"Start the slurping and we'll do the "code of conduct" later."
Because really it's not like the patients own their data, is it?
That's the attitude of a data fetishist.
16330 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
"f these guys have any sense, they will design an air-braked system that has at worst subsonic velocity coming in to land, then does most of its late braking using parachutes followed by a last-second rocket firing, just like Soyuz."
Funny you should say that....
In fact the stage is airbraked. The airstream howling into the nozzles of the 9 engines builds up plenty of back pressure and forms an air bubble acting as the re entry nose.
Actual engine thrust is only for initial deceleration burn and terminal thrust at the pad.
And Soyuz uses one shot solid rockets. It is also a capsule, not a stage.
You cannot imagine how grateful you're nothing to do with this design.
"But under the skin, they are always a fuel tank + engine + a few other bits and pieces. Not much 'new' technology there, just funding, better CAD/CFD, and better materials."
In the same way that a Leaf is like a Massarti.
DC-X goal was to demonstrate fast turnaround of LO2/LH2 engines. It succeeded.
It's top speed was Mach 3. It's shape was partly because the full size one was going to enter "sharp end first" and because keeping a long thin structure stable (even a bottom heavy one like a rocket stage) was considered very tough.
Which it is.
In that sense making the F9 1st stage reusable is much more ambitious, as it's likely to have to decellerate from about M13, with the minimal amount of fuel and TPS needed to ensure its survival and safe landing.
The truth neither you nor I know exactly what's under the skin because that's what Spacex has spent the time to find out.
"Drop it gently and precisely into the sea to prove you can, then move to a land site, which can amount to little more than a sodding great concrete pan in the middle of the desert with a road to truck it out - a hell of a lot cheaper to build than a sea platform and much less expensive to rebuild if you break it (how?), with nothing of value in the surrounding area if it all gets noisy!"
Correct.
Which is what Spacex have had built for them at Space Port America in New Mexico, although that's more a flight test pad as they are planning to bring the stage(s) down to near the (but not at) the launch site, either Canaveral or Vandenberg.
"is probably marginally safer on a US based service. There are limits to NSA activities at home, but none on their activities abroad. And most of the rest of the worlds state backed eavesdroppers are more domestically focused."
Wrong.
A by definition if the billing address is abroad it's probably a furriner and if the servers are in the US THE PATRIOT Act dumps the 4th amendment
Or did you not realize that, Mr AC?
But you can make them think it's too much trouble and go after easier prey.
That works for me.
Actually it's about both the bottom line and privacy.
Because if you're a European business whose IP has military applications (and with the right PoV that's probably damm near everything) having your IP passed to some BFF corp of the NSA means you could be out of business.
I suggest that cheap cloud deal does not look quite so cheap now.
" the draft proposes to register a new value in the Application Layer Protocol negotiation (ALPN) Protocol IDs registry specific to signal the usage of HTTP2 to transport "http" URIs resources: h2clr."
IOW this only applies to stuff flagged "http" not "https" and the code they want to stick in the registry (which I suspect is nothing like the steaming PoS that Windows uses) is "h2clr"
Of course if you layer security on top of the http connection and that includes some kind of encryption that could still b**ger up the results.
IE the sort of stuff you have a search script to scrub your code for?
I think that the basic ideas of how to produce error free (or low risk of error) software are fairly simple.
Enforcing them (and understanding shy you should enforce them) is hard.
a) Compiled without maximum error reporting during compile (If this is release code there should be no errors and no warnings)
b)Never eyeballed by either formal or informal code reviews.
c)No scanning of the code base for the sort of stupid cant-possibly-happen coding errors that in fact can and do happen IRL.
" Lead in petrol (tetra ethyl lead as a fuel enhancer) was phased out by different states of the USA at different times, and at differing rates. Interestingly the rate of reduction of crime in the young male population fairly closely mirrors the decrease in exposure to lead very early in life."
Very much in the way that sprinkling pepper on my custard stops the risk finding a live pike in my bowl.
It's worked perfectly so far.
Now what if the level of correlation is only at the level of classical quantum physics?
BTW I think this is a very tricky experiment because you're not looking to null out an effect.
My instinct is it will take some very careful hardware design to ensure that no part of the signal received from Pulsar A seeps into the hardware chain of Pulsar B (and vice versa) causing their outputs to be more correlated than the classical result.
But that result is exactly what you expect to happen in this experiment.
BTW Back in the day robot ping pong was a major AI challenge.
IIRC one system had something like 5 Sun workstations running a bespoke bot with real time image processing and motion planning software.
