PB666

https://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/stories/amp/physicists-get-time-move-backwards-quantum-experiment?__twitter_impression=true

Its going to be pay-per-view, they will launch when they get enough subscribers.

747 cannot land if Vland (weight) is over 175 kts. So if on airborn it has to climb high enough to dump fuel otherwise its f_d. Your typcal modern runway at large airports are designed with this in mind. IOW if you loose engine perfomance slightl before v1 or even at v1 you pretty much are going to be sucking weeds. Damaged gear is better than gear collapse, gear collapse generally means airframe loss, at least the engine mounts will need service. For older 747 even sugnificant gear damage will mean retirement of airframe, so . . . . . . If you loose two port or starboard engines on abort you also dont have thrust diverters, which means you are all brake and likely one or two tire fires on the hot side.

What you want us to be on-topic, too? The way SLS is going might as well be a water park. SX is so gonna stomp them next year.

Logical flaw: oversimplification of the problem. The problem is not anticipative computing specifically. Let me give an analogy, when you look at a mirror you see a reflected image of yourself, but on the back view of a mirror is its private face, a whole different view of that mirror in fact from the back its not a mirror at all, but a very bumping non-lustrous coating of metal. In a good mirror design the user nevers sees the back of the mirror, they only see reflections and framing. IOW they can have process branches and chains but we should not see them or their spurious results. This is, no doubt, a design flaw. Its not a hardware 'bug' in the strictist sense, since the algorithm operates as it should. But in a looser sense if part of the processors job is to keep kernal protected state information 'rationed' to the user, then it is bugged from a security perspective.

Dont get too excited. The conspiracy part comes in later after nepharious operators figure out how they can infiltrate your browser and steal your passwords one at a time. Not to worry, there is always rasberry Pi..... for twenty five bucks you can play ubuntu on an 80386, which 27 years ago we thought was greatest thing since sliced bread.... or maybe a used copy of win 98 . . . . theres always the usenet, nntp servers, email. Doesnt seem to me thats its horribly diificult if you can program C you have access to assembly language subroutine functions. The question is what you will extract, because the read ahead stuff is typically not going to someones bank password. That program would have to find a way to get you to do something so that it can steal your password. Note: all the bug can do is read, it can steal information from your machine, mostly machine informstion at that, probably 99.99%.

Its a spacecraft if it can significant change its orbit.

I used to build computers from scratch, I could write code in machine language directly, once upon a time, but that was 30 years ago, and no-one seems to have as comprehensive knowledge cause of the of the complexity. My only conspiracy theory was this, that if whole scale changes are need in the kernal, its a leverage point for those who thing we need to snoop more, its good cover for such an operation even if said operation is a side effect of something else and I put that out there cause Im old and I have seen alot of stuff that 10 years previous no-one would have expected. Remember the glomar explorer. lol. SO as for the update, Im in the middle of a recovery process right now, Windows is searching for a solution for its fail, so if this is the fix that everyone's talking about, things are not going well here. Been through the fix, retry, repair 4x no waiting to chat with live agent . . . . . . . . . IPAD: Things did not go well, currently im about 3% of the way through a soft Win10 reinstall. lol. I will not be going to space today.

I do think we are doing a better job here of sorting through the facts than the media, the Scott Manley video was pretty enlightening. Thats the point, let the opines and counter facts get out there and then we know. GtG, windows 10 had decided, for god-only-knows-what reason that it wants to do an upgrade, suddenly, after a major upgrade. If you don't here from me again for a couple of days you'll know why . . . .

