This is a day book. It's not all that well edited. I try to keep this up
daily, but sometimes I can't. I'll keep trying. See also the monthly COMPUTING AT CHAOS MANOR column, 4,000 -
7,000 words, depending. (Older
columns here.) For more on what this page is about, please go to the VIEW PAGE.
If you have never read the explanatory material on that page, please do so.
If you got here through a link that didn't take you to the front
page of this site, click here for a better
explanation of what we're trying to do here.
If you are not paying for this place, click here...
If
you have no idea what you are doing here, see the What is this
place?,
which tries to make order of chaos.
If you intend to send MAIL to me, see
the INSTRUCTIONS.
Boiler Plate:
If you want to PAY FOR THIS there
are problems, but I keep the latest HERE. I'm trying. MY
THANKS to all of you who sent money. Some of you went to a lot of
trouble to send money from overseas. Thank you! There are also some new payment methods. I am preparing a special (electronic)
mailing to all those who paid: there will be a couple of these. I am also
toying with the notion of a subscriber section of the page. LET ME KNOW your thoughts.
.
I have also been having discussions
on education and training and IQ. I don't have time to do the full essay
here just yet; it will develop.
Assumptions:
(1) Smarts are distributed on a bell curve, and
whether you call it IQ or smarts, there is a distribution; it's convenient
to talk about this as IQ, which is a measurable quantity that correlates
pretty well with academic success. While it isn't meaningful to use IQ to
make predictions about individuals who don't differ much (say one with IQ 95
and another with IQ 105) it is very useful to make predictions based on
population IQ, as for instance is done in the book IQ And The Wealth of
Nations. Moreover, even with individuals, it is quite useful to make
predictions based on large differences: those with IQ 90 are not going to
become great theoretical physicists and sending them to Cal Tech or MIT is a
waste of their time and the institution resources.
(2) This is not Lake Woebegone, where all the children are
above average. Half are below average.
(3) Sorting out who is above and who is below average is a
difficult and probably useless task. Sorting who who is WAY BELOW average
and who is WAY ABOVE average is fairly easy, and worth doing.
(4) Education and training are two different procedures.
Education is broadly useful as learning how to learn; well educated people
can generally change skill sets fairly easily, and thus need less training
to become proficient at many skilled tasks. It is easier to teach an IQ 115
to become a skilled lathe operator than to teach that same skill set to an
IQ 85. On the other hand, the IQ 85 trainee can learn to do the job quite
well.
(4,1) Higher IQ people
are more likely to get bored with skill tasks. This doesn't
mean they can't do them. Sometimes higher
IQ people will make careers in jobs
that want training rather than education
because their job isn't their life, and they
use their smarts for other things: sports,
hobbies, families, civic participation, etc.
(5) The lower you go on the IQ scale the less you can make
use of education and the more you need training. The left side of the bell
curve can do useful and meaningful work and be good citizens; but they do
not tend to be educated nor do they want to be educated in the sense of
having the ability to use lots of judgment and to learn new skill sets
easily. Having acquired a skill set one tends to keep it and hone it.
(6) In times of rapid technological change adjustment is
much harder for the lower IQ people precisely because some of their skills
become less wanted and generate fewer jobs (buggy whip braiding, feed store
managers, ice delivery workers, milk delivery workers) and others find
competition from higher IQ people overseas (skilled textile workers, lathe
operators) drives their wages down until they are no longer middle class.
(7) A sane republic will have education systems that
recognize that teaching the finer points of English Literature to classes
largely made up of IQ 80 to 90 students is less useful than teaching those
classes specific skills and abilities that might be useful.
I could continue, but the inferences should be clear here.
We cannot afford to put people who can use education in training classes --
but the education classes will not work well if filled with people in need
of training who cannot benefit from "liberal education".
And finally: most of our education systems were devised by
people who are off on the right side of the bell curve, as are almost all of
those who read this page. See Mail
for more on this.
