Posts by Bobcat4424

Head of US military kit-testing slams F-35, says it's scarcely fit to fly

Not about national defense ...

The F-35 is not about national defense but rather about transferring billions of dollars from the taxpayer to the military-industrial complex. It was a deliberately low-balled bid, followed by intentional cost overruns. It is build in as many Congressional districts as possible, garnering political support but dramatically increasing costs while making true quality control impossible. Lockheed Martin has dedicated far fewer resources to the F-35 than required and at this point is steadily sliding backwards as currently none of the 17 million profiles cannot be performed.

And trying to make a mainstream multi-purpose fighter stealthy was just plain stupid. We have known since the Bosnian conflict (where we lost one F-117 and had another damaged beyond repair) that in CAS ground forces can easily shoot down the F0-35.

So why are we just hearing about this now? Lockheed Martin, like so many "defense" contractors hires retired Pentagon procurement officers into cushy non-existent :"executive" jobs. Can you spell quid prop quo?

YOU! DEGRASSE! It's time to make Pluto a proper planet again, says NASA boffin

They were correct

The reason for removing Pluto from the list of planets still remains. The satellites of all planets, if present, rotate around the planet. But Pluto and Charon rotate around one another in a "dumbbell" configuration. Charon doesn't revolve around Pluto any more than Pluto revolves around Charon.

Intelsat to FCC: For the love of satellites, STOP ELON MUSK!

Re: Is Musk going for geostationary?

The idea of a LEO satellite even slightly blocking a GEO satellite is silly. GEO satellites are 23,000 miles up and broadcast to the entire of the planet. Musk's satellites would be about 400 miles up. There would never be even a split second of blocking. It's kinda like saying it would also block the sun.

This is just an attempt to get SpaceX to divulge trade secrets. While the idea of hundreds of satellites in LEO for communications is not new, what is unique to SpaceX is that it would launch its own satellites, most likely 4-10 at a time or as secondary to other satellites. They can do this because their upper stage is fully restartable. And if SpaceX can start recovering boosters, the price will drop to the point that SpaceX will be almost impossible for others to compete with for a couple of decades.

Shields up! Shields up! ASTRONAUTS flying to MARS will arrive BRAIN DAMAGED, boffins claim

Boffins

Boffins was a derogatory term used for technicians during WWII. Why journalists have latched onto the word is a mystery, especially since some older academics consider it an insult. What if we used the term "yellow hoard" to refer to journalists? LOL

Why don't we know more about the effects of space travel?

Back in the 1960's scientists at NASA wanted a space station at the Lunar LaGrange Spot and a "big dumb lifter." But the military had other ideas and forced NASA to go with a Space Shuttle that could only reach Very Low Earth Orbit (VLEO) and a space station in VLEO. In fact the Shuttle cargo bay was designed around a KH-series reconnaissance satellite. The military wanted to use the Space Shuttle to put spy satellites into orbit and as a weapons platform. Ditto for the space station. When both proved to be useless and far too expensive, the military backed out.

But this has left about 30-40 years behind where we should be. The ISS tells us very little about travel in space because it is within the Earth's micro-gravity. If you drop a pen it will still float to the side nearest Earth. And the ISS is within the Earth's magnetosphere and the effects of cosmic radiation cannot be assessed.

Tim Cook slurped our brains, snarl fat battery bods A123

Re: Serfdom?

They filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy and had no layoffs. The bankruptcy was due to the failure of Fiskar cars which used custom A123 battery sets. The people Apple hired signed very specific non-disclosure and trade secrets documents. Apple promised to pick up anyt legal bills (which is illegal) in hiring them. This is very typically Apple which has been in and out of trouble with the SEC, regulators, and anyone else who finds their predatory money-madness obnoxious.

Apple Watch 'didn't work on HAIRY FANBOIS, was stripped of sensor tech'

The unanswered question

Can you actually use it to tell time? If so, (and it is a big "if") why would you want to?

SpaceX HOVER-SHIP landing scuppered by MASSIVE ocean waves

Re: DSCOVR not Gore's idea

I didn't say the heat was coming from the sun. In fact it is the deniers who say that it is a natural cycle caused by the sun. By measuring the exact amount of sunlight striking the Earth and the amount reflected, solar influence can be ruled out. Global warming is a net heat gain because the heat is held in and not reflected back out.

