I can't see why the iPhone would be any different...
It ain't the platform - it's the application: if you want to use an app that "lifts its skirts" for every intrusion probe that comes along then that's YOUR business.
Can we help it if our apps are just better written than the ones you choose to use?:)
That's an understandable request to prove you're not the same deadbeat who lived there before (who is just changing the name & payment method to get out of paying the bill) . _I_ wouldn't want to be accountable for the charges of whoever lived there before _me_ either.
True, the companies ought to better police their own accounts and methods of ident verification of account holders, but the next-best thing is to prove that YOU'RE not who they THINK you might be.
As I read it, they're working with the difference in contrast between the ink and the paper background. You throw a UV light on a paper that's fluorescing blue with shiny yellow dots on it that are primarily reflecting the same color (and adding a little bit of their own fluorescence) and the two components have approximately the same luminosity, and they'll look pretty much invisible - the eye can only do just so much detecting colors in this situation. And the overwhelming blue from the paper will effectively hide the dots.
BUT, if you have a long-pass filter in front of your camera (use a filter with a cutoff somewhere between the blue of the paper and the yellow of the dots - you can buy pretty sharp filters from Edmund - and a greyscale camera) then those dots will show up decently against the apparent 'darkness' of the paper.
(I do a bit of UV photography at work using tracer powders and indicators on plastic, metal, paper, and skin, and filters with monochrome cameras work great.)
Take a click over to http://manybooks.net/categories/SFC - you can freely download (it's all in with the Gutenberg project) all KINDS of classic scientifiction that haven't had their copyrights renewed.
I'd also heard that the design formed a closed loop (concentric loops) so that an individual would never be more than half a building away from his destination (compared to the path lengths traversed for a long building or one with multiple wings) while still allowing as much natural light/ventilation available and keeping the smallest footprint.
>> What the hell does "honoring" those (dead) soldiers consist of? They're dead, they don't care what you think, and I don't think a day spent contemplating the martial values is the best way to spend time. Honoring people from the past, especially those of whom you know nothing but their occupation, is a rather mindless and fruitless activity, I think.
>> Soldiers are mostly just people, the fetishization of them in modern America is extremely weird and disturbing, and often used to glorify war and stamp out dissent. I have a number of veterans in my family, and they're just people, even the ones who fought *against* genocide (aka the WWII vets),
The fact that you're still alive means you've never shared these opinions with your family...
I follow BG, Heroes, Lost, Dr.Who, and Gilmore Girls (for balance) on TWOP and the recaps are equal-to or better-than the episodes. (and fater to get-through)
Slashdot Mirror
A telling statement.
google's equivalent image:
e scobar+bangor+wa&ie=UTF8&ll=47.742895,-122.730868& spn=0.00254,0.006094&t=k&z=18&om=1
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=
Not enough detail.
Okay, fine - you had a "critical emergency system" that apparently wasn't critical-enough to be worth having a backup controller? What will happen when it _finally_ craps-out and the "critical emergency system" isn't running anymore? ?:)
I'm talking about parallel development: split-off the input and run it to the original system AND the new one under development. Essentially running a simulation with real data and making sure that the new system's output duplicates the old system's output with the same input. You're doing all the new work while the old one is still running so that you'll have something ready when the original dies (a case of "anything is better than nothing" when "nothing" is what you have right now).
I wonder exactly how much of an effort it would be to "build" new hardware - receivers are receivers and their output is the same, and I'm sure they're decent receivers since I can't figure that they would throw-away the installation & dishes if the receivers failed. It's the 1970's computers that are the weak link.
/. linking to the source, descriptions of function and operation, and the platform it would be run on? Interested parties would be welcome to submit their works for informal testing, and the project could proceed from there on spare time.
It would be nice to see some sort of theory of operation of the downlink chain to see what the old hardware is doing. Most of the effort would be in progamming and I'm sure they could find hackers to do it for free just to see their names in lights.
