[24805] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 6958 Volume: 10
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Fri Sep 3 21:11:18 2004
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 18:10:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Perl-Users Digest <Perl-Users-Request@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU>
To: Perl-Users@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Perl-Users Digest Fri, 3 Sep 2004 Volume: 10 Number: 6958
Today's topics:
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <lynn@garlic.com>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <albalmer@att.net>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <wyrmwif@tango-sierra-oscar-foxtrot-tango.fake.org>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <prep@prep.synonet.com>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <lynn@garlic.com>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <albalmer@att.net>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <lynn@garlic.com>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <jwkenne@attglobal.net>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <jwkenne@attglobal.net>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <lynn@garlic.com>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <john.thingstad@chello.no>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <albalmer@att.net>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <lynn@garlic.com>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism (Gary Schenk)
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <albalmer@att.net>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <lynn@garlic.com>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <lynn@garlic.com>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <ljelmore_@_comcast_._net>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <ljelmore_@_comcast_._net>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <roo@try-removing-this.darkboong.demon.co.uk>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism (Gary Schenk)
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 12:09:30 -0600
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <u8ybrrzqd.fsf@mail.comcast.net>
Alan Balmer <albalmer@att.net> writes:
> The first disaster was due to (possibly inferior) gaskets and inferior
> judgment on launch day. The second was falling foam, and inferior
> realization of the gravity of the problem. I'm not clear on what
> either had to do with Utah.
at the time of the 1st disaster ... the claim was that the utah bid
was the only solution that required manufactoring the boosters in
sections for transportion and the subsequent re-assembly in florida
with gaskets. the assertion was that none of the other solutions could
have had a failure because of gaskets ... because they didn't have
gaskets (having been manufactored as a single unit).
so the failure cause scenario went (compared to solutions that didn't
require gaskets and manufactoring in sections)
disaster because of inferior(?) gaskets
inferior(?) gaskets because of gaskets
gaskets because of transportion sectioning requirement
transportation sectioning requirement because the sections
were manufactored in utah
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 11:50:42 -0700
From: Alan Balmer <albalmer@att.net>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <ruehj05n8i2afsgnk9frq9bp98n520jl55@4ax.com>
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 12:09:30 -0600, Anne & Lynn Wheeler
<lynn@garlic.com> wrote:
> transportation sectioning requirement because the sections
> were manufactored in utah
No, because they were *not* manufactured on the launch pad.
Transportation would be required from any other place - in Utah or
not.
Even if they were manufactured on the launch pad, there would be more
than one piece.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
removebalmerconsultingthis@att.net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 19:17:17 -0000
From: SM Ryan <wyrmwif@tango-sierra-oscar-foxtrot-tango.fake.org>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <10jhgptc49br6b1@corp.supernews.com>
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> wrote:
# SM Ryan <wyrmwif@tango-sierra-oscar-foxtrot-tango.fake.org> writes:
# > It's nice to know people still have time to work on really important things.
#
# was also responsible for adeventure inside the company ... recent
# pst in a.o.m
# http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004k.html#38 Adventure
Is there a javascript version of Advent? I've been looking for a game to sneak into
software I've been working on. I can try to do little animated gifs.
--
SM Ryan http://www.rawbw.com/~wyrmwif/
The little stoner's got a point.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 02:28:40 +0800
From: Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <87d613mckn.fsf@k9.prep.synonet.com>
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
> In article <ApudnfQdCY-dfavcRVn-pQ@speakeasy.net>,
> rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
>><jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
>>+---------------
>>| rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
>>| >| Consider the "PIP" command.
>>| >+---------------
>>| >
>>| >Indeed. And COPY & DEL & DIR, etc.
>>|
>>| Well, not quite :-). COPY and DELETE called PIP via a CCL
>>| command. DIRECT became its own program. To do a directory
>>| using PIP required a switch and wasn't a monitor level command.
>>+---------------
>>Yes, I knew that. What I was trying to convey is that the *names*
>>of those DOS commands had also been copied from the DEC lineages.
>>That is, COPY/DEL/DIR rather than cp/rm/ls.
They are not DOS commands, thay are CPM commands that just happened
to report for duty in redmondia.
> IIRC, those verbs didn't show up until after 4S72 of TOPS-10 (it
> wasn't TOPS-10 back then either). I would also suspect that the PIP
> didn't originate at DEC either. A lot of those guys did work at MIT
> before they coalasced into a startup company.
All of them where in the 4.x monitir I used. many of the 427 source file
are on Tim's site, so you can have a look in COMTAB and see.
