Valeev is by no means the worst offender

On 19 Feb, 17:32, BradGuth wrote:
On Feb 16, 3:31*am, Ian Parker wrote:

All crap snipped

I just want to say a few things. Space needs to be SOLD. Suppose you
had half an hour with Obama. He is, of course, a very busy man.
Richard Holbrooke has recently given him a few headaches in
Afghanistan, so he will be preoccuied with that, and the economy
stupid.

So, why not first sell whatever's nearby and easily obtainable?

Actually I would have a number od selling pitches. The first of these
would be Platinum. Mr. Obama - you want green cars. A fuel cell
demands a platinum catalyst. Lithium - well that powers electronics
but there ain't enough lithium for cars. Imagine every car in the
world with a hydrogen fuel cell. Figure too that in a developing world
there will be many more cars. Is there platinum? I don't think there
is. What you need therefore is for NASA to be given a priority in
emergent technology. That priority should be PLATINUM.

Now asteroids are the richest source of Pt. The abundance on Earth is
the same, but it is all in the center of the Earth - not very
accessible. Genetic engineering, nanotech. This approach could help
you to get it.

SSP - can be sold but I think Platinum should be the number one. This
is what I was hoping someone or other would say. One you have an
asteroid with galleries (technical mining term) you can then think
about human spaceflight in the linger term. Galleries give wonderful
radiation protection.

This is what people really should have been saying. I was in fact
hoping someone else would come out with that before I did.


- Ian Parker

Ian Parker wrote:

On 19 Feb, 15:05, Deirdre Sholto Douglas
wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:

Point has been unanswered. To me the vital question is how can these
energent technologies be used to enhance space capability. At a very
elementary level nanotech is relevant to SSP in that at the very least
it can enhace solar cell efficiencies.

No, no, no we cannot discuss anthing like that can we?

With you? *No, probably not.

You haven't answered my question either, Ian...have you
ever really worked in science? *Have you ever had a job
where you were expected to actually collaborate with
someone? *

And let's add one mo *Do you have _peer-reviewed_
publications anywhere? *


Yes but not with someone like you. My experience is in scientific
conferences and you would have been kicked out long ago.

Conferences are not quite the same thing as publica-
tions, Ian. As for me being kicked out, it's statements
like that...made without regard for reality or truth...
which cause others to brand you "loony" and me to
regard you as conceited.

In the mosquito thread I have not made aany comments of the type I
have made here. Ask a civil question and you will get a civil answer.

I'm not interacting with you on the mosquito thread,
Ian...my comment was made in response to someone
else.

Deirdre

"Jeff Findley" wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: "Jeff Findley" wrote:
: :By the time I was actually writing programs (1987), I was doing it either
: at
: :Purdue where we ran Unix on mainframes or at work where we ran VAX VMS on
: :mainframes. Both mainframes had access to adequate hard drive based
: :storage.
: :
:
: Let me nitpick just a bit. I'd bet those weren't 'mainframes'. VAXen
: were almost all considered minicomputers until either the VAX 8000 or
: VAX 9000 series. VAX 8000 were sold as 'super-minis'.
:
:True, but most newbies wouldn't understand the distinction. They just know
:that the old machines weren't PC's. :-)
:

Hey, are you calling me old? :-)

:
:At Purdue we ran Unix on VAX 11/780's, which were (by then old) VAX
:minicomputers. They would support somewhere around 200 simultaneous users
er machine, but we were running mostly simple programs and simple
:undergraduate simulations.
:

That's a lot of users to load onto an 11/780. We might have had that
many users in total on one, but we'd lock the machine off when it hit
30 users logged on at once.

:
:I'm not sure what machines we had at work, but they were far more powerful
:and could support more users and far more demanding programs (CAD/CAM/CAE
:software execution and development). This was in the late 80's and early
:90's, so the time would have been right for them to have been VAX mainframes
:instead of minicomputers. Our terminals at work were everything from simple
:VT-100's with Selinar graphics, to high end hardware accelerated Tektronix
:graphics terminals and the like.
:

It was an easy step from 11/780 to 11/785. Next step up was the 8000
series super minis.