Could you imagine seeing an 'all points' posting on
My point was that, from reading the article, it looks like they have no fallback resources if the earthside computers fail: and I sure as hell wouldn't want to be the guy responsible for humanity's farthest-out satellite probes that are still functioning and me having to one day explain to the world why we don't have the capacity to listen to still-functioning satellites anymore because the original hardware crapped out and we haven't duplicated the functions of the 30-odd-year-old hardware on systems that are orders of magnitude better (during the intervening 30-odd years)...
This man sounds like an asshole.
Wouldn't you figure that they ought to be doing some parallel development of a new system just in case the earthside hardware craps out before the satellite does? So that he doesn't come-off looking like a bigger one? Maybe they are; but the article makes no mention of it.
That is because the ageing probes can only chat at a sluggish 32 bits a second, far too slow for modern computers.
The author sounds like one too.
(parent:)If you have to design both the hardware and the software, it's going to be expensive. Not to say untested. And with the probes being where they are, it's not like you get a second chance if there's a bug. Things have to work perfectly, every time. You'd have a hard time convincing anyone that your emulation would be perfect enough to replace something that's aced the test of time for 25 years.
Until the first earthquake, brushfire, or mindless vandal comes along and sh*ts all over your 'test of time' theology. :) Like I said - parallel development running a sim of the real system using the same input until it's been been massaged to bulletproofness.
C'mon - if you're reading /. then you're better than believing that the hardware will continue on and that having a backup system is unnecessary.
>>Time to start reviving your library card, before the DMCA goes 1984 on you.
a spx) You start using a library card and the gubmint will be sure to "tag you for future study"! :)
Nonono! Didn't you read 'Fallen Angels'? (get it here, from the publishers, for free: http://www.webscription.net/s-83-jerry-pournelle.
Many years ago before I got interested in science fiction I got interested in book sales/fairs (having near-zero disposable income at the time was a considerable motivation). And since then I have neverNeverNEVER bought a 'new' book for recreational reading and I never plan to do so - what you see on the store shelves this season will be on the sale/fair tables next, and 9/10 times what you pay is going to a good cause.
By this timing, I can confidently say that I've never bought 'new' science fiction, but I've read the cream of the crop (too many authors to enumerate here) over the intervening years as far back as 40's pulps and know that nothing written in the past too-many years can hold a candle to the works that defined the genre. Occasionally I browse the 'sci-fi' shelves at the local B&N and other chains and, honestly, don't see stuff I would even purchase used.
I guess the SFWA, Pournelle, et.al. don't like me for not helping to line their pockets. S'be't.
use a "site:willitblend.com" specifier in google
Here are the first hi-resolution shots of the damage and some cool ones of the station and shuttle and miscellaneous:m issions/sts118/multimedia/fd3/Image_Gallery_Collec tion_archive_3.html (page 3 at time of posting).
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttle
I cannot see WHY they feel they have to network them to accumulate the results. Best way to propagate a virus: wire them all together (or, worse, through the internet - however "secure" the connection).
I still can't see anything wrong with using the machines to accumulate the votes and then polling each machine, by hand, to copy the tallies - having enough witnesses from all parties will keep the results accurate and they can still be communicated to the appropriate location as they've always been.
I thought the main purpose of new machines over the older mechanical ones was the reduction of complexity of the machines (hence increasing their reliability), accessibility by the handicapped, and ease of recounting (just run the forms through another scanner and see if they total identically) - at least that's the line parroted by our idiot secretary of state (bysiewicz, Connecticut).
It's obvious that machines wired to each other can be more completely tampered-with than individual machines, SO WHY DO IT?
There is no copyright law.
There is only greed.
I read in one of the opening-day articles that someone bought an iPhone and added it to her existing ATT contract ($10 a month for each additional phone) - maybe have a friend who's got an ATT contract who would let you do the same?
I know right now that if _I_ go put another phone on _my_ ATT contract that's what it'll cost, and I can't see why the iPhone would be any different...
>> Well I suppose killing all life on the Moon would violate the Prime Directive.
c tion/067172052X.pdf)
"Mighty important, that lunar ecology."
