Once the science objectives are completed, they should attempt this maneuver.
They should attempt an engine burn near the end to try to understand what went wrong to prevent it on another mission. I'm sure they'll orbit and observe until too many instruments or stabilizers fail, but near the edge of usefulness they should probably do engine burn tests.
I used to use Pascal a lot back in my college days, mostly on mini-computers. Other than a brief burst of sales in Turbo Pascal (PC) and to a lessor extent Delphi, Pascal usage quickly shrank. I'm not quite sure why, it was a fairly decent compiler-based language.
It needed more string-oriented operations, perhaps. I like the way the type name (declaration) comes after the variable, instead of before like the C-family of languages. I prefer it after. It also allowed nesting of functions.
I'm getting up there in years and witnessed lots of IT fads. The average seems to be that only 1 out of 10 such fads has significant staying power: it becomes mainstream and common.
3 out of 10 find narrow niches where they do fairly well, and 6 out of 10 pretty much die, often because they were no good or too similar to something already around.
What I meant is that the first iPhone changed the industry. It changed smart-phone conventions and expectations for consumers and users.
But it wasn't based on some specific new technology. For example, touch-screens had already been around, phone-browsers had already been around, and the kind of applications on it already existed in other smart-phones and/or personal devices in various forms.
As far as whether Apple has added specific technical innovations that improved the iPhone, they probably have, but so far they are not industry changers, at least in a sudden sense. They may keep Apple financially successful and add incremental improvements to their products, but that's kind of a different category than "game changers".
Anyone who chooses a STEM career path in the Western world needs to examine his or her priorities.
The problem is that the alternatives are also risky. First-world workers in general are taking it in the nuts due to offshoring, outsourcing, and automation.
I would note that plumbing, HVAC, and household appliance repair seems a relatively good option right now, being harder to offshore or automate.
But you never know, maybe remote-controlled repair bots controlled by $2/hr workers in Timbuktu will take over much of that, although some suspect that a sense of small, touch, dexterity, etc. is needed to do it right. Still, it could replace some repair tasks.
If we look at what's usually called "innovation", it's often really about market acceptance. The first iPhone didn't involve any technology that was unique or special by itself; it was just a combo of features and decent implementation that caught on with the public: knowing what to keep, what to cut, and how to package it all together.
There are a lot of interesting ideas floating around, such as my pet, dynamic relational, but until somebody implements a version that actually catches on with the industry, it won't go anywhere.
Building a practical version would indeed take a lot of Torvalds-style sweat. There are probably roughly a hundred times more interesting ideas than there are good implementors. A Torvalds-like grinder deciding to work on dynamic-relational has a slim chance.
By "interesting", I mean something that has a curious angle or variation that may seem odd or even impractical up-front, but worth exploring in order to kick the tires and tune. It often takes more than one try to get it right. A lot of now-common ideas had early versions that didn't do enough correctly to catch on in the market, sometimes because the hardware hadn't quite caught up.
The Apple Newton is one example; as is arguably the Xerox Star, the first GUI computer; and even RDBMS took more than a decade to take off, despite early promising experiments.
By some accounts, the early relational languages were too "mathy", and Dr. Codd was not good at communicating the benefits to non-academia. SQL made it more approachable. I won't claim SQL is the ideal, by far, but was good enough to catch on in IT shops, being more like COBOL than like math. Several different relational languages and experimental RDBMS were created to explore relational query languages and implementations. This gave the market and entrepreneurs enough sub-ideas to pick and choose from to make something sell-able.
It wasn't to increase teachers, it was keep them at the same level, since teachers otherwise tend to get cut during deep recessions; states just let class sizes get bigger. It's a way to cut expenditures without outright closing institutions.
Whether we have "too many teachers" in general is another debate.
PC police? I'm not following. Do you have a more specific instance as an example?
I agree there are stupid trolls on BOTH sides who get carried away. There are stupid lefties and stupid righties. There are good ways to protest and bad ways.
As far as legislation, gay people are understandably not being to be very happy about anti-gay legislation.
USA's infrastructure has been neglected a long time and both T and the Democrats want an infrastructure bill. GOP are apathetic, but there may be enough on board to pass it. Let's do it!
Some blame O for not including more infrastructure in the 2009 stimulus bill instead of spending on state teachers and first responders, but many economists felt "big metal" infrastructure projects would take too long to ramp up to be sufficient for a stimulus.