So, for the 2 weeks I have head buried in the three dimensional coordinate mapping. There are a couple of things I figured out how to do, for example create an elliptical in a 3D system. And to be able to position and dp/dt vectors. This was a very messy afair to say the least, but in doing this I came to realize there is a problem which every space program must solve, and that once the launch burn(s) are complete, the craft must decide when to burn. As we know a rocket launched from Russia a few weeks ago made the wrong decision to burn, and burn itself into the south atlantic. So the question is how do we define a robust system in which we can define when to burn based on as little apriori information as possible. IOW, you have just done a stage separation, the next stage is aware and is contantly loading <P> [< > define a three conponent vector all position vectors root at Earth's center of mass] from GPS and observing at 1 second intervals now has dP/dt giving <V>. Since the rocket imparts the final phase of the commercial rockets mission a momentum and certain vector its now up to the second stage to decide when to burn . . . .what can possibly go wrong. As this stage comes on line it now has a timer operating, it has to wait for it to cross a certain threshold and fire, as it waits it turns to optimal burn angle. How hard can that be. If you play KSP this seems relatively simple, until you are the one who is doing the programming, for example in the game you wait until half the time in distance from the center of the burn until burn complete. Basically the dV needed at the center is X X = ISP * ln (M0/Mf) ..... Mf = M0 / e(X*Ve) Since T = Mf / M-flowmax Since maximum mass flow generally occurs at full thrust we can assume that T is the time of the burn and T1/2 is the burn init time lead to the burn point. While this may seem simple, as it would turn out it gets more complicated over time, such as during kicks because during each kick you need to comeback and determine a new burn init point. In the above image three coordinate axis (red = X, green = y, blue = z) At the intersection of all three axes there is a plane for all the three axis with a circle representing the plane that encircles the corresponding axis. If we can imagine a ship traveling on any of the axis there are an infinite set of point where a burn can be initiated and complete its burn. So lets say we are traveling around the Z=0 axis (our position is defined by X,Y and can be mapped by an angle Φ relative to X=0 and rotating about the Z axis where Φ can be defined as Sign(Y) * Arc-cosine (X/SQRT(X2 + Y2)). If we notice that I have set the ship on a elliptical defined by the unit tangent vector 0,0,1 . . the Z axis annd goes through the origin. In the above defined elliptical. if I set the burn center point at Φ = pi/15. And I am traveling at 0.001 rad/sec and the burn needs say 200 seconds, then its a pretty good guess to start the burn at 0.1 radians (~5.7 degrees) before Φ. Therefore the burn initiation point. Φ = pi/15 - 0.1. So the basic assumption is that this will be the same for all orbits, of course, if it was I would not present the graph. So lets say my rocket takes off 3 minutes before I reach the Vernal equinox, I then burn on a north bound course 340' until I intercept the X=0 elliptical at orbital altitude and I hug that course just as close as I can. So lets say that the function of me doing this is that I want to create a 2 orbit a day elliptical with one orbit at say 200km above the south pole and the other end at an altitude with an a that generates the specified period of twice passing the south pole a day (1/12 hours = 2.31E-5 O/s). In order to achieve this I need a burn that centers on the south pole (where Z-axis, Y =0 and X=0 intercept). How do we specify the burn init . . . . . . It turns out that you can't, in fact the closer you get to a pole, the harder it gets to specify the burn interval with precision using Φ , because the axis you are trying to specify on has an almost infinite 'faux' angular momentum as it passes over the pole and no angular momentum at the equator. For any axis of in which a polar coordinate system can be derived one can find an orbit in which that polar coordinate system is absolutely useless. There is a whole list of orbits (Rougly from 0.1 radians from the axis which is used to define the angle in which the angular positioning system becomes useless. This is another fictitious problem because the angle being use Φ does not have an linear function with an angle from the plane of the elliptical, in that plane Θ defines the angular distance along the path of motion from the periapsis and we know from Keplarian that objects orbiting in the plane sweep the same area for any given unit of time. So that the keplarian system has some utility after all. The only problem is mapping x,y,z in the keplarian is not easy. so that if we can imagine elliptical Z = 0 and suppose our burn center is at y = 0, then we can map that burn at Φ = π/2 - 0.1 pi radians. If the periapsis is at π/2 then it maps to -0.1 radians. But more simply than that suppose we are using a gps system to coordinate the burn initiation then of course we cannot be sampling the Keplarian elliptical but have to come up with a metric something like 17x + y = 0 or x < -y/17 when we cross it we need to burn for 200 seconds and then recalculate the Keplarian. What we need is an orbital probe, a probe that tells us the axis which is tangent to the plane and a crossing that discontinous plane (it starts at the origin propogating up and down along the orbits tangent and perpendicular in the direction of the threshold burn tangent. That plane cab be detected by GPS. is to use the unit vector for elliptical tangent. Since we have each of the three axis we want to select the two other axis (each a unit vector with 1 as one of it components and 0 as the other two). So that the axis with the two greatest distances should immediately solve this issue of the above, you will never be closer than 45' from the pole of the of the axis that you have chosen. But is that actually the best way is to create an equation of the orbit such that all X,Y,Z match. So an actual orbit, lets say our defined threshold of the orbit is defined by some vectors latitude longditude. And this position is defined precisely to a cubic meter in space. What are the actual odds that RL space craft is going to pass through the cube that triggers the event. What we need is a tangent plane inorbital path is the tangent and in which the threshold is a point in that tangent plane. Thats where the real programming fun comes into it.