The story here is barely possible AI lab research programme --> Turnkey hardware package.
Who will use it? Well someone who needs faster motion than existing bots but without the full speed of custom hard automation, like the machines that populate PCB's for example.
Impressive.
"They have two options -
a) fight like dogs to keep their monopoly (a battle they will eventually loose even if this approach keeps them going for another 20 years)
b) Embrace the opportunity to compete fairly on merit and actually implement the Open standard."
History demonstrates that MS invariably goes with a), and if it fails gets their PR in to airbrush it out of history to maintain their "undefeated" mystique.
Recall "MSN" ?
That's not fair. It also has:-
Hardware companies that rely on the next generation of Windows to bloat up even more, so people need to refresh their hardware.
VARS, who make a living fixing the problems their software and file formats cause.
Training companies, who train users how to use the work arounds the VARS have developed.
Competitors, who it has not managed to destroy yet.
"But at the time I was being told that RPG was a high level language superior to PL/1 or C, and that is why I made the comparison with such scorn."
That really was a LOL moment.
TBH with time I have come to realize there is a simple truth.
If your support tools are flexible enough any language can be a viable development environment.
The trouble is that there seem to be very few tools that a)Language neutral enough and b)powerful enough to be applied to any language.
"where they got taught that the only thing that mattered is Next Quarter and that Long Term (Ie, 10 Years) planning was unnecessary because lots of great "Quarterly Success" would somehow Magically guarantee Long Term success."
One of the base rules of "Operations Research" was that optimized sub systems do not naturally lead to a system that is optimized overall.
I guess they don't teach much OR on MBA's.
" I likened RPG to a rather restricted assembler language. And in hindsight, I think that I was being generous!"
Historically RPG was a language for programmers whose only previous experience was assembler language.
Fixed format upper case 5 character "opcodes" is exactly how a lot of assemblers have been laid out.
BTW 3 address instructions with conditional execution flags --> ARM Assembler.
RPG IV is meant to be much nicer, free format, lower case allowed, external subroutines etc.
"Many of these systems are more patched than Frankenstein. Over the years (most likely decades) functionality has been added to the basic systems, often programmed in different languages by people who left long ago."
Correct.
Here's the thing.
CTO "I want to scrap all our old CICS/COBOL that's been written over the last 40 years and rewrite it in C++/Java/ML/LISP/WTF is the language De Jour"
Board "Why"
CTO It'll be easier to maintain (and it'll look great on my CV. And if I can make the systems administration work as well I'll be a God)
Board "So what are the risks?"
CTO "It'll take years, (look at Nationwide migration to SAP), cost 100s of $/£/Em and cause massive disruption.
Board "And give us what we already have?
CTO "Yes."
Board "And is it likely your successor would want do the same, but with a different language?"
CTO "Yes. (To the man who only knows VB everything is a button)."
Board "I think we can can unanimously say that you can f**k right off with that plan."
They might not care what they use for their gambling qualitative trading systems but when it comes to tracking what their customers owe them on a large scale banks are very conservative
No doubt the "bolt on" nature will appeal to designers and mean designs can be moved between foundries a bite easier.
Obvious questions would be.
Do you feed the signal straight to the coil or is there some kind of protocol involved?
If so what's the overhead in bits per block of data (which could be 1 bit) being transferred?
What's the spacing limit between coils on the same chip to avoid interference?
And (perhaps the least checked of all) what's the maximum range that signal can go through? It should be a little over 1 chip thickness, but with 3D stacking I think some (all?) mfg's "thin" the chips to pack more in a standard package. So you could have vertical cross talk.
Yes it's clever.
But clever <> better.
1st generation. "That sun has a planet. It's about this wide."
Looking at more of the sky is good.
Getting more details on the planets found is good.
I think where still a way off being able to get a spectrogram of the atmosphere.
Perhaps the 3rd generation planet hunter?
Computer generated so too big to test by hand.
Yes as a puzzle it sounds a bit pants but "satisfiability" and +1/-1 are the sort of phrases that crop up in minimal digital logic design and custom logic layout for minimum surface area (and hence cost) on a chip.
That has very practical applications.
Back in the day MS wanted to take over the PBX market.
Turned out comms managers didn't like how unreliable it was compared to their embedded proprietary systems and couldn't care less about "Oh it's Windows just like your desktop" schtick.
And using the deep cash pile from their not-a-monopoly-honest OS and Office products to do it.
Quel f**king surprise.
BTW is that lync as in a misspelling of "link" or is the last c a hard c like "lynch" as in "lynch mob" ?
I'm not sure.