:
:It wasn't until the early 90's that we started to acquire desktop machines
:running VAX/VMS to replace our graphics terminals attached to the
:mainframes. Those machines were far better than running on most graphics
:terminals.
:

That was about when we started switching over to Suns as a more
economical solution, along with some DEC Alphas for data reduction
work.

:
:Then the VAX/VMS desktop workstations were replaced with other Unix boxes
:from various venders. Now most of those have been replaced with PC's
:running Windows or Linux.
:

We've still got a bunch of big Unix servers, but a lot of work is
being done on Linux and Windows.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

Ian Parker wrote:

:On 19 Feb, 15:05, Deirdre Sholto Douglas
wrote:
: Ian Parker wrote:
:
: Point has been unanswered. To me the vital question is how can these
: energent technologies be used to enhance space capability. At a very
: elementary level nanotech is relevant to SSP in that at the very least
: it can enhace solar cell efficiencies.
:
: No, no, no we cannot discuss anthing like that can we?
:
: With you? *No, probably not.
:
: You haven't answered my question either, Ian...have you
: ever really worked in science? *Have you ever had a job
: where you were expected to actually collaborate with
: someone? *
:
: And let's add one mo *Do you have _peer-reviewed_
: publications anywhere? *
:
: Deirdre
:
:Yes but not with someone like you. My experience is in scientific
:conferences and you would have been kicked out long ago.
:

Ian, do you know the difference between authoring a paper and
attending a conference? It doesn't appear so and, frankly, I don't
believe you ever attended any conferences, either, as anything other
than 'audience'. You'd have been laughed out of the room as a
presenter.

So prove me wrong now. Give us your cv and publication list. You
claim to have been a physicist. Surely you've been published. Or
give us the list of conferences you presented at.

:
:In the mosquito thread I have not made aany comments of the type I
:have made here. Ask a civil question and you will get a civil answer.
:

I've seen no mosquito thread. I've also seen no civil answer from
you. I've seen you pontificate and spew delusions, but that's about
it.

:
:My question to you and Fred is simply this. Have you, I, NASA and need
:I add Obama got anything worth discussing.
:

I'd say everyone in that list but you probably has something worth
discussing.

:
:What we should be debating
:is how emergent technologies can input into space technology. That is
:what NASA is interested in.
:

Who died and made you God, Ian? This is Usenet. There's no 'should'.
If that's what you want to talk about, by all means you should do so.
However, if you merely spew loony and don't support your positions you
should not be surprised if your portion in life is a lot of derision
and not much else.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Ian Parker wrote:
:
:Actually I would have a number od selling pitches. The first of these
:would be Platinum. Mr. Obama - you want green cars. A fuel cell
:demands a platinum catalyst.
:

No it doesn't. Use an alkali anion exchange membrane and replace the
platinum with nickel. What would you like to use your other nine
minutes and forty-five seconds for? I hope whatever it is is better
informed than this.

:
:Lithium - well that powers electronics
:but there ain't enough lithium for cars. Imagine every car in the
:world with a hydrogen fuel cell. Figure too that in a developing world
:there will be many more cars. Is there platinum? I don't think there
:is. What you need therefore is for NASA to be given a priority in
:emergent technology. That priority should be PLATINUM.
:

Asteroid mining is too far out. You need a nearer term goal. There
is also the problem of cost. If you go straight from nothing to
platinum mining in the asteroids you need to show cost recovery
numbers that include all your development costs plus launch costs plus
equipment costs plus....

Now price your platinum. You'll find that there's no way you can sell
it at the prices you'd have to charge for it.