Problem 1, "Meltdown" The claim that archetecture differences make them invulnerable. to #2

I get that they wanted to conceal the problem until there was coverage, but they could have come up with an excuse for recalling chips. And the second problem is that some analyst say that AMD is not vulnerable (which means that if the buyer was informed that there was a potential vulnerability that they might have made a different product decisions) and Intel says that they are, is this real or it is just smoke trying to boost sales. I trust Intel on what they say no more than I trust Ford regarding carbon monoxide issues. I still believe Intel is a good product, don't get me wrong, but it does not sound like engineers are in charge of the policy issues. I wrote my fair share of programs and I can remember waking up in the middle of the night pen in hand trying to scribble out a solution to a problem that my subconscious woke me up in the middle of the night, pouring days, sometimes weeks trying to repair it. If they are good engineers and someone identified a problem there would be alot of restless nights wondering "what did I do wrong or where is this coming from". Just a point to everyone, watch what you click. There are script blockers out their that prevent tons of stuff from launching from your browsers. last year my wife clicked on something it didn't do anything apparent but it tried to run a script which I blocked, the next boot the OS was dead. I had been warning her for months that the pages she was frequenting were running way to many scripts, saturating the bandwidth . . . a very bad sign. The bouncing balogne web-pages are reason good enough to hit the go back button. Spectre is going to be here for a while is what I got also. Edit: I should point out that they say " By the end of next week, Intel expects to have issued updates for more than 90 percent of processor products introduced within the past five years. " I have two Intel CPUs and nothing has been offered to me yet . . . so. . . . .

https://newsroom.intel.com/news/intel-responds-to-security-research-findings/\ That's not the issue, malicious software can access data and use that data to do something malicious. This is the way the problem Intel describes and there defense on the topic does not address the data theft issue.

Snark wants us to assume that they are stupid, not malicious, ........... Lets do the logical analysis a different way, one that is applicable in a civil court. They have known since when, June . . . .they have been selling processors since June ( I should know I bought one in October). . . .did they pull the processors even after they knew they had vulnerabilities? . . were any processors pulled from the shelves? . . . .are they offering customers replacements and free installation? . . . . . . . Were there other competitive options available? (Yes). Walks, talks, quacks . . . what is it? Of course people are going to ventilate over this, Jeeze. My processor that I just bought wont even get 20$ on Ebay in 6 months , even if the defect the prospective purchasers they are all black-list processors. Thanks intel for getting the word out to your distributers . . .Caveot Emptor. Economically we have to imagine this is going to cause an OS fork in Win 10 when the new processors come out, that this will be a thing either in the later half of 2018 or 2019, so that if you need to replace the CPU, more than likely you will need a new MB .and someones going to have to install them so . . . .$250 per box . . . . . . . Again, the reason I am not panic stricken is one simple reason, I tend to over invest on memory and solid state drives and try to keep the interrupt calls to a minimum. And finally, the overwhelming slowdown is the fact that MS cannot throttle their updates and completely overwhelm the DSL connection. If I can deal with that an additional 12% on the I/O int calls is not going to be too much of a bother. I should add to this that if you bought the OEM version of Windows 10 and you replace your processor with new one that OEM version is no longer valid.

Didn't Carly Simon have a song about that.

Google is the worst of the worst.

You mean Wintel . . . . . .thats the reality. Try to install a linux dual boot on a Wintel machine, Windows wants to be the one an only. You have to basically screw MS to get a workable dual boot system. It won't and how do you know that AMD does not have something worse that has not been identified and how do you know the new designs have something worse you don't know about. Many times these problems suddenly appear when the companies want the consumers to go buy something else. Remember that marketing is about creating a need and selling to that need.

Just add more memory to your system, that's a sure-fire way of reducing the need for file calls. This has always been the case, when KSP says you need 8 gb of memory, you buy 16, thats just the thing to do. This has been the case with the PC since I dunno . . . . . . 1981. AMD probably has its own separate problems. Remember the axiom 'for every action there is a equal and opposite reaction'. In computing for every added security feature some other feature is compromised. At the forefront is straitline processing speed. Even if you get rid of that you still have some added subprocessors that generate more heat to compensate. So they want to get out on the market something that has the highest rated speed, which means the highest voltage or osscillator speed or both, which means they don't want to add heat added or amp taking subprocessors . . . . . . that's where the compromises comes in. Most of Intels users are companies . . . . . .they set the standard, they want increased security at the cost of some performance. That is their lunch, the consumer PC market is the icing on the cake. Companies buy lots of the same thing, for example 1000 dell computers configured exactly the same way, this cuts both Intels cost and Dells cost. They can farm out this work to the lowest paid people or contractors that use undocumenteds so that they can cut labor cost to almost nothing. We ran into an issue because we were forced to start using winNT/XP which makes RS232 communication difficult but on Windows 7 RS232 almost becomes impossible, and many new computers don't support RS232 although most laboratory machines, including some being built today have RS232 ports on them. I had a real battle with our IT because they did get the fact that we 'do stuff' and they eventually backed off and we got the Win XP updates. They pulled the plug on some of my machines and those machines could never be revived. Happy to be done with the lot of them. You've got to understand this the world of Microsoft-IT departments high-end IT departments . . . they live in a cloud, what you see as a problem, its not particularly in their view . . . .its kind of like a car, if the car is broken to you at your house or you are driving . . .if you take it to a certified mechanic and he plugs in his 15,000$ machine and the machine does not see a problem . . .it doesn't exist. Its like carbon monoxide in Ford explorers. Windows has bigger problems. Its Windows 10 update cannot throttle bandwidth. If you have two or more computers on a DSL and there is an update, they will shut each other down, they will corrupt each others update, and you will never be able to use either until you wipe off previous updates and reload one from scratch. Its best to keep a Windows 7 machine somewhere that you can backup to, lol. Windows 10 is one of the most poorly designed OS that MS has ever built, in ranks with millenium. Why is this true, because Microsoft doesn't give a rat's rear-end about DSL users, they should have upgraded. Thats what they are . . .thats what they do . . they are arrogant. There are no surprises here . . . . .they want you to feel inferior that way you will go out an purchase their latest chip. You buy Intel . . .they do something to you and you buy AMD (new MB). . .they do something to you and you buy Intel (and New MB) and so on and so on.