-=====
Does anyone have a source of those long rubber things used
to mount fans in computer cases? If you don't know what I am talking about I
can't explain it without a picture, but those who have used one will know. I
need to buy about a hundred of them.
=============
WARNING:
This video shows footage that slipped
through the net of the IDF censors.
At some point the article itself may become available; until
then, you will need library access to a paper copy (or a subscription to The
National Interest). If you have much interest in this subject it will be
worth finding a copy.
============
And on Big News From Space:
NEW YORK, Sept. 27 /PRNewswire/ --
In an exclusive story in its September 27 issue, Aviation Week & Space
Technology reports that a new $50 million "America's Space Prize" is being
established by a millionaire space entrepreneur. The prize will go to the
first team that can build a commercial space transport capable of sending
5-7 astronauts at a time into orbit. Aviation Week further reports that
millionaire Robert T. Bigelow will be putting up at least half of the money
for the new prize to transport astronauts to his new Nautilus "inflatable"
space outposts. Aviation Week was given a look at the inflatable space
module development inside Bigelow's heavily guarded plant near North Las
Vegas, Nev. The magazine reports that the NASA Johnson Space Center in
Houston is providing substantial technical assistance to the Nautilus
project. Bigelow's "America's Space Prize" is to be announced this week as
part of ceremonies surrounding attempts by the Burt Rutan Scaled Composites
"SpaceShipOne" team to win the $10 million Ansari X-Prize to reach
suborbital space at 62 mile altitude. The America's Prize, however, is to
award five times more money than the X-Prize and presents far greater
challenges than the X-Prize, says Aviation Week. The America's Prize will
require the development of a vehicle that could maneuver and dock with an
orbiting space station at well over 100 miles altitude, then survive a
reentry back into the atmosphere at 17,500 mph. This is something Rutan's
SpaceShipOne is not designed to do and the NASA space shuttle can do only at
great expense and risk. Bigelow, who earned his fortune as the founder of
Budget Suites of America, wants to lease out his Nautilus inflatable modules
so companies and government agencies can perform research at far less cost
than on board the International Space Station. For further information,
please visit http://www.aviationnow.com.
Prizes are catching on; and that is the way to advance the
cause.
I was able to access the Fukuyama article from
_National Interest_ Summer 2004 online through my local public library,
which subscribes to the "EBSCOhost" service in a way that lets library
patrons log in from home using their library card number as an ID.
Don't know how many readers' local libraries provide a
similar service.
So: Niven and I are out here in Mojave, for the moment in XCOR
headquarters begging electrons and bandwidth. We've got our press
credentials and we've missed the 4 PM press briefing but we will head off to
the 5 PM one I think. Tomorrow they go for the X Prize. It should be quite a
show.
There is lots of talk about space, and Virgin Airlines buying 5 Rutan
vehicles to carry passengers to space as tourists. We've heard that sort of
thing before, but there's verve to it now that wasn't around: largely
because for the first time it looks as if it might happen without needing
NASA -- more, that NASA is now sufficiently crippled that it won't be able
to stop private ventures to space. NASA was always the enemy, but not too
many knew that. They convinced people like Dana Rohrabacher that they really
were for getting people to space, not keeping their own control over who got
access, and using that access to build empires. I mean, who would do that,
compromise mankind's future for bureaucratic control? Well, now it's
clear, that is what NASA has been doing since the 70's, and they have done
it very well indeed.
And the Big Bad Wolf isn't dead, believe me. They'll keep trying. It will
be interesting to see what NASA's official reaction to all this will be.
Pooh pooh to begin with, of course.
2230: After the big party with everyone. Must be up at 0400. All looks
good to go. Roland set up a wireless network so I can get this out. Back at
XCOR after the party.
They made it. There was something weird
about the ascent, with a roll as it went up. They cut off the burn 11
seconds early, but he made the altitude. It was a bit scary for a while but
once the powered flight was over, everything was smooth.
Spin stabilized manned space flight. Off axis thrust, but spin
stabilization works, if a bit odd. He was ordered to abort but went
for the record.