I really don't waste my time on wordpress blogs with idiotic presumptions that make no sense. The rate of increase in heat is coming from somewhere --- maybe anthropogenic global warming? 2014 was the hottest year on record. in fact, all the hottest ten years have happened since 2000.

DSCOVR not Gore's idea

The DSCOVR satellite was not Gore's idea. The need for warming about solar flares to protect our cranky 1920's power grid goes back much further than that, What Gore did was to initially suggest that the satellite carry a camera that would photograph the Earth and send the pictures back. This really had no scientific gravitas and was intended to be purely "inspirational" and dismissed by scientists at NASA. But then someone realized that if a camera was included, it would be then very easy to measure the Earth's albedo and calculate the net gain/loss of heat. This was important because other images had to be taken at different times ands then stitched together to make a composite that was around plus-or-minus 15% in accuracy. By being able to see the earth in detail in one shot would fix that and had the potential to end the anthropogenic global warming debate permanently.

When word of the albedo-measuring capability got back to the people behind global warming denial, they immediately put huge pressure on NASA (via their budget) and Congressmen to shelve the project, which they did. But by down-playing the albedo-measuring capability and emphasizing the need for better solar flare warning, NASA has launched the satellite almost covertly. The satellite has been mothballed for years (at a cost of millions a year) and was quietly taken out of storage, refurbished (for a few more millions), and launched.

Now the deniers can start denying once again, but this time in the face of hard data as to the Earth's net heat gain that cannot be accounted for by solar activity.

Elon Musk: Hover rocket? Check. Hover ship? Check. Let's DO THIS

A Double Dose of Disruptive Technology

This launch will likely change the future world in two ways:

1) The DSCOVR satellite was built in 1998. While it was being built it was "discovered" (NPI) that it could be used to accurately measure the Earth's albedo. This measurement will likely end the so-called "scientific" debate over man made global warming for good. This is why the deniers applied considerable pressure (funded by the Koch brothers) and had the satellite sidelined for 17 years (at storage costs which exceeded the launch costs.) This satellite is the deniers worst nightmare come true.

2) The day of expendable rocketry is over. The last attempt to recover the booster was tellingly close to success. A successful recovery will put SpaceX 30-40 years ahead of NASA, ULA, ESA, Russia, China, et alia. ESA is already panicking that the Arianne 6 may be non-competitive and SpaceX is already launching commercial satellites for 42% of what ESA charges for the Arianne 5 --- an is profitable whereas the ESA depends heavily on government subsidies.

Scientific consensus that 2014 was record hottest year? No

Re: the only way is down

That's complete nonsense. Since 1960, the sun has been in a cooling cycle. You are confusing sunspot activity with heat emitted (solar irradiance.) When sunspot activity is up, solar irradiance is down. This has been very obvious since 1960 when the peak in recorded solar observations occurred. The bottom line is that when the sun is the "most active" is is also emitting slightly less heat.

Re: consensus

I would also point out that John Cristy, the Koch-owned "climatologist" at the University of Alabama (Huntsville), says that it is all nonsense. He states the current "official" denier position that warming is happening but is not caused by CO2 and methane, but rather by building buildings, roads, etc and by farming. Considering that this activity accounts for only 1.2% of the Earth's surface, 71% of which is covered by water, 8% by ice, and 1.5% uninhabited desert, that is a great deal like the tail wagging the climatological dog.

And as for the courageous band of "scientists", 31,000 according to the deniers, you should take the global warming challenge and select five of their names at random from the ones posted online. Go to Google Scholar and see what their credentials are. My five had no publications at all and were not listed on the faculty of the universities they claimed to be affiliated with. The largest group of "scientists" were nurses and physicians --- who mostly don't even have an academic degree, let alone any knowledge of global warming.

A laughable objection at "best."

The problem of the "objection" is that they have taken the computed margin of error, which is expressed as "plus or minus" and insisted that it can only be taken as minus. By ignoring this, they also ignore the equal possibility that the temperatures have risen .05C as well, This is the worst kind of unscientific balderdash.

