Dunno, sounds like "an important measure of the stock market" to me. Seeing a linux company up there as a healthy company is pretty significant it would seem, if you weren't sure if they wouldn't be around to support their platform now you'd prob ably be pretty reassured
So you can disassemble compiled code, way to go.. Have fun disassembling a huge binary that's far too large to economically analyze in assembly.
What's that? You don't fully disassemble and analyze large binaries but only critical paths or small binaries? How unique and sought-after your services must be. I'm sure analysis of compiled kernels is the best way to tackle this bug..
Except then the bug is patched, and all of a sudden you aren't running the default settings for FF and things get weird.
Better not to visit suspicious sites, and if you have to install NoScript, it'll hugely decrease the potentially vulnerable "surface area" of your web browser.
So what, are you saying the ISS can't be refitted? Its cheaper to start building a new space station than refit the ISS?
Yes. Why wouldn't it be? The ISS was never meant to be permeanent, and all of its parts have an expected end of life. For it to survive past its planned end of life would require for each part to be replaced, bit by bit. Not only would that be more expensive, but more risky and less flexible.
You seem to think it's just a big room in space where science happens, but it's actually a pre-planned array of scientific experiments intended to be brought up and run in a specific order depending on the life of each experiment and the space station itself.
All possible space science has already been completed on the ISS?
It is only 80% complete right now, and soon it'll be in its prime; a massive science experiment with much to teach us, lasting almost 2 decades, and yielding useful data since only 3-4 years after the first parts were put in place.
Compare that to the LHC; 20 years in the making, will only run for a few years, and after that another one will be built. Oh no, what a waste! (If you thought they were building a permanent donut in the ground, and not a science experiment, that is)
How many of those complaining about this realize they're adding a new module to it tomorrow, to get more scientific research done?
In 2016 will the module they're adding today still be yielding useful data? No. Does that mean it wasn't worth adding it?
Experiments finish, all good things come to an end, I wish more people here would stop focusing on when it'll be dismanted and start focusing on what's going on there now.. Why is this the story we hear today, and yet there's no story about the new module?
Holy freaking jesus. Do you actually believe a private party would willingly buy a used experiment, but NASA would not sell the ISS out of spite?
Do you actually think a building, made of brick is a good analogy for a space laboratory, in low earth orbit?
NASA are launching a shuttle mission tomorrow to add a new module to the ISS, to get more scientific research done now. But all you morons are here whining about how it'll be gone in 2016, after the scientific data has been retrieved.
I bet half the people in here complaining about NASA wasting the ISS don't have a clue they're adding a new module to it tomorrow, it's pitiful.
Well you can place the blame for this squarely on your Weekly Readers, science classes, etc, for getting it completely wrong.
I think the LHC guys should start making it clear that their experiment won't last forever either, because people seem to believe that a scientific experiment can go on yielding information forever.
Why not expect it to be up there until 2090? I'm sure we can do 80 more years of valuable science in there with the same equipment that is up there now. Not like experimental instruments ever yield all their information, that's why the Tower of Pisa is still a pioneering research center on gravity.
This is outrageous, to spend billions on this thing and then deorbit it just a few years after it is complete is just pure insanity. Billions of dollars wasted. I wonder if there will be any useful scientific information to come out of ISS. More likely, it seems that ISS, manned moon and mars programs are nothing but ego trips that drain money away from more effective and productive projects such as Hubble.
You think Hubble isn't going to be decommissioned too? They put Hubble up there, it served its time, now they're getting ready to put a new one up there and Hubble will fall out of maintenance and drop out of the sky. Same is happening for the ISS and everyone is in uproar. It's baffling.
Also you should read up on the ISS and the experiments it's doing now and has been for years, module by module. It's not like they need all the science modules in place before they can begin work..
Sure, we've recouped advances in science and technology from the time we've had there, but the US taxpayer won't think of it that way.
So you're saying if NASA doesn't waste money keeping a bunch of completed experiment modules in space the US taxpayer will cut NASA's funding for wasting money?
I don't know if simulating earth gravity in zero-gravity would have been one of the most important modules.. Also it'd probably cost more to get it up there than it cost to build it.