:
:Now asteroids are the richest source of Pt. The abundance on Earth is
:the same, but it is all in the center of the Earth - not very
:accessible. Genetic engineering, nanotech. This approach could help
:you to get it.
:

So might magic and wishing real hard, Ian. Just how does "genetic
engineering, nanotech" help you in getting to the point of asteroid
mining for costs that aren't preposterously higher than those on
earth? You must be specific. That it "could" just doesn't cut any
ice in a real discussion.

What do you need? How does it help? What's the development timeline?
Why is it better than other paths?

And I DON'T mean your usual gibberish about nonexistent technologies.

:
:SSP - can be sold but I think Platinum should be the number one. This
:is what I was hoping someone or other would say. One you have an
:asteroid with galleries (technical mining term) you can then think
:about human spaceflight in the linger term. Galleries give wonderful
:radiation protection.
:

That's not how you'd mine asteroidal platinum, Ian. There wouldn't be
any 'galleries'. What's the radiation flux that far out? Why do you
think you need massive rock shielding to block it?

SSP is closer to practicality than mining platinum in the asteroids
and it isn't quite economically viable, either.

:
:This is what people really should have been saying. I was in fact
:hoping someone else would come out with that before I did.
:

Answer the preceding issues. I think you're obviously wrong, which
you will learn for yourself if you run the numbers involved. I
suspect no one has "come out with that before you did" because they
know that wanting to leap from essentially nothing to platinum mining
in the asteroids is a silly and unworkable idea, no matter what 'magic
technologies' you care to imagine.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

On 19 Feb, 21:30, Deirdre Sholto Douglas
wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:

On 19 Feb, 15:05, Deirdre Sholto Douglas
wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:

Point has been unanswered. To me the vital question is how can these
energent technologies be used to enhance space capability. At a very
elementary level nanotech is relevant to SSP in that at the very least
it can enhace solar cell efficiencies.

No, no, no we cannot discuss anthing like that can we?

With you? *No, probably not.

You haven't answered my question either, Ian...have you
ever really worked in science? *Have you ever had a job
where you were expected to actually collaborate with
someone? *

And let's add one mo *Do you have _peer-reviewed_
publications anywhere? *

Yes but not with someone like you. My experience is in scientific
conferences and you would have been kicked out long ago.

Conferences are not quite the same thing as publica-
tions, Ian. *As for me being kicked out, it's statements
like that...made without regard for reality or truth...
which cause others to brand you "loony" and me to
regard you as conceited.

In the mosquito thread I have not made aany comments of the type I
have made here. Ask a civil question and you will get a civil answer.

I'm not interacting with you on the mosquito thread,
Ian...my comment was made in response to someone
else.

I am not arraogant. All I have ever done is state, restate and restate
again the official NASA position. Surely no one (except perhaps you
anf Fred) can object to that.

Of course you would be kicked out. I would have thought that was a
pretty non controversial statement. You do not go aroung calling
people names like you do.

The real question I think is can Space be sold. Will an expanded space
program sell? Now you can cite such things as GPS and comstats, yet
the emand for these is strictly limited. Araianespace has pretty well
collared a market which is getting more and more limited. The dominant
broadband technology is fiber optic. There is prospect of continuing
demand, but little prospect of a vastly expanded demand.

It may well be that the mining of asteroids is way out. Have you
anything better. If you don't have then how are you going to persuade
somneone that Space is worth supporting.

"Look I can understand why we need trillions to bail out banks. We
need a secure financial system. We need to ensure that Detroit is
preserved in some form or other. The US needs to be a manufacturing
country. We need this that and the other. We need to reduce
independence on foreign oil. If Space can help in this - fine. If a
manned trip to Mars is simply going to be an expensive jaunt that
leads nowhere, why should it be supported. I can suggest a vast number
of better ways of spending the money ranging from broadband, Medicaid
or simply putting money in people's pockets. Why should Consellation
be supported? Astronauts will spend a fortnight on the Moon - so what?
Every dollar needs to count. Why again should we spend billions on
producing what can readily be bought from Arianespace and Glavkosmos?