Survey: Tech has FREED modern workers – to work longer hours

Technology? Or other causes?

The blame for longer hours may be less for technology and more for other causes. A primary cause of longer hours overall is the decline of unions and other advocates for the worker. Another cause is the Bush Depression which caused huge job insecurity --- an insecurity that many employers took advantage of.

Splashdown! Orion lands safely in the Pacific Ocean

More to this story

There is a great deal more to this story. This capsule was built on a no-bid subcontract from the United Launch Alliance. It is strictly 1960's technology because that is all ULA (Boeing+Lockheed) can do. The AVERAGE cost overrun by ULA has been 42%. They have NEVER delivered a product within 10% of the contractual deadline. Contract courts have allowed the overruns and contract 100% of the time --- maybe because every contract court judge is a former defense industry executive. This was a half-billion dollars spend on a capsule that has such limited utility that it is essentially worthless.

Compare the Orion to the Dragon capsule. (The V2 Dragon is the same as the current capsule except for the addition of seating and crew support electronics.

The Dragon capsule is flying currently. It has made several missions to the ISS carrying cargo in its pressurized and unpressurized compartments. It has also brought back delicate experiments and broken equipment. This is something that Soyuz and Orion cannot do. They are passengers only whereas the S[paceX capsule can accomodate a wide mix of people and cargo. The Orion can carry 4 astronauts. The Dragon can carry 7. The Orion is dependent on parachutes and a water landing to return. Water recoveries are incredibly expensive because of the huge amount of men and material involved. The Dragon capsule was designed to use a propulsive landing system with parachute backup to land anywhere with the precision of a helicopter. This dramatically reduces recovery costs and provides for reuse of the capsule. Both Orion and Soyuz are one-time-use capsules. (The current sea landings are a contractual requirement of NASA.) The bottom line is that the capsule is 20-30 years ahead of Orion and is already flying and is 2 years ahead of schedule and significantly under budget. The Dragon capsule actually has the ability with refueling, to both land and take off from the moon. The Orion has the capability to go to the Smithsonian museum.

But it doesn't stop there. The Falcon upper stage is multiply restartable. No other upper stage has this capability. SpaceX has already launched six satellites at once into different orbits. Neither the Delta nor Atlas series has this capability. And SpaceX does not use Russian or Chinese-made parts or electronics or even motors produced under license from Russian. The restartability has several functions that include being a lunar heavy lift lander.

But the crowing accomplishment for SpaceX is the booster. The Falcon booster is designed to be recovered back to the launch pad and reused. The booster has been used as many as 16 times without failure already. The past ISS missions have practiced landing on the surface of the ocean to gain the telemetry in a reallife situation. All those landings have been successful. On Dec 16th SpaceX will launch another supply mission to the ISS, but will attempt recovery of the booster to a barge, from which it will be "hopped" back to Canaveral. This one feature along can reduce launch costs by as much as 70%. Add to that the savings from land recovery and launching multiple satellites with one launch and you have a system that is 30-40 years ahead of anything ULA or the ESA or the Russians have.

All the reply ULA and NASA (and the Pentagon) have is to try to do everything with no-bid contracts which exclude SpaceX and to drag their feet on certifications. Could this have anything to do with the fact that hundreds or Pentagon and NASA procurement officers find post-retirement six-figure jobs with Boeing or Lockheed? Or the fact that ULA "ownes" a large number of Congressmen? Of course it does.

But currently SpaceX is launching satellites at 42% of the cost of an ESA Arianne launch. And that numnber will decrease over time. Every SpaceX vehicle for the next ten years is already booked up. It really is time to stop no-bid contracts to ULA. The intention of no-bid contracts was to keep that segment of the defense industry healthy. But with Chinese-made electronics and Russian-made or licensed components, the Russian and Chinese defense industries benefit as much of not more. SpaceX is home-grown, American, and does not rely on China or Russia.

SCREW YOU, net neutrality hippies – AT&T halts gigabit fiber

Big Deal

So AT&T is putting their fiber construction in ice. Sorry about that, but that's where it belongs. AT&T is one of the worst ISP's and its DSL has long been a rip-off. The reason is that it is not a big deal is that the country is overbuilt with fiber. Existing fiber has increased its capability 1000-fold since it was installed. AT&T just wants to play games to drive competitors out of business.