Honestly, after all the money we've spent, I don't see them just plopping it into the ocean.
Firstly, if we're going to the moon and mars, the ISS seems like a pretty damn good staging/bailout option.
Secondly, we need to start thinking long term about our survival as a species. One of those strategies means long term human space flight. Currently a space station is the only thing that's giving us that.
I'm sure there will be those people who argue that it takes money away from other projects, but right now it's the only thing NASA is doing.
By 2016 it won't be of course, and the ISS will have ended its useful life. People don't seem to understand that the ISS doesn't stay up there by itself, and it doesn't do science just by virtue of being in space.
The LHC has taken over 20 years to complete, and will only run for a few years after it has started. Should we abandon that experiment too? After all we're not paying for the research, we're paying for a giant hoop in the ground and if that doesn't last forever then why bother?
If the Europeans and Russians wanted to take over maintenance of the ISS that's fine, but it's pretty pricey and why keep an experiment running after it's finished?
Hell... I'd like to see them tether it to a geosynchronous orbit and convert the thing into a space elevator to reduce the cost of energy needed to send 1 kg of material into space to less than $10k.
Wow I don't know where to begin with this..
First off the ISS is 350km above the earth. Geosynchronous orbit is 42,164km out, over 100x higher. And the ISS is huge, the size of the rocket needed to move it out to that distance would make the Saturn V rocket (skyscraper size) look like a firecracker.
That doesn't include the "rope" needed, which doesn't even exist yet.
And that doesn't solve the fact that the ISS is a laboratory and can't just be converted to something functionally completely different.. The various ISS modules are for the various experiments it performs, you can't just say "let's make this thing a space elevator" any more than you can make a satellite a space elevator.
Plus if the ISS actually was that far out it would become useless for its actual purpose, because it would be ridiculously expensive to get astronauts out there.
1. Build ISS
2. Perform the zero-gravity experiments it was constructed for, getting many years of science out of it (including the ones up until now)
3. Deorbit
By your logic I could say "what are the LHC guys thinking? they'll be shutting it down in a few years!" But that completely misses the point of constructing it..
I don't get how so many have completely misunderstood the ISS' purpose..
They're not "crashing it into the sea" out of spite. It takes massive maintenance costs to keep it up there!
Honestly do you think if other countries decided to absorb NASA's costs NASA would still be de-orbiting it?
How are we supposed to go to Mars without any understanding of surviving outside of Earth for extended periods? Why would we keep the ISS' heavy maintenance costs going longer than they're needed?
Don't think of it as a "space station, to conquer the far reaches of outer space", or a permanent monument for space tourists to visit. It's a zero-gravity lab, plain and simple; an extended mission, which will be discarded when complete.
I'm not necessarily defending the method, but is the hosts file really parsed each time a lookup is performed? Surely it checks the file modification time (cached in memory) of the latest change, and if it has changed only then it parses it and adds it into its own internal indexed DNS cache?
You can bet DNS queries aren't performed every time you need to find google.com, so why would it read/etc/hosts every time?
I haven't even read GP and why he's doing it, so it may be a total waste of memory, and it sure isn't an elegant, robust solution, but I don't think it'd be as bad as you say.
If it's supposed to extract 3D data from a single 2D image clearly there's a catch. Model tweaking required? Limited types of images that can be processed? Inaccurate? Suppose I took a photo of a photo, or there was a picture on a wall; how is it supposed to know what's 2D and what's 3D, or what depth things have? Shadow analysis can only go so far.
If this software works flawlessly but requires more pictures it's much more important than something theoretical/flawed. If you want a 3D model of something you have to expect to take more than one picture.
It does mean that if they didn't used to have the smallest arsenal, and that's a matter of public record. Citation needed, citation given. End of story.
Slashdot Mirror
Dunno, sounds like "an important measure of the stock market" to me. Seeing a linux company up there as a healthy company is pretty significant it would seem, if you weren't sure if they wouldn't be around to support their platform now you'd prob ably be pretty reassured
So you can disassemble compiled code, way to go.. Have fun disassembling a huge binary that's far too large to economically analyze in assembly.
