Signal-to-noise in sci.space.* (was Any legal basis to take Maxson down?)

"Terrence Daniels" wrote in
hlink.net:

http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...ng+a+newsgroup

What I'm finding says it takes about a month to start a new group.

I hate to have my questions drowned in noise, and I hate to learn
about the shuttle systems secondhand through posts refuting some inane
bit of drivel about a non-existent conspiracy. I'm willing to do
something to end this, be it helping make a new newsgroup, compiling a
FAQ, or whatever.

A new newsgroup would be a mistake. To keep the noise out, it would have
to be moderated. We already have several moderated groups in sci.space,
including one (sci.space.moderated) created *specifically* as a reaction to
the troll infestation. Yet few people post there.

Likewise, we already have a FAQ. Last I checked, it even had advice on
dealing with trolls. That's not the answer either.

One potential answer would be to make sci.space.moderated actually *work*,
by redirecting the "signal" there and letting the moderators handle the
"noise". (Note Newsgroups: and FollowUp-To. Eventually, people will get
used to going directly to sci.space.moderated, bypassing the noise.

Question: What do the moderators think of this?
--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...

One potential answer would be to make sci.space.moderated actually *work*,
by redirecting the "signal" there and letting the moderators handle the
"noise". (Note Newsgroups: and FollowUp-To. Eventually, people will get
used to going directly to sci.space.moderated, bypassing the noise.

Question: What do the moderators think of this?

Jorge, as a rank outsider who usually lurks around the moderated groups for
the reasons you mention, the reason I wandered over this way (to s.s.s) was
because posts to s.s.t (and s.s.m) take *forever* to actually get there -
usually because a moderator is on holidays or asleep or whatever.

I don't blame them in the slightest - they do a great and thankless job -
but, for me anyway, the time delays are enough of a pain to make posting
(almost) worthless.

Cameron:-)

Cameron Dorrough wrote:

I wandered over this way (to s.s.s) was
because posts to s.s.t (and s.s.m) take *forever* to actually get there -
usually because a moderator is on holidays or asleep or whatever.



When sci.space.moderated was formed, everyone was put on good behavior
....an "approved senders" list was established....which meant that
postings from these individuals would go through automatically without
review, as long as they behaved themselves...this is in my opinion a
very good way do do things...as you have the right to free speech as
long as you don't screw up, get crazy, vulgar ,or trollish; or way
completely off-topic for the group....and as "moderated" was set up to
discuss everything and anything space related, it has quite a broad area
that falls within its chartered aim.
My posts get through in a matter of minutes....and you will note that I
keep them strictly space-related and civil; with nary a mention of The
Venusian Pterodactyl Corps or their Firewomen Masters...er
Mistresses....not that I am implying any form of sexual relationship
between prehistoric flying reptiles and lustful women on that
sulfur-reeking sphere...as that would be vulgar- although it might make
for a good X-rated DVD, we shall have none of those lowbrow shenanigans
here!

Har-umph!
Pat

Pat Flannery wrote in
:

My posts get through in a matter of minutes....and you will note that I
keep them strictly space-related and civil; with nary a mention of The
Venusian Pterodactyl Corps or their Firewomen Masters...er
Mistresses....not that I am implying any form of sexual relationship
between prehistoric flying reptiles and lustful women on that
sulfur-reeking sphere...as that would be vulgar- although it might make
for a good X-rated DVD, we shall have none of those lowbrow shenanigans
here!

Welcome back, Pat. You've been missed.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

"Cameron Dorrough" wrote in message
...

I don't blame them in the slightest - they do a great and thankless job -
but, for me anyway, the time delays are enough of a pain to make posting
(almost) worthless.

As another test of the time to get through, I'm writing this at 10:30 AM,
CDT (aka 15:30 UTC). I am not a moderator, so this should show how long it
actually takes.
--
James Summers
IBM-ret, "old space guy".
Apollo 201, 202, 203, 204, 1, & 9 RTCC Support. Apollo 13 "back room".

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
One potential answer would be to make sci.space.moderated actually *work*,
by redirecting the "signal" there and letting the moderators handle the
"noise". (Note Newsgroups: and FollowUp-To. Eventually, people will get
used to going directly to sci.space.moderated, bypassing the noise.

And the s.s.m will be filled with hundreds of threads a day, and it
will be time for a re-org... Exactly as happened with the older
hierarchy.

One of the big fixes for s.s.s would be for several folks looks
pointedly at Jorge to decide if they want to be part of the problem
or part of the solution. After all these years, it should be obvious
to all but the most dense that that the trolls there are not going to
give up. Multiple daily responses only make the s/n ratio *worse*.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

Andrew Case wrote:

Please, folks - listen to Derek. He knows of what he speaks.

Indeed. My killfile list on s.s.s. is getting longer
and longer. The S/N ratio is terrible, and that seems
to be the only "cure".