But the fact remains: The United States has one of the slowest internets in the world! It might as well be dial-up compared to countries like South Korea or Japan. Even countries like Kenya have much faster internet --- and much cheaper as well. If the ISP's can drain more money out of the consumer by charging internet companies for "premium" speeds, they will. Otherwise they might actually have to be competitive by providing faster better service and speeds.

Elon Musk and ex-Google man mull flinging 700 internet satellites into orbit

Looks more workable than you might think

If you look at the SpaceX Falcon/Dragon launch system, you will find two very spectacular advances that pout SpaceX 20-40 years ahead of anything the Russians, ESA, China, Japan, India, or the ULA have. The first is that the second stage of the Falcon is multi-restartable without special protocols that are dicey at best. SpaceX has already launch as many as six satellites into different orbits with the restartable second stage. The other spectacular thing is that SpaceX is poised to recover its booster stage to a barge on Dec 9th. Eventually the boosters would be recovered back to the launch pad where they would be refurbished and reused.

If you look at these two characteristics in tandem, it gives SpaceX the unique capability to launch these satellites as many as 20 per launch or so. The limit will probably be the second stage fuel load and even that could be expanded greatly with the Dragon heavy rockets. But the ability to reuse the boosters alone would reduce launch costs by as much as 70%. I would also point out that the current Dragon capsule could be used to recover malfunctioning satellites to be returned to Earth for repair and if Musk is as smart as I think, he will make the satellites refuelable.

This is a project currently being widely panned, but in light of SpaceX's recent accomplishments, it makes a great deal of sense.

Native Americans KILLED AND ATE DUMBO, say archaeologists

Re: Also on the menu

You know, there is another possibility that archeologists seem to have missed: that ancient elephants hunted, killed and ate Clovis people, accounting for their extinction. This would account for the stone spearpoints found comingled with their bones --- spearpoints are very hard to digest. It would also explain why these elephants went extinct about the same time that Clovis people came up missing. The elephants no longer had a food source because they had eaten them all.

Bezos house 'on FIRE': Amazon in-app kiddy megabuck charge storm

Don't blame parents

This is not a case of lax parenting.

After Apple had been successfully sued by the FTC for sleazy in-app purchase practices and accepted a huge fine, refunds and 20 years of FTC "special oversight", Amazon decided it wanted in on that pie and started their own in-app purchases. AFTER! But even then, parental consent applied to only individual purchases over $20. Individual in-app purchases over $20 are rare. Most of the in-app purchases are in the order of 25 cents or fifty cents, but hundreds of such purchases can add up to amounts far in excess of $20 without parental consent or triggering a password. It is especially sleazy that Amazon encouraged developers to target children with things like brightly colored "buy" buttons and buttons that look like teddy bears and candy. That Bezos knew of this sleazy practice is apparently documented in the hundreds of internal emails supplied to the FTC by a whistleblower.

Bezos (aka Bozo) has stated that he will give NO refunds because of the FTC suit, and will accept NO settlement or oversight from the FTC and will sue parents individually if they do not pay up. So don't blame the parents. Blame one of the sleaziest companies in the business world --- Amazon.

Researchers defend Facebook emoto-furtling experiment

Re: Psych(o) researchers

There is no such thing as the "US Psychological Association." You might be referring to the American Psychological Association which forbade its members to participate in the Gitmo "intelligence gathering" and voted to sanction any member who participated. That's not really very laid back.

You might also be referring to the American Psychiatric Association which is MD psychiatrists. They deferred to the American Medical Association sanctions against any physician who participate in the Gitmo interrogation.

I have no idea who USG is, so I can't respond to that. The only USG that I've heard of is the building materials company.

Any academic who used human subjects in any way without informed consent would have been summarily fired. It isn't that it doesn't happen, it does, but academics will end careers in a heartbeat when it is found out. If there is an ethical, legal, or moral issue, even tenure does not help you even a tiny bit.