If the managers have no clue where their staff are most of the time, then you are running an org wrong. Even if the org uses cheesy gizmos to verify people are physically at their desks, that says almost nothing about actually doing work. And it's bad for morale.
I can see using such for a problem employee who repeatedly abuses their time, but not as a default.
PC appropriateness is relative. For example, if I called a Trump-voting evangelical a "sky-man-fairy-tale-worshiping nutcase" they will have a fit. That's my non-PC way of describing their religion.
Those who dish it out often cannot take it themselves. Rather than have an escalating non-PC mouth fight, it's usually better to attempt PC.
Non-PC is great for venting, lousy for civilized society. Say it in your closet to get it out of your system. So far it appears Trump's non-PC is backfiring on the larger scale. I'll be very surprised if it works in the longer run.
...probably from the same people writing the ransomware.
I once worked for a company specializing in environmental cleanup. They were eventually bought out by a polluting civil engineering firm. They were essentially paid by the gov't to clean up their own messes.
(Granted, the rules were lax in their earlier years such that it this financial recursion probably wasn't planned; just a lucky accident.)
1. Test backups regularly 2. Put the most recent copy in at least two geographically diverse locations (as insurance against regional disasters). 3. Store the archive versions in at least two different locations, perhaps rotating the target if there's not enough space. 4. If it's encrypted (probably a good idea), also make sure the encryption key is stored in multiple spots.
Example schedule with 3 locations:
LOCATION 1: - Last night's - 1 week ago - 4 weeks ago - 7 weeks ago - 10 weeks ago - etc...
LOCATION 2: - Last night's - 2 weeks ago - 5 weeks ago - 8 weeks ago - 11 weeks ago - etc...
LOCATION 3: - Last night's - 3 weeks ago - 6 weeks ago - 9 weeks ago - 12 weeks ago - etc...
Archives older than roughly 3 months perhaps should be staggered monthly, and then yearly after about 2 or 3 years if the space is expensive.
Being blunt, rude, pushy, etc. fails far more often than it works in my experience, being somebody who by nature is "straight forward". The few times it has worked it usually creates a longer-term resentment; i.e. burning bridges.
That's why a certain political figure has puzzled me. He's done the opposite of what both my parents and experience have taught in terms of getting along and cooperation. Yet, it got him far (so far).
I don't get it. Maybe in some cases tribalism trumps manners (no pun intended).
I can think of a trillion's worth of core infrastructure projects that are "shovel ready".
Big infrastructure projects like general dam shoring-up are NOT "shovel ready"; they can take years to ramp up due to engineering studies, land studies, and procurement steps. (In an emergency, it may have to be quick, but obviously that's difficult to budget for.)
This is one reason why Obama's stimulus had relatively few big infrastructure projects in it. Economists suggested based on past data, mostly from Japan, that stimuluses have to launch pretty quick to be effective.
Instead, the Democrats elected to mostly shore up state funds for teachers and first-responders because that gets used more quickly, being many states were planning on chopping staff due to recession-related budget cuts.
It's interesting that everyone's trying to put a political spin on this, and finger pointing is starting.
First, T supporters say T should only give emergency assistance if CA swears away from "sanctuary cities". CA's response is that CA has always paid into the fed just like every other state, and that one political issue shouldn't be used as a threat against another.
Second, is the reason for not preventing this. There was concern of weakness in the dam's overflow systems going back years. Different experts gave different opinions. It seems it was on the borderline of being problematic, at least on paper. If it's only on the borderline of being a problem, then expensive fixes tend to get ignored.
It may also be a case of "cascading failure" whereby the backup (overflow handling) failed, and then the secondary backup also failed. Sometimes bleep just happens under extreme weather. Other CA damns and water systems held up; the chance of all them working perfectly is slim. If you have hundreds of water systems, at least a few will have notable problems during heavy rains just out of shear probability.
Large dams are probably a thing of the past, in part because they are a single big point of failure, and in part because they screw up the existing state of nature. Smaller sub-dams are the preferred way now, if any. But we still have to maintain the big old ones because many existing dwellings and roads rely on them to work.
Slashdot Mirror
They should attempt an engine burn near the end to try to understand what went wrong to prevent it on another mission. I'm sure they'll orbit and observe until too many instruments or stabilizers fail, but near the edge of usefulness they should probably do engine burn tests.
