Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Submission + - The Design Flaw That Almost Wiped Out an NYC Skyscraper 1

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes: Joel Werner writes in Slate that when Citicorp Center was built in 1977 it was, at 59 stories, the seventh-tallest building in the world but no one figured out until after it was built that although the chief structural engineer, William LeMessurier, had properly accounted for perpendicular winds, the building was particularly vulnerable to quartering winds — in part due to cost-saving changes made to the original plan by the contractor. "According to LeMessurier, in 1978 an undergraduate architecture student contacted him with a bold claim about LeMessurier’s building: that Citicorp Center could blow over in the wind," writes Werner. "LeMessurier realized that a major storm could cause a blackout and render the tuned mass damper inoperable. Without the tuned mass damper, LeMessurier calculated that a storm powerful enough to take out the building hit New York every 16 years." In other words, for every year Citicorp Center was standing, there was about a 1-in-16 chance that it would collapse.

LeMessurier and his team worked with Citicorp to coordinate emergency repairs. With the help of the NYPD, they worked out an evacuation plan spanning a 10-block radius. They had 2,500 Red Cross volunteers on standby, and three different weather services employed 24/7 to keep an eye on potential windstorms. Work began immediately, and continued around the clock for three months. Welders worked all night and quit at daybreak, just as the building occupants returned to work. But all of this happened in secret, even as Hurricane Ella, the strongest hurricane on record in Canadian waters, was racing up the eastern seaboard. The hurricane became stationary for about 24 hours, and later turned to the northeast away from the coast. Hurricane Ella never made landfall. And so the public—including the building’s occupants—were never notified.

Until his death in 2007, LeMessurier talked about the summer of 1978 to his classes at Harvard. The tale, as he told it, is by turns painful, self-deprecating, and self-dramatizing--an engineer who did the right thing. But it also speaks to the larger question of how professional people should behave. "You have a social obligation," LeMessurier reminded his students. "In return for getting a license and being regarded with respect, you're supposed to be self-sacrificing and look beyond the interests of yourself and your client to society as a whole."

Submission + - Climate scientist: Why nuclear power may be the only way to avoid geoengineering (sagepub.com)

Lasrick writes: Tom Wigley is one of the world's top climate scientists, and in this interview he explains his outspoken support for both nuclear energy and research into climate engineering. Wigley was one of the first scientists to break the taboo on public discussion of climate engineering as a possible response to global warming; in a 2006 paper in the journal Science, he proposed a combined geoengineering-mitigation strategy that would address the problem of increasing ocean acidity, as well as the problem of climate change. In this interview, he argues that hat renewable energy alone will not be sufficient to address the climate challenge, because it cannot be scaled up quickly and cheaply enough, and that opposition to nuclear power 'threatens humanity’s ability to avoid dangerous climate change.'

Submission + - NSA has been exploiting Heartbleed for two years (muktware.com) 2

sfcrazy writes: As people were wondering NSA’s role in Heartbleed, it turned out that the agency was aware of the bug for the last two years and has been exploiting it to spy on people. If the reports are true and NSA was aware of the bug and instead of getting it fixed it let extremely critical info of US citizens exposed to cyber criminals then NSA does need more oversight from the government. NSA is not going to get a very ‘heartwarming’ response from the world for this. We need to start asking our lawmakers (who are more concerned whether they are good sell for Koch Brothers are not) when did ‘putting American’s security at risk became an act of ‘protecting nation’s security’?

Submission + - Skydiver's Helmet Cam Captures a Falling Meteowrong

the phantom writes: Last week on Slashdot, we discussed a viral video purporting to show a skydiver nearly being hit by a meteoroid. The video garnered a great deal of critical attention and, after further analysis, it appears that it was just a rock. Steinar Midtskogen, the blogger who originally reported the mysterious object, states

Are we disappointed? The ultimate prize would be a meteorite, but frankly, we had been faced with a mystery for nearly two years, we went public, and thanks to an incredible crowdsourcing effort the mystery was solved beyond reasonable doubt in just a few days. That’s amazing.