Re: Psych(o) researchers

Since the 2012 election, FB has been touting that it will have a "package" ready for sale by the 2016 election. This software is being heavily pitched to Republican groups as a last great hope to not only influence the perception of issues and candidates, but, by introducing tiny false data bits, to change the outcome of elections. In other words, pay Sucker-Man enough money and he will be able to get you elected.

Re: Misinformation from an uniformed individual

There is no "business version" of informed consent. That is complete nonsense. Many of the unwilling participants were underage children who are legally incapable of giving informed consent in any fashion. The informed consent that FB is claiming is for "internal operations" use only, not experimental academic research.

The results will likely be: 1) Adam DI Kramer will be fired from FB. The lawyers have already added after-the-fact language to the TOS giving permission for academic research, but even this will not hold legal water. 2) The four low-level researchers will be fired and their careers essentially terminated for ethics violations. They also face jail time for lying to the IRB's about the funding and nature of the "research." 3) Cornell, UCSF, UCSD and Yale will likely be hit with research sanctions ranging from requirements for increased IRB scrutiny to IRB training to limits on research similar to football recruiting sanctions. 4) There could possibly be repercussions from the illegal use of federal and state tobacco settlement money. 5) There will likely be serious repercussions in Europe from the use of non-consenting underage experimental research subjects. Huge (multi-billion dollar) fines are a likely result.

Mostly these things happen behind closed doors, but academic has ways of punishing people who violate moral, legal or ethical rules and laws. Bad things are going to happen to a lot of peoples' careers.

Facebook broke the law.

The author's bias is absurd.

1) The "research" was funded by Facebook and by money stolen from smoking cessation research funding. The "researchers" lied to the Cornell and UCSF IRB's about the funding, claiming that it was funded by the Army Research Office (which doesn't even exist) and private foundation money. O(nce the claim of Army funding was made, even if it was false, it brought the "research" under the aegis of the Office of Human Subject Protection.

2) The "researchers" lied to the Cornell and UCSF IRB's about whether it was experimental or observational science. They claimed falsely that this was only analysis of pre-existing data that was then collected. This is against the law.

3) A significant number of the participants (into the tens of thousands) were underage children who cannot give consent under Federal law. In fact, even looking at the data for such children is a crime. Children get extra protection under the law because they are exceptionally vulnerable.

4) There is a vast difference between observational research for which informed consent can be waived after review and experimental research in which informed consent, opt-out, and other laws must be followed. It becomes experimental research if anything in the subject's environment, including his news feed, is changes.

5) The "permission" cited by Facebook is for "internal operations" only. Other language was added to the TOS after the fact and hardly counts since it was not there and is essentially an admission of wrong-doing on the part of FB.

6) The PNAS action editor characterized the "research" as "creepy" and "likely a very bad example of experimental social research" but published it anyway. No one ever questioned that the paper did not disclose the sources of funding and the serious conflicts of interest involved.

7) Cornell has changed its story several times --- to the point that every point it is making is, at some point, a lie --- to try to escape liability. UCSF, UCSD, and Yale are keeping quiet and hoping it blows over.

If you want to see how these things can go awry, look up the Milgram Experiment. By causing "volunteers" to faux-electrocute other "volunteers" the author sought to demonstrate the extremes to which people will follow authority. But over half the "participants" refused to cooperate and were dropped from the study. In the remainder, a number suffered serious psychological harm from the "harmless" and "valuable" experiments. Many heads rolled over this one and a lot of the regulation goes back to this and the Tuskegee Syphilis Study.

Facebook 'manipulated' 700k users' feelings in secret experiment

Re: Army Research Office?

Cornel withdrew its assertion that the "research" was partially funded by the Army. It now appears that it was funded partially by Facebook and partially by money stolen from state and federal tobacco settlement money --- funds that were intended for research on tobacco use cessation.

Cornell did not withdraw the assertion because it was false, but because if the statement were true, the "research" would have been subject to rules and regulations by the Federal Office of Human Subject Protection. So they told a lie to cover up another lie.

This is far from being over. Now UCSD and Yale are involved as well as Cornell and UCSF. It appears that Facebook is very active in using these institutions to launder illegal and unethical research and get it into established journals such as PLAS and "pay-to-play" phony journals such as PLOS-ONE. All this supports Facebook's ability to market political products based on "shadow profiles" and phony research that tells political campaigns that if they give Facebook enough money, that Facebook can decide/alter the outcomes of elections.