I think this is what the wider public out there is thinking. NASA has
been supported all these years and what has it produced? The
futuristic Singularity University programs are perhaps the EASIEST
programs to defend. They are going to produce the tangible benefits.

Google has got a "tangible" record. A better search strategy. Lower
development costs for IT programs. All of these are tangible. Tangible
too are technologies for carbon free power. These technologies are
however firmly rooted to Earth. SSP is regarded as "way out". Can it
be sold? Is it way out? People need persuading.

I have posted a lot more bluntly than is my habit. This is largely
because you simply refuse to acknowlege documented facts.


- Ian Parker

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Findley" wrote:
:At Purdue we ran Unix on VAX 11/780's, which were (by then old) VAX
:minicomputers. They would support somewhere around 200 simultaneous
users
er machine, but we were running mostly simple programs and simple
:undergraduate simulations.
:

That's a lot of users to load onto an 11/780. We might have had that
many users in total on one, but we'd lock the machine off when it hit
30 users logged on at once.

This machine was assigned to the aero and industrial engienering
*undergraduates*. Graduate students and professors had better resources
than us.

Normal load was well under 100, but from what I remember, they didn't
restrict the number of log-ins. When there were few people on the machine,
you could tell it had more time to devote to each user because of how fast
it responded. When it got loaded down, you'd hit a key on your email or
news program and sit there and wait until the machine finally responded.

When the aero engineering and industrial engineering students both had
assignments due the next day, crashing the system was a sure thing since
both would have simulation programs to run. When the number of users logged
on got that high, you knew the system would eventually crash, it was just a
matter of when.

Becuse of this, I learned to finish my assignemnts ahead of time.

Jeff
--
"Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today.
My own standards have changed too." -- Freeman Dyson

Ian Parker wrote:

On 19 Feb, 21:30, Deirdre Sholto Douglas
wrote:

Conferences are not quite the same thing as publica-
tions, Ian. *As for me being kicked out, it's statements
like that...made without regard for reality or truth...
which cause others to brand you "loony" and me to
regard you as conceited.

In the mosquito thread I have not made aany comments of the type I
have made here. Ask a civil question and you will get a civil answer.

I'm not interacting with you on the mosquito thread,
Ian...my comment was made in response to someone
else.

I am not arraogant. All I have ever done is state, restate and restate
again the official NASA position. Surely no one (except perhaps you
anf Fred) can object to that.

The lack of response for your thesis denotes lack of
audience, Ian...didn't your vast conference experience
teach you anything? Haven't you noticed the room is
empty and the lecture canceled?

Of course you would be kicked out. I would have thought that was a
pretty non controversial statement. You do not go aroung calling
people names like you do.

Your statements are non-controversial only because
no one assigns any importance to what you say...it's
like the babbling of toddler...sometimes funny, some-
time annoying but rarely informative.

I have posted a lot more bluntly than is my habit. This is largely
because you simply refuse to acknowlege documented facts.

I've told you before, Ian, I don't think you're capable of
debate because you can't be challenged without spinning
out...it's this behaviour combined with your (apparent)
lack of peer-reviewed work added to your tendency to
make things up as you go and put words into the mouths
of others which tells me that discussing anything with
you is a waste of time.

The only reason I'm even on this thread is because you
ran here from a different thread...one which was con-
fined to only two groups...to tattle about me being
mean to you. ("Mean" in this case defined as "refusing
to play your silly control games.")

Grow up, Ian and quit drumming your heels on the virtual
carpet.