I used to use Pascal a lot back in my college days, mostly on mini-computers. Other than a brief burst of sales in Turbo Pascal (PC) and to a lessor extent Delphi, Pascal usage quickly shrank. I'm not quite sure why, it was a fairly decent compiler-based language.
It needed more string-oriented operations, perhaps. I like the way the type name (declaration) comes after the variable, instead of before like the C-family of languages. I prefer it after. It also allowed nesting of functions.
Sounds like vague fluff, follow the synergy
I'm getting up there in years and witnessed lots of IT fads. The average seems to be that only 1 out of 10 such fads has significant staying power: it becomes mainstream and common.
3 out of 10 find narrow niches where they do fairly well, and 6 out of 10 pretty much die, often because they were no good or too similar to something already around.
What I meant is that the first iPhone changed the industry. It changed smart-phone conventions and expectations for consumers and users.
But it wasn't based on some specific new technology. For example, touch-screens had already been around, phone-browsers had already been around, and the kind of applications on it already existed in other smart-phones and/or personal devices in various forms.
As far as whether Apple has added specific technical innovations that improved the iPhone, they probably have, but so far they are not industry changers, at least in a sudden sense. They may keep Apple financially successful and add incremental improvements to their products, but that's kind of a different category than "game changers".
That sounds fun to try, though
The problem is that the alternatives are also risky. First-world workers in general are taking it in the nuts due to offshoring, outsourcing, and automation.
I would note that plumbing, HVAC, and household appliance repair seems a relatively good option right now, being harder to offshore or automate.
But you never know, maybe remote-controlled repair bots controlled by $2/hr workers in Timbuktu will take over much of that, although some suspect that a sense of small, touch, dexterity, etc. is needed to do it right. Still, it could replace some repair tasks.
Aw, Yorb aces Arbee long "2S".
Oops, I meant to refer to Trump, but realize it could also mean "Torvalds" in this context.
T is honest: he tells everybody his delusions clear and open.
Torvalds inspired us to release Sweat++, and for an extra $199.95, we'll throw in Blood++ and Tears.js if you call before Tuesday!
If we look at what's usually called "innovation", it's often really about market acceptance. The first iPhone didn't involve any technology that was unique or special by itself; it was just a combo of features and decent implementation that caught on with the public: knowing what to keep, what to cut, and how to package it all together.
There are a lot of interesting ideas floating around, such as my pet, dynamic relational, but until somebody implements a version that actually catches on with the industry, it won't go anywhere.
Building a practical version would indeed take a lot of Torvalds-style sweat. There are probably roughly a hundred times more interesting ideas than there are good implementors. A Torvalds-like grinder deciding to work on dynamic-relational has a slim chance.
By "interesting", I mean something that has a curious angle or variation that may seem odd or even impractical up-front, but worth exploring in order to kick the tires and tune. It often takes more than one try to get it right. A lot of now-common ideas had early versions that didn't do enough correctly to catch on in the market, sometimes because the hardware hadn't quite caught up.
The Apple Newton is one example; as is arguably the Xerox Star, the first GUI computer; and even RDBMS took more than a decade to take off, despite early promising experiments.
By some accounts, the early relational languages were too "mathy", and Dr. Codd was not good at communicating the benefits to non-academia. SQL made it more approachable. I won't claim SQL is the ideal, by far, but was good enough to catch on in IT shops, being more like COBOL than like math. Several different relational languages and experimental RDBMS were created to explore relational query languages and implementations. This gave the market and entrepreneurs enough sub-ideas to pick and choose from to make something sell-able.
It wasn't a straight line.
It wasn't to increase teachers, it was keep them at the same level, since teachers otherwise tend to get cut during deep recessions; states just let class sizes get bigger. It's a way to cut expenditures without outright closing institutions.
Whether we have "too many teachers" in general is another debate.
PC police? I'm not following. Do you have a more specific instance as an example?
I agree there are stupid trolls on BOTH sides who get carried away. There are stupid lefties and stupid righties. There are good ways to protest and bad ways.
As far as legislation, gay people are understandably not being to be very happy about anti-gay legislation.
USA's infrastructure has been neglected a long time and both T and the Democrats want an infrastructure bill. GOP are apathetic, but there may be enough on board to pass it. Let's do it!
Some blame O for not including more infrastructure in the 2009 stimulus bill instead of spending on state teachers and first responders, but many economists felt "big metal" infrastructure projects would take too long to ramp up to be sufficient for a stimulus.