Takeoff, and after the landing. Lots of people will have good pictures.
===
I am back home. The press conference said that everything ran fine: the
roll was a roll, not a spin, and there was never any danger. This may be the
first spin-stabilized manned rocket, but in fact a roll rate of 140 degrees
a minute is not much for an aerobatic ship. I had inferred that he was in a
flat spin; this I got from looking at the big projection monitor that was
showing the view from one of the vertical stabilizers. But in fact that view
showed that this was a roll not a spin.
As to why the roll, my guess, and it's pure guesswork, is differential
burning in the hybrid engine. I have never been fond of hybrid engines: they
give rather low ISP, and while they are safe in that they can be shut off
(unlike a solid) and can't explode in transit like a solid, they do tend to
uneven burns and thus variable thrust vectors -- not what you want when
flying. But apparently my misgivings have been misplaced: the press
conference at least said all went well.
I would still be quite astonished if hybrid engines ended up being on the
commercial version of this ship.
Cleaning up and
beginning to get stuff together for the column since I will not be here
Sunday night and Monday morning, assuming that is when they do the next
Ansari X-Prize attempt.
I will have more on both private and public prizes after the event. I
will remind you, as I have been reminding people in general:
If you want a Moon Base, it takes two lines of legislation: The Congress
has determined that an American Moon Base is in the public interest. The
Treasurer of the United States is directed to pay the sum of $10 billion to
the first American owned company that places 31 American citizens on the
surface of the Moon and keeps them there continuously, alive and well, for
three years and one day.
At the XPRIZE launch yesterday Jim Cameron argued that this wouldn't do
it because no one would trust the government not to change its mind, and
thus no one would go after it. I conceded the point although in fact I think
it's quite possible to make this a legal commitment: the government
contracts with major companies all the time; but I also insisted that it
does no harm, and might do good. We were interrupted before Cameron could
explain that it might do some harm; I'll present his arguments if this
discussion continues next time.
Titanic Director James Cameron at the X-Prize Flight
The important part of the prizes as incentives is that nothing is paid
until the feat is accomplished. No progress payments. You might have
separate prizes for intermediate steps, such as $1 billion for landing 31
Americans on the Lunar Surface, and $1 billion a year for each year they
stay there until the 3 years is ended; but these should not be progress
payments. Note that with intermediate prizes, after the first is won, public
sentiment would be so much in favor that the chances of rescinding the prize
in anything but a really major turnover of government would be small. For
that matter, I suspect that it would be difficult to get any Congress to
rescind a prize once offered if there have been good faith efforts to win
it. There is some honor among politicians, and we do have some statesmen in
Congress; and of those who fit neither category some still have a sense of
shame.
Regarding the launch, there will be lots better pictures from many
others. Dan Spisak and Jim Bennet took a number, some with my cameras. I'll
get pointers to where they have put them up. For the record, here's the
post-flight press conference:
With the principals. Left to right, Greg Maryniak, Executive Director
Ansari X Prize; Paul Allen; Flight Director Doug Shane; Burt Rutan;
Dr. Peter Diamandis, XPrize Founder; and Sarah Evans of CarryOn Public
Relations.
There were only about 5,000 people out to the desert on a Wednesday
morning for this event; as opposed to about 35,000 when they did the "first
private pilot in space" launch last June. I expect there to be a much larger
crowd next Monday morning.
Some more pictures from the launch. That's Eugene Roddenberry, son of the
Star Trek producer, on the left. A shot looking west; to the East you could
see the sun fully risen; and on the right, Larry Niven, and Gary and Ann
Hudson.
=============================
I took the liberty of creating images for the rest of
your planets as well. I hope you like them.
The debate is over, and I got this much: Kerry will cancel all nuclear
weapons research programs in the name of international control of nuclear
proliferation; and Kerry is in favor of some drastic actions to control
global warming.