> My whole point is that attributing who started it is not as
> interesting as how the "it" flowed through the biz.
--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 14:22:55 -0600
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <uzn47qezk.fsf@mail.comcast.net>
Alan Balmer <albalmer@att.net> writes:
> No, because they were *not* manufactured on the launch pad.
> Transportation would be required from any other place - in Utah or
> not.
>
> Even if they were manufactured on the launch pad, there would be
> more than one piece.
as mentioned in the earlier post ... supposedly all other competing
bids were all sites on various shores that all allowed barging of
single, completed, manufactored unit to florida w/o sectioning and
no other designs had gaskets.
supposedly utah was the *only* bid that required sectioning to meet
various overland transportation requirement.
previous post
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004k.html#58
earlier reply to your comment about ... "shuttle boosters are 3.7m
diameter" ... with comment about the alternative single unit
assemblers being barged to florida.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004k.html#54
as repeatedly posted ... as far as i know from all the stuff from the
period ... the comments were that the utah design was the *only*
design that had to be built in sections (because of transportation
issues) and re-assembled in florida and the only design that involved
such gaskets. all other designs were built on various shores in single
pieces and would be barged as single piece to florida and no gaskets
were involved (because they were manufactored in single pieces and
barged to florida in whole pieces).
the difference between barging and train ... was that there are
significantly less length, width, height, dimensional restrictions on
barged items compared to dimensional restrictions on overland train
.... because of bridges, tunnels, curves, clearances from adjacent
traffic, clearances involving any sort of structures near tracks.
i was under the impression that barging was fairly straight forward
from east coast, gulf coast, many major rivers, etc. i would guess
that anyplace that you could get a ship that was 160' or larger
... you could transport a barged assembly.
in fact, a shipyard that was accostomed to building a ship in a single
assemble (w/o needing gaskets to hold it together) could probably also
build a single assembly booster rocket ... and barge it to florida.
i'm not sure about how to catalog all the possible sites &/or
shipyards that could build single section unit (things like single
section ships that are build in single section w/o gaskets to hold the
different sections together) ... some quicky google about ports
http://www.aapadirectory.com/cgi-bin/showportprofile.cgi?id=3709®ion=US
turns up corpus cristi ... they handle ships built in single sections
(w/o gaskets to hold them together) up to 1000 ft long and 45 ft
depth. they also mention some docks that are barge use only that only
handl 260 ft length and 16 ft depth (course there probably isn't much
of height or width restriction with overhanging adjacent structures).
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 14:17:25 -0700
From: Alan Balmer <albalmer@att.net>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <rbnhj01438rv46f2op40gsdkcvfh7u6sgo@4ax.com>
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 14:22:55 -0600, Anne & Lynn Wheeler
<lynn@garlic.com> wrote:
>Alan Balmer <albalmer@att.net> writes:
>> No, because they were *not* manufactured on the launch pad.
>> Transportation would be required from any other place - in Utah or
>> not.
>>
>> Even if they were manufactured on the launch pad, there would be
>> more than one piece.
>
>as mentioned in the earlier post ..
Your earlier post mentioned a unattributed "claim" and unattributed
"assertions", and extrapolated from there. I didn't take it as gospel.
Especially since a space shuttle is a rather complex object, and a
blithe assertion that it could be built as a "single unit" seems a bit
far-fetched.
I'm not a fan of Mr Hatch, but blaming him for the shuttle disaster(s)
is somewhat over the top. Why not blame President Bush? That's the
popular thing nowadays.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
removebalmerconsultingthis@att.net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 15:24:46 -0600
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <usm9zqc4h.fsf@mail.comcast.net>
Alan Balmer <albalmer@att.net> writes:
> No, because they were *not* manufactured on the launch pad.
> Transportation would be required from any other place - in Utah or
> not.