What's that? You don't fully disassemble and analyze large binaries but only critical paths or small binaries? How unique and sought-after your services must be. I'm sure analysis of compiled kernels is the best way to tackle this bug..
Except then the bug is patched, and all of a sudden you aren't running the default settings for FF and things get weird.
Better not to visit suspicious sites, and if you have to install NoScript, it'll hugely decrease the potentially vulnerable "surface area" of your web browser.
TCP/IP from a Mars lander to Earth would be fun.. SYN .. [an hour].. ACK.. [an hour]
More likely they'll just put a ship in orbit or perhaps moon orbit for 105 days.
So what, are you saying the ISS can't be refitted? Its cheaper to start building a new space station than refit the ISS?
Yes. Why wouldn't it be? The ISS was never meant to be permeanent, and all of its parts have an expected end of life. For it to survive past its planned end of life would require for each part to be replaced, bit by bit. Not only would that be more expensive, but more risky and less flexible.
You seem to think it's just a big room in space where science happens, but it's actually a pre-planned array of scientific experiments intended to be brought up and run in a specific order depending on the life of each experiment and the space station itself.
All possible space science has already been completed on the ISS?
It is only 80% complete right now, and soon it'll be in its prime; a massive science experiment with much to teach us, lasting almost 2 decades, and yielding useful data since only 3-4 years after the first parts were put in place.
Compare that to the LHC; 20 years in the making, will only run for a few years, and after that another one will be built. Oh no, what a waste! (If you thought they were building a permanent donut in the ground, and not a science experiment, that is)
How many of those complaining about this realize they're adding a new module to it tomorrow, to get more scientific research done?
In 2016 will the module they're adding today still be yielding useful data? No. Does that mean it wasn't worth adding it?
Experiments finish, all good things come to an end, I wish more people here would stop focusing on when it'll be dismanted and start focusing on what's going on there now.. Why is this the story we hear today, and yet there's no story about the new module?
Holy freaking jesus. Do you actually believe a private party would willingly buy a used experiment, but NASA would not sell the ISS out of spite?
Do you actually think a building, made of brick is a good analogy for a space laboratory, in low earth orbit?
NASA are launching a shuttle mission tomorrow to add a new module to the ISS, to get more scientific research done now. But all you morons are here whining about how it'll be gone in 2016, after the scientific data has been retrieved.
I bet half the people in here complaining about NASA wasting the ISS don't have a clue they're adding a new module to it tomorrow, it's pitiful.
Well you can place the blame for this squarely on your Weekly Readers, science classes, etc, for getting it completely wrong.
I think the LHC guys should start making it clear that their experiment won't last forever either, because people seem to believe that a scientific experiment can go on yielding information forever.
Why not expect it to be up there until 2090? I'm sure we can do 80 more years of valuable science in there with the same equipment that is up there now. Not like experimental instruments ever yield all their information, that's why the Tower of Pisa is still a pioneering research center on gravity.
How is the ISS a big reason for building Orion?
This is outrageous, to spend billions on this thing and then deorbit it just a few years after it is complete is just pure insanity. Billions of dollars wasted. I wonder if there will be any useful scientific information to come out of ISS. More likely, it seems that ISS, manned moon and mars programs are nothing but ego trips that drain money away from more effective and productive projects such as Hubble.
You think Hubble isn't going to be decommissioned too? They put Hubble up there, it served its time, now they're getting ready to put a new one up there and Hubble will fall out of maintenance and drop out of the sky. Same is happening for the ISS and everyone is in uproar. It's baffling.
Also you should read up on the ISS and the experiments it's doing now and has been for years, module by module. It's not like they need all the science modules in place before they can begin work..
Sure, we've recouped advances in science and technology from the time we've had there, but the US taxpayer won't think of it that way.
So you're saying if NASA doesn't waste money keeping a bunch of completed experiment modules in space the US taxpayer will cut NASA's funding for wasting money?
I really feel bad for NASA..
I don't know if simulating earth gravity in zero-gravity would have been one of the most important modules.. Also it'd probably cost more to get it up there than it cost to build it.