I wasn't much impressed with Bush but I didn't expect to be. I was less
impressed with Kerry's "plan" for Iraq, which is not a plan but a series of
hopes: train more Iraqi police and soldiers, bring in more international
partners, develop Iraq more quickly, and draw out American troops as soon as
possible, in six months maybe if everything else works. This is fantasy and
he knows it. He won't leave until the job is done, making his position
indistinguishable from Bush's, except that if he knew then what he knows now
he wouldn't have gone in -- also indistinguishable from Bush except that
Bush can't admit that.
At least the egregious Frum with his Chalabi the Thief strategy is no
longer in charge anywhere.
I didn't start with much hope; I began with a view I got from John
Derbyshire
"If you ask me to state my one biggest reason
for voting Republican, here is the answer: "Madeleine Albright, Warren
Christopher, Ed Muskie, Cyrus Vance." Those are the names of the last four
secretaries of state in Democratic administrations. Every one of them was
willing — nay, eager — to permit himself to be hung upside down and shaken
till the keys to the store came tumbling out of his pockets by operators
much less ruthless than Kim Jong Il. Secretary Albright, in fact, once
distinguished herself by standing at Kim's side laughing and clapping along
while a Nork dance troupe performed a number titled something like: "Drown
the American Imperialist Pigs in a Sea of Fire!" Heaven preserve us from
Democratic foreign policy. "
http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire200409300813.asp
Albright, in fact, was willing to commit the Army so long as there was no
possible way to find any link to American national interests; and listening
to Kerry talk about Africa I am not sure he has any different view, but that
may be unfair. He certainly used the problems in Africa as another casual
stick with which to beat Bush.
Bush is dangerously close to a 12 Division foreign policy with a 10
Division Army; Kerry doesn't seem to see that since he would put more troops
on the ground or maybe he wouldn't, and train more Iraqis only as the
reports come in on how that's not working I expect a change in that position
too.
The fact is that there is no easy way out of the Iraqi mess. The
neo-Jacobins sold us a bill of goods. The egregious Frum apparently really
believed we could just go in, turn the place over to Chalabi the Thief, and
all would be well, the oil would be flowing, the Dow would go to 12,000, and
all would be well. Rove vetoed the Syrian addition to the Iraqi invasion,
Deo gratia, but it was all pretty bad, and in a better world the Democrats
would be running someone we can all trust, an avuncular centrist New
Democrat. Bill Clinton would do just fine. Then Bush could be turned out for
his mistakes, which were real, and we would have time for the country to
regroup and relearn its lessons, and the Republicans to digest the lunch
they just had handed to them.
It is not a better world, and the Democrats have run a man whose most
positive statement in the debate was that he would stop the nuclear weapons
research programs RIGHT NOW; and presumably ballistic missile defense
programs as well. He seems to want a MAD world. I lived through one era of
MAD. I prefer in future an era of US escalation dominance.
Escalation dominance, for all those who didn't learn strategic terms in
the Cold War, means that your superiority over the other guy increases as
the level of violence increases: step up the intensity of the war and he
plays your game: every step up is into a regime where you are stronger than
he, right up to nuclear warfare. He thus has no incentive to escalate, and
in fact is afraid you will. It is not a strategy that appealed to Kerry when
he was in the Senate, either before or after the collapse of the USSR; and
it is not likely to appeal to him now.
Bush Senior flat out lied to the American people about taxes, then when
caught in that didn't explain but tried to be flippant. Read my hips. The
result was that long time Republicans couldn't wait for November to fire
him. We were fortunate enough to get Clinton, not Kerry.
I have put my views of the
debates above. I'll have more, but my conclusion is that Kerry rejects a
Strategy of Technology. Bush isn't implementing it as I would, but he
believes in it; Kerry explicitly said he would cancel nuclear weapons
research. I have indicated above why I think this indicates a key failure in
strategic thought and is vary dangerous.