It's my understanding that the high-speed rail money is mostly federally earmarked for rail. CA cannot re-purpose it without a new federal bill.
And at least one engineer said the dam was fine.
If the managers have no clue where their staff are most of the time, then you are running an org wrong. Even if the org uses cheesy gizmos to verify people are physically at their desks, that says almost nothing about actually doing work. And it's bad for morale.
I can see using such for a problem employee who repeatedly abuses their time, but not as a default.
Plutocrat: "Ahh, I love the smell of dereg in the morning. Smells like ... profits!"
Demand? How does that work? Why is demandativity the key? Who made that rule?
PC appropriateness is relative. For example, if I called a Trump-voting evangelical a "sky-man-fairy-tale-worshiping nutcase" they will have a fit. That's my non-PC way of describing their religion.
Those who dish it out often cannot take it themselves. Rather than have an escalating non-PC mouth fight, it's usually better to attempt PC.
Non-PC is great for venting, lousy for civilized society. Say it in your closet to get it out of your system. So far it appears Trump's non-PC is backfiring on the larger scale. I'll be very surprised if it works in the longer run.
I once worked for a company specializing in environmental cleanup. They were eventually bought out by a polluting civil engineering firm. They were essentially paid by the gov't to clean up their own messes.
(Granted, the rules were lax in their earlier years such that it this financial recursion probably wasn't planned; just a lucky accident.)
And
1. Test backups regularly
2. Put the most recent copy in at least two geographically diverse locations (as insurance against regional disasters).
3. Store the archive versions in at least two different locations, perhaps rotating the target if there's not enough space.
4. If it's encrypted (probably a good idea), also make sure the encryption key is stored in multiple spots.
Example schedule with 3 locations:
LOCATION 1:
- Last night's
- 1 week ago
- 4 weeks ago
- 7 weeks ago
- 10 weeks ago
- etc...
LOCATION 2:
- Last night's
- 2 weeks ago
- 5 weeks ago
- 8 weeks ago
- 11 weeks ago
- etc...
LOCATION 3:
- Last night's
- 3 weeks ago
- 6 weeks ago
- 9 weeks ago
- 12 weeks ago
- etc...
Archives older than roughly 3 months perhaps should be staggered monthly, and then yearly after about 2 or 3 years if the space is expensive.
Being blunt, rude, pushy, etc. fails far more often than it works in my experience, being somebody who by nature is "straight forward". The few times it has worked it usually creates a longer-term resentment; i.e. burning bridges.
That's why a certain political figure has puzzled me. He's done the opposite of what both my parents and experience have taught in terms of getting along and cooperation. Yet, it got him far (so far).
I don't get it. Maybe in some cases tribalism trumps manners (no pun intended).
Big infrastructure projects like general dam shoring-up are NOT "shovel ready"; they can take years to ramp up due to engineering studies, land studies, and procurement steps. (In an emergency, it may have to be quick, but obviously that's difficult to budget for.)
This is one reason why Obama's stimulus had relatively few big infrastructure projects in it. Economists suggested based on past data, mostly from Japan, that stimuluses have to launch pretty quick to be effective.
Instead, the Democrats elected to mostly shore up state funds for teachers and first-responders because that gets used more quickly, being many states were planning on chopping staff due to recession-related budget cuts.
It's interesting that everyone's trying to put a political spin on this, and finger pointing is starting.
First, T supporters say T should only give emergency assistance if CA swears away from "sanctuary cities". CA's response is that CA has always paid into the fed just like every other state, and that one political issue shouldn't be used as a threat against another.
Second, is the reason for not preventing this. There was concern of weakness in the dam's overflow systems going back years. Different experts gave different opinions. It seems it was on the borderline of being problematic, at least on paper. If it's only on the borderline of being a problem, then expensive fixes tend to get ignored.
It may also be a case of "cascading failure" whereby the backup (overflow handling) failed, and then the secondary backup also failed. Sometimes bleep just happens under extreme weather. Other CA damns and water systems held up; the chance of all them working perfectly is slim. If you have hundreds of water systems, at least a few will have notable problems during heavy rains just out of shear probability.
Large dams are probably a thing of the past, in part because they are a single big point of failure, and in part because they screw up the existing state of nature. Smaller sub-dams are the preferred way now, if any. But we still have to maintain the big old ones because many existing dwellings and roads rely on them to work.