Once upon a time I used to program and do the interrupt calls directly . . . 21h. You could do that up until Windows Millenium 98 (noone actually was dumb enough to buy millenium). BTW, at least part of the problem is not new, implementation of Virtual Memory Page storage is basically the point were your OS goes from 60 MPH to 1 MPH and most of the slow-down was unnecessary. The so-called swap file generally tried to swap more memory that was necessary, and windows was very poor at cleaning up memory it did not need. The Microsoft aps frequently loaded with all the procedures they needed but many they hardly used that could be keep in DLL files. If you worked in an institution this proved to have rather annoying and time consuming consequences. For example Norton's CIS would try to load all its definitions onto the computer at start up (keeping in mind the old WinNT OS could only access up to 3 gb of memory, and the OS takes up 400m . CIS up to 1 gig. .by the time all the constitutive stuff was loaded there was little space left for the user. I suspect its not a bug, its probably a feature that some lawyers and engineers sat down and designed to give the 'ultimate' processor protection, realizing the loss of power, and blind to its unintended consequences. Intel specifically designed CPU protection because the OSs were asking for them, they did not want the users peeking and poking the memory. When your OS is loaded before you have a chance to access the process it puts the CPU in a protected state, your stuff talks to the Kernal and the kernal talks to the processor. If this done really securely, such as OS2 and higher, there is no way a process can take over the machine, for example, from the keyboard you can always stop a process, even a do_loop that has no exits. Don't be surprised if this is not another way the powers that be try to find ways to get in and access your computer without your knowledge.

Well at least the concept is pretty close, if you forget the flying in from space a 9000 m/s part and the ring of fire and then the almost nose down descent. And also the fact that one has jet air intakes and a skid on the front and wheels on the back. Other than all those exception its pretty close.

You mean 30. But there is nothing really fantastic about that, they launch from 2 Florida sites and 1 California site. Im not trying to put them down. Lets say they launch 60 rockets in 2018, where's the market. Aside from that block V will be 2018 and since they don't have used V cores they need to build more of them, so we are not talking about most of 2018 being a recycle thing because they have new capital equipment being built. Who knows they could land in the grab length of a fixed crane from the recycling facility.

They don't land at 39A they land up to 2 miles away, they have to be craned on a truck, carried to the assembly facility, craned off the truck onto the facility. That takes time also.

Here are the problems. 1. You land on OCISLU and you have to tow the core back to the facility. This is something like 200 to 300 nm down wind, either you take the barge back to port or you transfer it to a much more suitable vessel, like a light cruiser (20 knts of speed) and give the cool-down the hook up and the haul, 24 hours (minimum). 2. Next you then have to crane the core onto a carry that will hook it up to the line (6 to 12 hours) 3. Then you have to have a thorough inspection . . . . . . 4. Then you would need to plant the rocket onto the pad. (6 to 12 hours) - Save time and money, just crane over a jig that can hold the same amount of added weight as the rocket but fits on top of stage 1, fill it with water, and release. You can make the jig out of carbon fiber so that it is easy to crane. Shape it like a half a donut with a inside rim to seat on the top of the rocket. when the test is done pump the water back into the tank. -The water could be stored in a water tower and drained to a tanke mounted slightly below the tower and use solar power to pump water back into the tower. - Save money, just put a small amount of fuel in the engines and live fire them for 20 seconds. 5. Attach the second stage. (a day) 6. live fire test the engines again with small amount of fuel. 7. final fuel. I think ambitiously we are talking about at least a working week.

So, wait a second, are they going to have like some sort of like an assembly line with hanging rockets on hooks that roll out and plop on the launch pad. How are they going to do this . . . .customer pulls up with a payload and a deposit, they put it on a rocket, the rocket then waits to next available launch window fires. . . . .as the smoke clears a new rocket flows of the belt, plops on launch pad, Crane pulls over second stage . . . . . . .

you mean you-will-not-go-to-space-today-itis.