>
> Even if they were manufactured on the launch pad, there would be more
> than one piece.
i have vague recollection of a picture of saturn v 1st stage being
barged to florida ... having been built someplace in a single assemble
... and not requiring re-assemble in florida with gaskets.
can you imagine it being built in sections that required meeting
overland train transportion restrictions? ... not only would it have
to be section in 40ft long pieces .... but probably each 40ft section
would have to be cut into slivers since it would otherwise have too
big/wide .... and then assembled with huge amounts of gaskets in
florida ... not only around the circumference but huge amount of
gaskets up and down its length.
lets see what search engine comes up with for saturn v 1st stage
reference ... aha ... it turns out that wikipedia is your friend
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V#Stages
fist stage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-IC
is 138ft ... about the same length as the assembled shuttle booster
rocket ... but 33ft in diameter. can you imagine the saturn v first
stage being built someplace in 40ft sections .... as well as down
its length 40ft long section down the length ... sort of like a pie
... say 8ths ... what is the straight line between the end points for
1/8th arc of a 33ft diamter circle ...
the circumference is a little over 103ft so 1/8th of that is about
13ft arc ... which would make the straight line for the end-points of
the arc about 12ft .... which might just about fit overland train
transportion restrictions. so saturn v first stage could be
manufactored in 32 sections ... transported to florida by train and
re-assembled with gaskets.
saturn v second stage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-II
doesn't give the dimensions ... picture seems to imply about the same
circumference but not as long.
saturn v third stage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-IVB
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 21:29:33 GMT
From: "John W. Kennedy" <jwkenne@attglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <1n5_c.3933$lv3.1213588@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>
Alan Balmer wrote:
> The first disaster was due to (possibly inferior) gaskets and inferior
> judgment on launch day. The second was falling foam, and inferior
> realization of the gravity of the problem. I'm not clear on what
> either had to do with Utah.
There should never have been any O-rings in the first place. Three
better designs were offered, but NASA was ordered by the Nixon White
House to pick Thiokol's design, a distant fourth, for political reasons.
The decision to launch wasn't "inferior judgment", it was pure damned
politics, too.
The Challenger seven were just as good as murdered.
--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 21:31:39 GMT
From: "John W. Kennedy" <jwkenne@attglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <%o5_c.3939$lv3.1219902@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>
Alan Balmer wrote:
> Especially since a space shuttle is a rather complex object, and a
> blithe assertion that it could be built as a "single unit" seems a bit
> far-fetched.
The gaskets were /within/ the solid rocket boosters, which should have
been designed in one piece, and could have been designed in one piece,
if it were not for political corruption.
--
John W. Kennedy
"...when you're trying to build a house of cards, the last thing you
should do is blow hard and wave your hands like a madman."
-- Rupert Goodwins
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 15:34:39 -0600
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <uoeknqbo0.fsf@mail.comcast.net>
Alan Balmer <albalmer@att.net> writes:
> I'm not a fan of Mr Hatch, but blaming him for the shuttle disaster(s)
> is somewhat over the top. Why not blame President Bush? That's the
> popular thing nowadays.
i never made any referrence to people or personalities ... somebody
else did.
i just repeated the claims after the disaster about majority of the
other launch things were single section and barged to the launch site
(as well as the alternative booster proposals).
the issue of the gaskets is pretty well established as being required
for the sectional manufactoring ... predicated on the dimensional
restrictions on overland train transportation ... that was perceived
to have been a pretty unique ... when other major deliverables have
been built in single section and barged to launch site.
from a purely fucntional standpoint to somebody's leap with regard to
personabilities ... is somebody else's doing.
i would say that any argument about the personality issues
... shouldn't creap into purely straight forward issue about whether
all manufactoring assemblies require sectioning because of
transportation restrictions. lots of assemblies are made in single
sections and barged to florida.
i can see taking issue with somebody (else) over their possible
personality assertions ... but that shouldn't also result in comments
about whether sectioning is required for all possible modes of
transportation.
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 00:10:12 +0200
From: "John Thingstad" <john.thingstad@chello.no>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <opsdrujag8pqzri1@mjolner.upc.no>
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 15:34:39 -0600, Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com>
wrote:
> Alan Balmer <albalmer@att.net> writes:
>> I'm not a fan of Mr Hatch, but blaming him for the shuttle disaster(s)
>> is somewhat over the top. Why not blame President Bush? That's the
>> popular thing nowadays.
>
> i never made any referrence to people or personalities ... somebody
> else did.
>
> i just repeated the claims after the disaster about majority of the
> other launch things were single section and barged to the launch site
> (as well as the alternative booster proposals).
>
> the issue of the gaskets is pretty well established as being required
> for the sectional manufactoring ... predicated on the dimensional
> restrictions on overland train transportation ... that was perceived
> to have been a pretty unique ... when other major deliverables have
> been built in single section and barged to launch site.
>
> from a purely fucntional standpoint to somebody's leap with regard to
> personabilities ... is somebody else's doing.
>
> i would say that any argument about the personality issues
> ... shouldn't creap into purely straight forward issue about whether
> all manufactoring assemblies require sectioning because of
> transportation restrictions. lots of assemblies are made in single
> sections and barged to florida.
