| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2006/7/3-6 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Motd] UID:43554 Activity:nil |
7/3 Will KAIS MOTD have search capability turned on again?
\_ No. Stop asking. Write your own.
\_ I stupidly coded the site such that some features need the suexec
capability (where cgi scripts that I as user kchang will run as
kchang instead of "nobody"), but it is disabled and I'm just too
lazy to spend any time trying to make features work without it. If
enough people petition root to turn it on then it may
just happen. BTW only the 24 hour diff and admin modify features
really need suexec. Search doesn't really need suexec
but I just don't have time or energy to play around with the code
right now. -kchang
\_ root, can we give kchan suexec access since he is doing a such
great public service for greater CSUA community?
\_ why we run without suexec (or cgiwrap) is beyond me.
\_ I can tell you why. The noobs trying to learn the zen of
soda sysadm think that suexec is like setuid, it has
that scary "su" and "exec" keywords that sound like a
something that would compromise soda.
\_ Isn't it more dangerous to run suexec and setuid?
\_ They're learning. soda is not for the alumni, it's for
the undergrads. They'll come around in time. |
| 2006/7/3-6 [Uncategorized] UID:43555 Activity:nil |
7/3 Who's the dipwad aggressively restoring stale threads from last week? |
| 2006/7/3 [Uncategorized] UID:43556 Activity:nil |
7/4 Vets for Irey
http://vets4irey.com/index.shtml |
| 2006/7/3-6 [Recreation/Sports] UID:43557 Activity:nil |
7/3 http://tinyurl.com/eu8dx -- Babes of the World Cup. Fox is good for something after all. -John \_ My favorites are #11, #30, #32, #59. But the one that really turns me on is #86! |
| 2006/7/3-6 [Science/Space] UID:43558 Activity:low |
7/3 NASA Administrator Michael Griffin demonstrates Dubya-Style Leadership
by maintaining launch schedule for July 4 weekend, barring 40% chance
of inclement weather. Lessee ... 1% chance of shuttle loss ... 16 more
launches before 2010 ... only a 1/6 chance and yer gonna retire the
orbiters anyway, and you can always put the astronauts on the space
station in case there's a hole!
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/03/D8IKT4V00.html
\_ No, this is the same sort of "must launch leadership" NASA had
when the first one blew up. And the second. And now the third.
The problem is NASA, not whoever is in the WH. When you slap
GWB for every little thing, especially falsely like this, you
reduce the value of slapping him for the things he should be.
\_ Actually, the problem is GWB. Why? Because he is the one
pushing NASA to do more manned spaceflight. He is the one pushing
an accelerated schedule of launches and retiring the shuttle
in favor of a new vehicle, while not really giving NASA much
more money than before. Without GWB's Vision for Space
Exploration, NASA would have more time and money. Because of him,
there is neither. The "must launch leadership" starts with GWB.
\_ I agree. Weren't they talking about more unmanned probes
recently, or is this really supposed to contribute to a manned
mission to Mars?
\_ No, NASA is giving up most of its research, science,
and unmanned work in favor of the ISS, Shuttle, and
CEV (replacement for the Shuttle).
\_ Have you ever worked in government? It doesn't work like
that. Also, how do you explain all the other NASA deaths
going back to the very beginning of space flight for both
the US and Soviets? Oh, I know! It's all GWB's fault!
\_ Yes, I have. In fact, I work for NASA. It works exactly
like that. The President sets the agenda, whether the
President is GWB or Kennedy.
\_ Setting the agenda is not the same as "launch no matter
wut soz I kin make mah daddy proud!". So you work for
NASA? Did your pet project get defunded? You sound
bitter.
\_ Every project other than the Shuttle, ISS, and
CEV lost funding. Even portions of the ISS were
cut. We are talking about gutting a large part
of NASA, not about "pet projects". The reasons
(as given by Bush): 1) We have to finish the ISS
by 2010, 2) We have to go back to the Moon. Setting
the agenda means that there isn't time (or money) to
eff around with the foam on the Shuttle to make
it safer. If the fix isn't easy (or possible)
then it does become "launch despite risks",
because of Bush's 2010 deadline.
\_ NASA funding was cut every under Clinton.
\_ Clinton didn't push for pipe dreams at the
same time.
\_ NASA is there to pipe dreams come real. If
you're not doing pipe dream work you're
wasting tax payer dollars.
\_ Pipe dream work requires pipe dream
dollars. Without them, nothing will
get done. Also, without technology
research all we can do is duplicate
Apollo again.