(Derek Lyons) wrote in
:

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
One potential answer would be to make sci.space.moderated actually
*work*, by redirecting the "signal" there and letting the moderators
handle the "noise". (Note Newsgroups: and FollowUp-To. Eventually,
people will get used to going directly to sci.space.moderated,
bypassing the noise.

And the s.s.m will be filled with hundreds of threads a day, and it
will be time for a re-org... Exactly as happened with the older
hierarchy.

There is no evidence to support this view. I am talking about redirecting
threads from s.s.shuttle - and *only* s.s.shuttle - to s.s.moderated. The
moderators prune the noise, leaving only the signal. The end result is that
the traffic on s.s.moderated will equal the sum of 1) its current traffic,
plus 2) the traffic on s.s.shuttle, minus 3) the noise on s.s.shuttle, plus
4) the signal from any newbies that were allegedly previously intimidated
from posting on s.s.shuttle. In my opinion, there is *no way in hell* that
4) is greater than 3), therefore the total traffic *will* go down.
Undoubtedly the signal-to-noise will go up. *Way* up.

One of the big fixes for s.s.s would be for several folks looks
pointedly at Jorge

Look somewhere else, Derek. I'm not the one calling Maxson a child
molester. I've got all three Maxsons in my killfile, most recently Daniel
after he once again flipflopped his position on the SRB crossing. My recent
responses in the Maxson threads have been mostly answering questions by
newbie third parties, and confirming statements made by Jon Berndt.

to decide if they want to be part of the problem
or part of the solution. After all these years, it should be obvious
to all but the most dense that that the trolls there are not going to
give up. Multiple daily responses only make the s/n ratio *worse*.

Which of course is why you posted four replies to a Maxson thread - two of
which responded directly to Maxsons - *after* you presumed to lecture me
about it?

Sorry, Derek. I'll invite anyone to compare our s/n ratios in s.s.shuttle -
not just in our posts, but in the replies generated by our posts.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

"rk" wrote in message
...
A question: Do you think software was harder or easier to develop and
verify for critical systems in the 1960s or the 2000s? We have a number
of things changing over the past 40 years, better tools and
methodologies (at least in principle) vs. things such as more
functionality and higher complexity.

Short answers: Both or It depends. :-)

In some ways, it was easier then. We had a lot less bureaucratic bs to put
up with. We were on short schedules and tended to do what was necessary.
The last thing IBM management wanted was for NASA to slip a mission because
of us. I'll do another thread showing one example.

Also, the overall systems were simpler. We had a pretty solid operating
system in the MCC - RTOS/360. Oh, don't get the idea that it had no bugs.
But, it was a LOT smaller than Windows (or Linux) AND the folks that
supported it were just around the corner, in the same building.

However, because we wrote everything in either assembler or FORTRAN, the
debugging was much harder. We had elaborate "debuggers" to dump out stuff
on the fly so we could analyze it at our desks.

But, on the other hand, everything that came into the Apollo ground
computers or went out of them was logged onto tape. We could set up a tape
and run it without having any of the rest of the network up and stop it
where we needed to, or set up the debuggers to see what was happening in the
programs as they processed the EXACT same inputs as during a mission or
simulation. Also, we could do "delogs" that would print out the events
surrounding an anomoly and we could see exactly what came into the system
and what we produced. Every telemetry frame, every radar frame, every
word/byte sent to the display system, EVERYTHING could be looked at.

We had elaborate simulation systems set up to simulate everything about the
boosters, spacecraft, network, etc. Of course, they still do that. This is
one thing that hasn't changed.

As far as methodologies are concerned, the ones of us working at NASA
developed many of the methodologies that are used today. I hate to tell
Bill Gates and crew, but they did not invent most of this stuff. I worked
in the group that figured out how to write structured code. Boy was that a
trip! Some folks never made the transition from spaghetti to structured.
:-)

One thing I really like today is having a powerful computer sitting on my
desk. I can develop code about 100 times faster today than I could in '67
when I was developing one of the first "process pool" managers on an IBM
360. And, I wouldn't trade the Integrated Development Environment in MS
Office for all the debuggers we had in Apollo.

See what you got started...
--
James Summers
IBM-ret, "old space guy".
Apollo 201, 202, 203, 204, 1, & 9 RTCC Support. Apollo 13 "back room".

James Summers said:
In some ways, it was easier then. We had a lot less bureaucratic bs to put
up with.

In theory, the purpose of the bureaucracy is to prevent important
details from slipping through the cracks. How did you keep with rate of
change in requirements during Apollo?


Also, the overall systems were simpler. We had a pretty solid operating
system in the MCC - RTOS/360.

You had your own OS? I thought I had read that you used a version of
IBM's commercial OS/360.


We had elaborate "debuggers" to dump out stuff
on the fly so we could analyze it at our desks.

hmmm. "Software Telemetry"
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

We'd spend the remaining time trying to fix the engine.
-- Neil Armstrong