>
> i can see taking issue with somebody (else) over their possible
> personality assertions ... but that shouldn't also result in comments
> about whether sectioning is required for all possible modes of
> transportation.
>
Norton Trikol alto buildt the Titan solid rocket booster along
simular lines. I has a resonably good record.
A extra gasket was added since it was supposed to be used
for human flight. Fron a engeneering stanpoint I can't see how you
are supposed to mold solid rocket fuel fot the booster in one piece.
But then I am not a rocket scientist.
Anyhow space flight is a riscy endevor. If it wasn't the booster then it
would have been something else. One in every 50 or so launces will fail.
Saying it was as good as murder is prepostrious.
The peaple who launced knew the riscs. Sitting attom of 10000 liters of
fuel undergoing a controlled explosion will probaly never be entirely safe.
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 15:14:55 -0700
From: Alan Balmer <albalmer@att.net>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <enqhj0ls347lcgc4brjvcjqrtnqvsfencd@4ax.com>
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 15:24:46 -0600, Anne & Lynn Wheeler
<lynn@garlic.com> wrote:
>fist stage:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-IC
>
>is 138ft ... about the same length as the assembled shuttle booster
>rocket ... but 33ft in diameter. can you imagine the saturn v first
>stage being built someplace in 40ft sections .... as well as down
>its length 40ft long section down the length ... sort of like a pie
>... say 8ths ... what is the straight line between the end points for
>1/8th arc of a 33ft diamter circle ...
I don't really know what imagination has to do with the question. I
can imagine it being carved into 1277 pieces, but won't offer that as
a meaningful argument.
Here in Arizona, we recently had a transformer delivered. On a 800,000
pound, 280 foot long rig. By highway. No barges involved.
As for the reference to Hatch, that's exactly what the OP was writing
about.
I apologize for not having the time to read and research your comments
properly, so if it seems that I'm just picking on your logic, or lack
thereof, you are correct.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
removebalmerconsultingthis@att.net
------------------------------
Date: 03 Sep 04 15:07:04 -0800
From: "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <611.742T245T9073454@kltpzyxm.invalid>
In article <1n5_c.3933$lv3.1213588@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
jwkenne@attglobal.net (John W. Kennedy) writes:
>The Challenger seven were just as good as murdered.
I prefer "sacrificed on the altar of political expediency."
Recommended reading: "What Do _You_ Care What Other People Think?"
by Richard P. Feynman (W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. ISBN 0-393-02659-0)
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 16:54:32 -0600
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <uhdqfq7yv.fsf@mail.comcast.net>
John Thingstad" <john.thingstad@chello.no> writes:
> Norton Trikol alto buildt the Titan solid rocket booster along
> simular lines. I has a resonably good record.
> A extra gasket was added since it was supposed to be used
> for human flight. Fron a engeneering stanpoint I can't see how you
> are supposed to mold solid rocket fuel fot the booster in one piece.
> But then I am not a rocket scientist.
> Anyhow space flight is a riscy endevor. If it wasn't the booster then it
> would have been something else. One in every 50 or so launces will fail.
> Saying it was as good as murder is prepostrious.
> The peaple who launced knew the riscs. Sitting attom of 10000 liters of
> fuel undergoing a controlled explosion will probaly never be entirely safe.
the two spoof stories in the aftermath
1) one about sectioning the boats for columbus because they had to be
built in the mountains where the trees grew and then used tar to stick
the sections together for the trip across the atlantic. lots of ships
were lost at sea for all sorts of reasons ... but hopefully none
because the ship was built in sections and tar was used to stick them
together.
2) way back when, because a wagon slipped off the trail and down the
side of the mountain and people died ... congress decreed that there
would be no more travel across the appalachian trail ... hardly
consistent with the tens of thousands of traffic deaths each year.
... however, i think your reply is intended possibly for somebody
else's post ... not mine.
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 22:58:35 GMT
From: gwschenk@fuzz.socal.rr.com (Gary Schenk)
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <vG6_c.16947$aB1.13654@twister.socal.rr.com>
In comp.lang.perl.misc Alan Balmer <albalmer@att.net> wrote:
<snip>
>
> I'm not a fan of Mr Hatch, but blaming him for the shuttle disaster(s)
> is somewhat over the top. Why not blame President Bush? That's the
> popular thing nowadays.
>
IIRC, the vice-president is in charge of the space program, so shouldn't
President Bush accept some blame?