\_ Or just some will and imagination
instead of tons of layers of mgnt
waiting around to pension out. How
many layers are there between you
and the head of NASA?
\_ This sounds like typical
Republican speak. The reason
we can't launch payloads into
orbit for $100/ton is because
of a lack of will and imagination.
\_ Yup, billions of dollars in the
current budget and no one at
NASA can think of anything to
do with it. The reason we
can't launch payloads for free
has to do with physics and the
price of energy but you knew
that.
\_ I think we're just not
determined or inventive
enough!
\_ Yes, the President sets the agenda. It is the
Congress who decides how much money they get.
You work for the government and don't know this?
It is not the President who says "launch even
though it is going to blow up". The ISS is a joke
and should've been completely defunded. The
broken Shuttle should've been replace 10 years
ago. What are there other pet projects you're so
bitter about? The people I know at JPL are bitter
that the "must put people into space, not probes"
plan has left them out in the cold because all
the money went to NASA's manned missions. What
are you so bitter about again? I still don't
see how the President setting a manned-space
mission agenda is the same as him forcing someone
to launch the shuttle yesterday. Did he call
someone and say "launch that thang! mah daddy
wants ta see it goin up durin' da firewerks!"?
\_ When Congress decides not to up the $$$,
then the President needs to adjust his agenda
accordingly. Else, risks will be taken. It's
that simple. You admit that the ISS is a joke
and yet it is sucking NASA dry. A better
President might realize that and not push
to finish it. Griffin is forced to rob
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, and RESEARCH in favor
of Shuttle and ISS. What part of this are
you missing? This is not good for NASA and
not good for the US. GWB's agenda is
screwing everything up. This includes the
safety of the Shuttle. No one is retarded
enough to claim the effect is *directly* on
yesterday's launch. However, without GWB I
don't think the Shuttle would've launched
yesterday. He needs to keep those jobs in
Texas and Florida.
\_ No, if Congress doesn't provide enough
funding then it is up to NASA management
to do the best they can with what they've
got. You have yet to provide an example of
what has been dropped in favor of the 3 big
projects. The rest of your post is just
spew. I'm not going to respond to the
bitter filled emotional spewing.
\_ NASA *is* doing the best they can with
what they got. End result: Shuttle
launching despite major concerns. If you
want a list of what's been dropped
across NASA, look it up. It's easy
enough to find:
http://tinyurl.com/oy7qf
You haven't said anything useful in
this thread so far and I'm not holding
my breath.
\_ Finally you managed to write something
that wasn't a whiney emotional Bush
bash. Ok then so there's *only*
$5.33 *B*illion for science. Another
$724 million for aeronatics research
and a penny under $4 *B*illion for
exploration systems incldungi the
CEV. I'm trying to find out what I
should be crying over here: Delay or
cancelled: the TPF, the SIM, better
Keck telescopes, SOFIA, LISA, CW, and
what's this? Mars research. Except
for the Mars research all of this is
passive, go-nowhere science that only
serves to slightly improve upon what
we already know and can see. There
is no big stuff here that will be
missed by anyone outside the cut
programs. I'm actually quite pleased
to see the light weight stuff set
aside so we can do something more than
masturbate over stars in other
galaxies from Keck.
\_ "Light weight stuff" like
science in favor of the Shuttle
and ISS which do *WHAT* exactly?
2/3 of the budget ($10 BB) is
going to Shuttle/ISS/CEV and almost
nothing (not mentioned in the
article) to technology research.
If you are a researcher or
technologist then forget it
unless you're researching the
foam on the Shuttle. This is
not the way to obtain the
breakthroughs you seem to want.
\_ I think the shuttle and ISS
should have been scrapped 10+
years ago or not even started
in the case of the ISS, that
does not mean these other
projects are worth a damn. I
want to see research into
materials and propulsion
systems, not better telescopes
for getting prettier pictures
to put in Time magazine (which
are all retouched anyway). The
bulk of the cancelled projects
are telescope related which yes
I do think are a waste of money.
\_ You are off topic here,
which is the Shuttle and
the leadership at NASA. If
you think the Shuttle and
ISS are wastes of money
then you need to blame
GWB for putting more
money into those programs
instead of putting it
into research and tech
dev (including propulsion
and materials). Putting it
into the ISS and a lunar
base while killing science
and technology isn't smart no
matter your personal opinions
regarding astronomy - and
if a telescope should be
killed maybe it should be
the $5 billion JWST. In
short, NASA's priorities
are now out of whack
because GWB's priorities
are out of whack. |