I am no Bush enthusiast. I opposed the war before we went in. It was a
bad idea when we did it, and it was not at all well done. On the other hand:
Kossovo was a bad idea, and it was not well done; and Kerry was muttering
about intervening in the Sudan, and making negotiations with North Korea a
bi-lateral affair which means we either pay them Danegeld or fight them,
there not being many other choices. Bush at least recognizes that this is as
much China's problem as ours, and is more Japan and South Korea's problem
than anyone's. Kerry seems determined to show he is Not Bush on North Korea.
That's either ingenuous or frightening.
I don't think Bush did well, and I think he surrounded himself with a
very bad set of advisors; but I don't see many in the Kerry camp who are
better, and that too is frightening.
On domestic issues both are horrible. The Republicans are swimming in
pork with more to come. Their domestic legislation looks like drunken
Democrats on speed. Alas, Kerry says it wasn't enough and we ought to do
more, and raise taxes as well. Either party is horrible. Were the Democrats
adhering to sound strategic principles I'd say a pox on both their houses
and vote my conservative heart; and given that I live in California I will
do so anyway unless the Governor has brought enough people over that the
state is in play. But where the issue is in doubt, the stakes are very high.
A Strategy of Technology is the best chance we have. Kerry explicitly
rejected key elements of that in the debate.
Note that systems with XP SP-2 are NOT vulnerable to this.
=====================================
HELP!
I have a small 2 station KVM switch. It's green plastic, quite small,
with cables built in. There is no mfg label at all. There is no physical
switch. I am sure it switches from one station to the other through some
keyboard combination, but I have not only lost the package it came in, I
can't even remember where I got it. As it happens, it would be just the
thing for one workplace installation where I would like to keep two
computers on line.
I will probably connect them up and try experiments, but it sure would be
nice to know what I am doing. This is a green and greyish black (mostly
green) gizmo with keyboard, mouse, and VGA connector on the plastic and two
sturdy cables that sprout into keyboard, mouse, and VGA connectors out
toward their end. It's simple, and should be easy to us, if I knew how to
use it...
GOT IT! My readers know
everything. It's scroll lock - Scroll lock quick doubletap, and it works
just fine. I think the unit was originally a Belkin. Whatever it is, it's
got a XANDROS Linux system and a Windows 2000 system running on the same KVM...
-----======================
FROM BURT RUTAN on SpaceShip One:
……While observing the significant incorrect
information being published about the rolls seen on the 29 Sept 04
SpaceShipOne flight, we are responding by offering a bit of discussion to
help provide some clarity. This information is approved for publication.
Burt Rutan
Comments On The Rolling Rumors
Burt provides some preliminary information
about the rolling motions seen on the First X-Prize Flight:
The complex reason on why the rolling departure
occurred will be described in a report we will post at a later date. What I
am intending to do here is merely address some of the incorrect rumors about
the rolls that have been seen in various news stories and web discussion
groups.
While the first roll occurred at a high true
speed, about 2.7 Mach, the aerodynamic loads were quite low (120 KEAS) and
were decreasing rapidly, so the ship never saw any significant structural
stresses. The reason that there were so many rolls was because shortly after
they started, Mike was approaching the extremities of the atmosphere. Nearly
all of the 29 rolls that followed the initial departure were basically at
near-zero-q, thus they were a continuous rolling motion without aerodynamic
damping, rather than the airplane-like aerodynamic rolls seen by an
aerobatic airplane. In other words, they were more like space flight than
they were like airplane flight. Thus, Mike could not damp the motions with
his aerodynamic flight controls.
Mike elected to wait until he feathered the
boom-tail in space, before using the reaction control system thrusters (RCS)
to damp the roll rate. When he finally started to damp the rates he did so
successfully and promptly. The RCS damping, to a stable attitude without
significant angular rates was complete well before the ship reached apogee
(337,600 feet, or 103 Km). That gave mike time to relax, note his peak
altitude, and then pick up a digital high-resolution camera and take some
great photos out the windows. Those photos are now being considered for
publication by a major magazine.