--
Gary Schenk
remove "fuzz" to reply
------------------------------
Date: 03 Sep 2004 15:59:37 -0600
From: Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <1beklj814m.fsf@cs.nmsu.edu>
Alan Balmer <albalmer@att.net> writes:
> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 16:12:52 GMT, "John W. Kennedy"
> <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
> >> i have some recollection of competing bids building single unit
> >> assemblies at sea coast sites allowing them to be barged to
> >> florida. supposedly the shuttle boosters were sectioned specifically
> >> because they were being fabricated in utah and there were
> >> transportation constraints.
> >
> >Yes. A vastly inferior design was used, which ended up killing seven
> >astronauts, because Orrin Hatch had to be appeased with boodle for Utah.
>
> The first disaster was due to (possibly inferior) gaskets and inferior
> judgment on launch day. The second was falling foam, and inferior
> realization of the gravity of the problem. I'm not clear on what
> either had to do with Utah.
IIRC (always risky), the use of a segmented booster calling for
o-rings in the first place came from the need to transport the
boosters from Utah.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 16:20:29 -0700
From: Alan Balmer <albalmer@att.net>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <bluhj0p6rvrmdrftvrsno9e8vis6mfgvp3@4ax.com>
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 22:58:35 GMT, gwschenk@fuzz.socal.rr.com (Gary
Schenk) wrote:
>In comp.lang.perl.misc Alan Balmer <albalmer@att.net> wrote:
><snip>
>>
>> I'm not a fan of Mr Hatch, but blaming him for the shuttle disaster(s)
>> is somewhat over the top. Why not blame President Bush? That's the
>> popular thing nowadays.
>>
>
>IIRC, the vice-president is in charge of the space program, so shouldn't
>President Bush accept some blame?
The Vice President isn't "in charge" of the space program, except for
Al Gore, who probably invented it.
The shuttles were designed and built some considerable time before
Bush became President.
Good try, though, the DNC would be proud.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
removebalmerconsultingthis@att.net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 17:40:26 -0600
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <ud612rket.fsf@mail.comcast.net>
Alan Balmer <albalmer@att.net> writes:
> I don't really know what imagination has to do with the question. I
> can imagine it being carved into 1277 pieces, but won't offer that
> as a meaningful argument.
>
> Here in Arizona, we recently had a transformer delivered. On a
> 800,000 pound, 280 foot long rig. By highway. No barges involved.
>
> As for the reference to Hatch, that's exactly what the OP was
> writing about.
>
> I apologize for not having the time to read and research your
> comments properly, so if it seems that I'm just picking on your
> logic, or lack thereof, you are correct.
my uncle moved houses ... i helped on maybe a dozen or so ... needed
special permits ... and wide load escorts ... and carefully planned
routes ... frequently for relatively controlled distances.
if you choose your road routes carefully enuf ... you can miss a lot
of the problems that you would run into moving by train. we had one
route where i was on the peak of the house and had to grab wires over
the side .... lift the wires up to clear the peak and walk the wires
back as the house moved under.
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 17:43:12 -0600
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <u3c1yrka7.fsf@mail.comcast.net>
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> writes:
> if you choose your road routes carefully enuf ... you can miss a lot
> of the problems that you would run into moving by train. we had one
> route where i was on the peak of the house and had to grab wires over
> the side .... lift the wires up to clear the peak and walk the wires
> back as the house moved under.
oh ... and people have died doing that ...
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 23:52:14 GMT
From: Larry Elmore <ljelmore_@_comcast_._net>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <Os7_c.113460$Fg5.65632@attbi_s53>
Alan Balmer wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 16:12:52 GMT, "John W. Kennedy"
> <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>>
>>>i have some recollection of competing bids building single unit
>>>assemblies at sea coast sites allowing them to be barged to
>>>florida. supposedly the shuttle boosters were sectioned specifically
>>>because they were being fabricated in utah and there were
>>>transportation constraints.
>>
>>Yes. A vastly inferior design was used, which ended up killing seven
>>astronauts, because Orrin Hatch had to be appeased with boodle for Utah.
>
>
> The first disaster was due to (possibly inferior) gaskets and inferior
> judgment on launch day. The second was falling foam, and inferior
> realization of the gravity of the problem. I'm not clear on what
> either had to do with Utah.
The gaskets wouldn't have been necessary if the SRBs had been built in a
single piece instead of having to be assembled from seven sections. The
problem was that one-piece SRBs are too big for land transport, and for
political reasons (i.e., buying support), the SRBs were to be built in
Utah by Morton-Thiokol. Ergo, multi-section SRBs with gaskets "required".