Honestly, after all the money we've spent, I don't see them just plopping it into the ocean. Firstly, if we're going to the moon and mars, the ISS seems like a pretty damn good staging/bailout option. Secondly, we need to start thinking long term about our survival as a species. One of those strategies means long term human space flight. Currently a space station is the only thing that's giving us that. I'm sure there will be those people who argue that it takes money away from other projects, but right now it's the only thing NASA is doing.
By 2016 it won't be of course, and the ISS will have ended its useful life. People don't seem to understand that the ISS doesn't stay up there by itself, and it doesn't do science just by virtue of being in space.
The LHC has taken over 20 years to complete, and will only run for a few years after it has started. Should we abandon that experiment too? After all we're not paying for the research, we're paying for a giant hoop in the ground and if that doesn't last forever then why bother?
If the Europeans and Russians wanted to take over maintenance of the ISS that's fine, but it's pretty pricey and why keep an experiment running after it's finished?
Hell... I'd like to see them tether it to a geosynchronous orbit and convert the thing into a space elevator to reduce the cost of energy needed to send 1 kg of material into space to less than $10k.
Wow I don't know where to begin with this..
.. News for nerds indeed..
First off the ISS is 350km above the earth. Geosynchronous orbit is 42,164km out, over 100x higher. And the ISS is huge, the size of the rocket needed to move it out to that distance would make the Saturn V rocket (skyscraper size) look like a firecracker.
That doesn't include the "rope" needed, which doesn't even exist yet.
And that doesn't solve the fact that the ISS is a laboratory and can't just be converted to something functionally completely different.. The various ISS modules are for the various experiments it performs, you can't just say "let's make this thing a space elevator" any more than you can make a satellite a space elevator.
Plus if the ISS actually was that far out it would become useless for its actual purpose, because it would be ridiculously expensive to get astronauts out there.
1. Build ISS
2. Perform the zero-gravity experiments it was constructed for, getting many years of science out of it (including the ones up until now)
3. Deorbit
By your logic I could say "what are the LHC guys thinking? they'll be shutting it down in a few years!" But that completely misses the point of constructing it..
I don't get how so many have completely misunderstood the ISS' purpose..
They're not "crashing it into the sea" out of spite. It takes massive maintenance costs to keep it up there! Honestly do you think if other countries decided to absorb NASA's costs NASA would still be de-orbiting it?
How are we supposed to go to Mars without any understanding of surviving outside of Earth for extended periods? Why would we keep the ISS' heavy maintenance costs going longer than they're needed?
Don't think of it as a "space station, to conquer the far reaches of outer space", or a permanent monument for space tourists to visit. It's a zero-gravity lab, plain and simple; an extended mission, which will be discarded when complete.
It costs money to keep something that heavy in orbit, at that height there is still friction, and that's just one of the maintenance costs.
If you understand the value of the ISS and don't think it's worth it then fine, but don't think you can cut off NASA and have it continue to function.
I'm not necessarily defending the method, but is the hosts file really parsed each time a lookup is performed? Surely it checks the file modification time (cached in memory) of the latest change, and if it has changed only then it parses it and adds it into its own internal indexed DNS cache? /etc/hosts every time?
You can bet DNS queries aren't performed every time you need to find google.com, so why would it read
I haven't even read GP and why he's doing it, so it may be a total waste of memory, and it sure isn't an elegant, robust solution, but I don't think it'd be as bad as you say.
If you're going to wait for an end to Office automation you'll be waiting for a long time.
Anyone else see the irony of this comment on a page full of AJAX tech by the way?
If it's supposed to extract 3D data from a single 2D image clearly there's a catch. Model tweaking required? Limited types of images that can be processed? Inaccurate? Suppose I took a photo of a photo, or there was a picture on a wall; how is it supposed to know what's 2D and what's 3D, or what depth things have? Shadow analysis can only go so far.
If this software works flawlessly but requires more pictures it's much more important than something theoretical/flawed. If you want a 3D model of something you have to expect to take more than one picture.
It does mean that if they didn't used to have the smallest arsenal, and that's a matter of public record. Citation needed, citation given. End of story.