Deirdre

"Jeff Findley" wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: "Jeff Findley" wrote:
: :At Purdue we ran Unix on VAX 11/780's, which were (by then old) VAX
: :minicomputers. They would support somewhere around 200 simultaneous
: users
: er machine, but we were running mostly simple programs and simple
: :undergraduate simulations.
: :
:
: That's a lot of users to load onto an 11/780. We might have had that
: many users in total on one, but we'd lock the machine off when it hit
: 30 users logged on at once.
:
:This machine was assigned to the aero and industrial engienering
:*undergraduates*. Graduate students and professors had better resources
:than us.
:
:Normal load was well under 100, but from what I remember, they didn't
:restrict the number of log-ins. When there were few people on the machine,
:you could tell it had more time to devote to each user because of how fast
:it responded. When it got loaded down, you'd hit a key on your email or
:news program and sit there and wait until the machine finally responded.
:

Yeah. I knew of at least one VAX 11/750 that was set up like this. It
was so overloaded that they had to jigger with the process priority of
LOGINOUT, bumping it up to close to realtime, in order to get enough
cycles in one place to actually get people on and off the machine. Of
course, this made things even more jerky than they already were.

:
:When the aero engineering and industrial engineering students both had
:assignments due the next day, crashing the system was a sure thing since
:both would have simulation programs to run. When the number of users logged
n got that high, you knew the system would eventually crash, it was just a
:matter of when.
:
:Becuse of this, I learned to finish my assignemnts ahead of time.
:

I had an arrangement with the TAs. As long as I finished before they
got done grading everyone else's I got full credit for it. That let
me go in the day after everything was due and work it when the machine
had practically no one on it.

I guess it never occurred to anyone else to ask them....


--
"I was lucky in the order. But I've always been lucky
when it comes to killin' folks."
-- William Munny, "Unforgiven"

On Feb 19, 8:42*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Jeff Findley" wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: "Jeff Findley" wrote:
: :By the time I was actually writing programs (1987), I was doing it either
: at
: :Purdue where we ran Unix on mainframes or at work where we ran VAX VMS on
: :mainframes. *Both mainframes had access to adequate hard drive based
: :storage.
: :
:
: Let me nitpick just a bit. *I'd bet those weren't 'mainframes'. *VAXen
: were almost all considered minicomputers until either the VAX 8000 or
: VAX 9000 series. *VAX 8000 were sold as 'super-minis'.
:
:True, but most newbies wouldn't understand the distinction. *They just know
:that the old machines weren't PC's. *:-)
:

Hey, are you calling me old? *:-)

:
:At Purdue we ran Unix on VAX 11/780's, which were (by then old) VAX
:minicomputers. *They would support somewhere around 200 simultaneous users
er machine, but we were running mostly simple programs and simple
:undergraduate simulations.
:

That's a lot of users to load onto an 11/780. *We might have had that
many users in total on one, but we'd lock the machine off when it hit
30 users logged on at once.

:
:I'm not sure what machines we had at work, but they were far more powerful
:and could support more users and far more demanding programs (CAD/CAM/CAE
:software execution and development). *This was in the late 80's and early
:90's, so the time would have been right for them to have been VAX mainframes
:instead of minicomputers. *Our terminals at work were everything from simple
:VT-100's with Selinar graphics, to high end hardware accelerated Tektronix
:graphics terminals and the like.
:

It was an easy step from 11/780 to 11/785. *Next step up was the 8000
series super minis.

:
:It wasn't until the early 90's that we started to acquire desktop machines
:running VAX/VMS to replace our graphics terminals attached to the
:mainframes. *Those machines were far better than running on most graphics
:terminals.
:

That was about when we started switching over to Suns as a more
economical solution, along with some DEC Alphas for data reduction
work.

:
:Then the VAX/VMS desktop workstations were replaced with other Unix boxes
:from various venders. *Now most of those have been replaced with PC's
:running Windows or Linux.
:

We've still got a bunch of big Unix servers, but a lot of work is
being done on Linux and Windows.

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
*man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
*all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --George Bernard Shaw

How's this from another 'old-timer' - running 200+ tellers on a real-
time full-function banking system over a wide-area network off ONE 386
server.