--Larry
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 00:04:05 GMT
From: Larry Elmore <ljelmore_@_comcast_._net>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <VD7_c.286674$eM2.270304@attbi_s51>
Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
> the two spoof stories in the aftermath
>
> 1) one about sectioning the boats for columbus because they had to be
> built in the mountains where the trees grew and then used tar to stick
> the sections together for the trip across the atlantic. lots of ships
> were lost at sea for all sorts of reasons ... but hopefully none
> because the ship was built in sections and tar was used to stick them
> together.
No, but some Liberty ships built in WWII, welded together from pre-fab
sections, literally broke in half when the welds failed (IIRC, in very
cold water like the Barents sea). The problem was fixed by welding large
reinforcing "patches" on either side of the weak point in the hull.
--Larry
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 01:24:47 +0100
From: Rupert Pigott <roo@try-removing-this.darkboong.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <1094257487.855439@teapot.planet.gong>
Larry Elmore wrote:
[SNIP]
> The gaskets wouldn't have been necessary if the SRBs had been built in a
> single piece instead of having to be assembled from seven sections. The
> problem was that one-piece SRBs are too big for land transport, and for
> political reasons (i.e., buying support), the SRBs were to be built in
> Utah by Morton-Thiokol. Ergo, multi-section SRBs with gaskets "required".
I would hope that Morton Thiokol's experience at building a diverse
range of rockets might have been a factor in the decision too. I
suppose they might have systematically fired every rocket scientist
they had (wouldn't put it past a PHB) to save cost though. :)
Too many ifs & butts. IMO. Folks caved to political pressure, but
the blame doesn't just lie with the rank and file. The folks
applying the pressure from the top would have known full well what
they were doing. If they didn't they were unfit for the task, if
not negligent anyways.
Cheers,
Rupert
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 00:49:18 GMT
From: gwschenk@fuzz.socal.rr.com (Gary Schenk)
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <ii8_c.17015$aB1.9921@twister.socal.rr.com>
In comp.lang.perl.misc Alan Balmer <albalmer@att.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 22:58:35 GMT, gwschenk@fuzz.socal.rr.com (Gary
> Schenk) wrote:
>
>>In comp.lang.perl.misc Alan Balmer <albalmer@att.net> wrote:
>><snip>
>>>
>>> I'm not a fan of Mr Hatch, but blaming him for the shuttle disaster(s)
>>> is somewhat over the top. Why not blame President Bush? That's the
>>> popular thing nowadays.
>>>
>>
>>IIRC, the vice-president is in charge of the space program, so shouldn't
>>President Bush accept some blame?
>
> The Vice President isn't "in charge" of the space program, except for
> Al Gore, who probably invented it.
>
Don't you dittoheads ever get your facts right?
http://www.jfklibrary.org/images/jfk-lbj01.jpg
http://www.americaslibrary.gov/cgi-bin/page.cgi/jb/modern/launch_1
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/163/1
> The shuttles were designed and built some considerable time before
> Bush became President.
>
True, although the first shuttle flight was in 1981, while Bush was vice-
president.
As the above references show, Bush was not head of the space council
as Reagan was not a fan. Bush was busy selling anthrax and missiles
to Iran and Iraq.
> Good try, though, the DNC would be proud.
>
I doubt it.
--
Gary Schenk
remove "fuzz" to reply
------------------------------
Date: 6 Apr 2001 21:33:47 GMT (Last modified)
From: Perl-Users-Request@ruby.oce.orst.edu (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
Subject: Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01)
Message-Id: <null>
Administrivia:
#The Perl-Users Digest is a retransmission of the USENET newsgroup
#comp.lang.perl.misc. For subscription or unsubscription requests, send
#the single line:
#
# subscribe perl-users
#or:
# unsubscribe perl-users
#
#to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu.
NOTE: due to the current flood of worm email banging on ruby, the smtp
server on ruby has been shut off until further notice.
To submit articles to comp.lang.perl.announce, send your article to
clpa@perl.com.
#To request back copies (available for a week or so), send your request
#to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu with the command "send perl-users x.y",
#where x is the volume number and y is the issue number.
#For other requests pertaining to the digest, send mail to
#perl-users-request@ruby.oce.orst.edu. Do not waste your time or mine
#sending perl questions to the -request address, I don't have time to
#answer them even if I did know the answer.
------------------------------
End of Perl-Users Digest V10 Issue 6958
***************************************