("Fallen Angels", L.Niven, (c)Baen Books, http://worldlibrary.net/eBooks/Baen_Library_Colle
It ain't the platform - it's the application: if you want to use an app that "lifts its skirts" for every intrusion probe that comes along then that's YOUR business.
:)
Can we help it if our apps are just better written than the ones you choose to use?
That's an understandable request to prove you're not the same deadbeat who lived there before (who is just changing the name & payment method to get out of paying the bill) . _I_ wouldn't want to be accountable for the charges of whoever lived there before _me_ either.
True, the companies ought to better police their own accounts and methods of ident verification of account holders, but the next-best thing is to prove that YOU'RE not who they THINK you might be.
Here's the HUGE version of that panorama: http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/oppor tunity/20041213a/Burns_Cliff_L257T-B313R1.jpg
(just take the "_br" off of http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/oppor tunity/20041213a/Burns_Cliff_L257T-B313R1_br.jpg)
Not if they always make it available for you to read and compare, it doesn't.
here's a few links for you:
. php?page=Calendars
t ml. Magnificent.
http://www.tolkienguide.com/modules/wiwimod/index
http://www.lib.ru/TOLKIEN/list.txt
http://www.tolkienbooks.net/html/calendars.htm
I own several 70's/80's calendars - there is no better artwork than what the older calendars have.
Take a look at one of Alan Lee's 1993 calendars: http://www.ludd.luth.se/users/bosse/books/93cal.h
----
Books: canon. Movies: If I'd seen the movies (WETA) before I'd read the books ("theatre of the mind"), I probably would have been more impressed.
Those who CAN imagine: read. Those who CAN'T imagine: watch.
As I read it, they're working with the difference in contrast between the ink and the paper background. You throw a UV light on a paper that's fluorescing blue with shiny yellow dots on it that are primarily reflecting the same color (and adding a little bit of their own fluorescence) and the two components have approximately the same luminosity, and they'll look pretty much invisible - the eye can only do just so much detecting colors in this situation. And the overwhelming blue from the paper will effectively hide the dots.
BUT, if you have a long-pass filter in front of your camera (use a filter with a cutoff somewhere between the blue of the paper and the yellow of the dots - you can buy pretty sharp filters from Edmund - and a greyscale camera) then those dots will show up decently against the apparent 'darkness' of the paper.
(I do a bit of UV photography at work using tracer powders and indicators on plastic, metal, paper, and skin, and filters with monochrome cameras work great.)
Take a click over to http://manybooks.net/categories/SFC - you can freely download (it's all in with the Gutenberg project) all KINDS of classic scientifiction that haven't had their copyrights renewed.
I'd also heard that the design formed a closed loop (concentric loops) so that an individual would never be more than half a building away from his destination (compared to the path lengths traversed for a long building or one with multiple wings) while still allowing as much natural light/ventilation available and keeping the smallest footprint.
>> What the hell does "honoring" those (dead) soldiers consist of? They're dead, they don't care what you think, and I don't think a day spent contemplating the martial values is the best way to spend time. Honoring people from the past, especially those of whom you know nothing but their occupation, is a rather mindless and fruitless activity, I think.
>> Soldiers are mostly just people, the fetishization of them in modern America is extremely weird and disturbing, and often used to glorify war and stamp out dissent. I have a number of veterans in my family, and they're just people, even the ones who fought *against* genocide (aka the WWII vets),
The fact that you're still alive means you've never shared these opinions with your family...
(see: http://www.ilovemymacthesong.com/index.html)
Have you ever read TWOP's recaps of BG?e gory_1188.html
http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/articles/cat
I follow BG, Heroes, Lost, Dr.Who, and Gilmore Girls (for balance) on TWOP and the recaps are equal-to or better-than the episodes. (and fater to get-through)
http://echosphere.net/star_trek_insp/insp_expendab ility.jpg
Oh no - they're gonna start doing body cavity searches until they find the drive?