Cornell et al have serious IRB issues.

In standing behind this ethically bankrupt study, Cornell has essentially announced to the world that its Institutional Review Boards are available to "launder" any sort of morally reprehensible study that comes along.

Initially Cornell maintained that the study was approved because Facebook did the actual manipulation and data collection, even though they also claimed that the study was partially funded by the Army Office of Research and would have fallen squarely under the rules of the Office of Human Research Protection. Then they decided, when caught in a lie, that IRB approval was not really necessary because the study received no Federal funding. Apparently ethical issues are okay at Cornell. But then the study turns out to have been funded by tobacco use cessation funding which comes mostly from Federal funding. Come on, Cornell, at least get your story right.

This is a complete "cluster f++k" on Cornell's part. Any research that is "experimental" versus "observational" requires IRB approval on both legal and ethical grounds in any serious research institution. No exceptions! This requirement kicks in if the institution receives even a penny in Federal funding, not just of the project itself receives Federal funding.

Feeding people false information to gauge their reactions it one of the most ethically challenged types of social research. It is nothing more than a thinly laundered version of the grossly discredited Milgram Experiment. You have to realize that causing people in the Milgram experiment to do unethical and immoral things to other people, if only imaginary, can cause serious and lasting damage to those individuals. Much of the IRB protection is based on preventing repetitions of the Milgram fiasco.

But even more than this, the Cornell IRB, the editors at PLAS, and even much of the press missed another major issue: serious and disabling conflicts of interest and major lapses in proper scientific rigor. The research was apparently funded by Facebook and money "laundered" illegally from state and federal tobacco settlement money. No one asked the question Cicero always asked, "Cui bono?" Who benefits? Follow the money!

Facebook has been touting in political services their intention of marketing a "Facebook campaign package" that "goes a step beyond political polls" to actually using "scientific methods" to "alter the public perception of candidates and issues in realtime." An observation that readily supports that this was a part of the groundwork for such a political intervention is that most of the "news" that was manipulated concerned ACA (Obamacare.)

So, Cornell, come clean! You helped launder illegal research funds for an unethical and illegal study that used public funds to benefit Facebook in its political activities. And you stand behind that process still!

At this point it is time to consider serious research sanctions against PLAS (or its editors), Cornell, USSF, UCSD, and Yale, all of whom participated in this or other illegal and unethical Facebook "research."

British boffin tells Obama's science advisor: You're wrong on climate change

Re: Mathematician vs. a "Real" Scientist...

Just for the edification of mathematicians: Both climate and weather are chaotic systems and are non-linear. (google "Lorenz", "strange attractors", "chaos theory" to read more.) So there are three basic problems with this "scientists's" scrteed:

1) The guy is a mathematician. Mathematics is currently the most serious impediment to truly understanding AGW. Mathematicians are in the same position versus chaos theory that they were in the 1600's and 1700's when they knew that there was a branch of maths called "calculus" but had no idea how to actually do the calculations. Today, we know that many systems are chaotic, meaning that they obey patterns that we cannot predict, but simply lack the maths to do the calculations. As a result modelers are forced to obey the mathematicians and use linear deterministic models even though they know that those models will always fall short of actual events. Any mathematician worth his salt knows this.

2) Sea ice is not a good direct measure of anything. Sea ice is freshwater ice that forms on top of below-freezing salt water. With AGW, the warmer air over the polar areas can actually hold more moisture (basic physics.) This results in more precipitation over the sub-freezing polar oceans and more sea ice in some areas. The fact remains that the Northwest Passage, for which British and other explorers searched in vain for centuries, now exists. Maybe mathematicians are deficient in basic physics education.

3) Dr. Screen is a brand new PhD in Mathematics. While he appears to be applying his efforts in post-doctoral research to Arctic ice and climate, his c.v. lacks the necessary background to support his work. It appears that Dr. Screen is simply trying to make a name for himself as a new PhD in a very barren funding environment. Kinda like renting out his degree for euros.