While we did not plan the rolls, we did get
valuable engineering data on how well our RCS system works in space to damp
high angular rates. We also got a further evaluation of our “Care-free
Reentry” capability, under a challenging test condition. As seen on the
videos of the flight, the ship righted itself quickly and accurately without
pilot input as it fell straight into the atmosphere. No other winged,
horizontal-landing spaceship (X-15, Buran, SpaceShuttle) has this
capability.
Added in a later communication:
Some publications have stated that Mike defied
a request to shut down the motor and let it run a few more seconds in order
to reach 100 Km altitude. This is not true. While a Mission Control
aerodynamist did discuss a possible abort a few seconds earlier, Mike
immediately shut down the motor on the first advisory call over the radio.
Mike himself was monitoring the apogee predictor during the initial rolls
and was in the process of going for the thrust termination switch as he
heard the advisory call.
Column time, and I will be going out to the
desert tomorrow and Monday. It's going to be tight.
Subject: XP-2 users actually ARE
vulnerable to the GDI+ bug...
Greetings, Dr. Pournelle,
I thought I should let you know that GDI+ can affect
Windows XP Service Pack 2 users, since third-party software (such as
Microsoft Office, which requires its own separate patch to fix this) have it
built in. From what I've read, people who've downloaded the "patch" from
Windows Update, in reality have only downloaded a scanner which tells them
if they have a problem; if they click through it quickly, like I did, they
rest easy in the false belief that they've fixed the problem.
I now know that I have SOME third party program on my
machine that uses the old GDI+, but I don't know which one/ones it is. I've
updated everything I can think of to update, such as Irfanview, GTK & The
Gimp, Firefox, and Thunderbird, but I'm still not sure I covered all the
bases here
-- David Bierbaum
AND:
Subject: IMPORTANT - GDI Vulnerabiltiy Info and Test
for third-party apps
Dr. Pournelle:
Your alert today about the GDI vuln (graphics engine)
is correct, as we alerted your users just after MS sent out the patch. There
has been a lot of misunderstanding about the extent of this, though.
The folks at the Internet Storm Center (
www.isc.org ) have been discussing this
problem for a while. And they have provided this link which is a very good
tutorial on the problem, and how to check all your software for the problem:
It also includes a link to a better GDI vuln scanner
that will look for problems with non-MS software. They can also be
vulnerable. The problem is also in all versions of Windows.
It is important to patch Windows. The problem is also
in Office, so get that updated. (Use Windows Update to get the OS patches,
then click on the "Office Family" icon on the Windows Update page to get to
the Office Update page.)
Then use the GDI detection tool to find other software
with similar problems. The tool is available here:
http://isc.sans.org/gdiscan.php
.
Note to non-Windows users: there are similar problems
with your systems and various graphic file types. So you should also do your
updates.
An Army officer in Iraq who wrote a highly
critical article on the administration's conduct of the war is being
investigated for disloyalty -- if charged and convicted, he could get 20
years
Lorentz is a non-commissioned officer, so the headline is wrong; but they
have it right in the story. I have been busy tearing this place apart and
putting it together again, so I haven't been able to follow this.
There is more in mail.
We are here in Mojave. It's the night before the launch. The FAA
Administrator was at XCOR this afternoon, and there are real signs of
progress in regulations: protect the innocent public but let those who want
to take risks to go to space. Protecting passengers is the issue: we are not
at that stage yet, and must not be. Sure, make passengers sign waivers. Warn
them that space travel is dangerous (who doesn't know that?). But
regulations should be aimed at protecting the public, not the passengers.
Will Rogers and Wily Post were killed when Post's airplane crashed.
Rogers was a passenger. I can imagine what he would have said had there been
some regulation against his going on the flight. John Adams told us that in
the United States we hold that each man is the best judge of his own
interest. So should it be here. People on the ground didn't volunteer to
take risks. Licenses are to protect them; but not the passengers.
The Mariah inn advertises high speed internet and for a few seconds it
appeared to be working, but now I can't get DNS resolution. So it goes.
Advisory
and warning on GDI bug for XP SP-2 Users