Submission + - Uncontacted Tribes Die Instantly After We Meet Them (vice.com)

Daniel_Stuckey writes: It’s a story we all know—Christopher Columbus discovers America, his European buddies follow him, they meet the indigenous people living there, they indigenous people die from smallpox and guns and other unknown diseases, and the Europeans get gold, land, and so on.

It’s still happening today in Brazil, where 238 indigenous tribes have been contacted in the last several decades, and where between 23 and 70 uncontacted tribes are still living. A just-published report that takes a look at what happens after the modern world comes into contact with indigenous peoples isn’t pretty: Of those contacted, three quarters went extinct. Those that survived saw mortality rates up over 80 percent. This is grim stuff.

Comment Re:Why so expensive? (Score 3, Interesting) 166

Here's how it works.

In the NASA system, the first thing any project needs is a cost estimate from the bean counters. They employ a vast amount of historical data to estimate costs. To get project approval, you must promise to spend that much money: if you don't, NASA management will assume you don't understand the difficulty, and will fail. Then, of course, you must actually build a project organization with a staff capable of spending the money.

This can go wrong rather badly. If the project is actually a lot easier than the bean counters assumed, you have now set yourself up for a massive overrun. Squander is harder to manage than lean development. But when you overrun, the data is duly entered in the bean counters' database, and the next similar project has to come up with even more money.

Communications may be the area where costing is the farthest from the real state of the art.

Comment Re:Not very plausible (Score 1) 745

It's just a difference of degree.

The degrees matter. Above some (small) scale it makes no sense to simulate something when the thing itself scales well but the simulation scales poorly.

There are hard physical limits on information processing that cannot be exceeded: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... NB that these limits directly imply that any finite region of space can be fully simulated by a sufficiently large, (non-deterministic) linear bounded automaton--an abstract computational machine less powerful than a Turing machine.

But the question isn't about a full simulation by an abstraction. That's indistinguishable from the real thing, so it's untestable. The question is whether physics exhibits some signature of an incomplete simulation by a concrete machine with characteristics familiar to us.

Comment Re:Buy a Galileo Scope (Score 1) 52

Elitest git.

Sorry, but don't talk rubbish. A £100 (so $200 at best) Celestron reflector will show your kids Jupiter, Saturn, individual craters on Mars, come with tripod, EQ mount and a range of eyepieces. An extra $50 or so and you can get a kit of cheap eyepieces and a barlow in a nice Celestron-branded kit.

Yep. The Edmund Astroscan is a popular telescope for professional astronomers to keep around for when they just want to enjoy a view of the sky, or share it with friends. Not very expensive, but a lot of fun.

Comment Not very plausible (Score 4, Insightful) 745

Mathematics, especially simulation, is actually a very weak approach to physical phenomena in themselves. It's good for human insight *about* the phenomena, but in most cases the equations are intractable and a simulation is miserably inefficient at getting the specifics right. A small molecule can assemble itself in picoseconds without mathematics, but a simulation takes a huge supercomputer run. If you'd like to simulate something bigger, you'll find that simulation scales very badly.

Comment Re:Light Sail (Score 1) 46

This is fascinating, but what I find even more interesting is why they couldn't use a similar technique to make the need for the attitude control wheels obsolete? It would require a spacecraft much different than Kepler, but would it not be possible to use sails to orient a similar craft no matter what area of the sky it wanted to point to?

The advantages are obvious, but there are disadvantages:

1. It doesn't work near the Earth, because atmospheric drag, magnetic torque, and gravity gradient torque are all considerably larger than radiation pressure.

2. The forces are tiny, so your spacecraft won't be very agile. If you need to reorient to change targets or point an antenna at Earth to send your downlink, it'll take awhile.

3. While as an exercise in applied physics radiation pressure may be the simplest attitude control method, it doesn't fit NASA's engineering approach, where teams of specialists make cautious, incremental changes to what their predecessors did. Here, there are few precedents, and the specialists usually don't understand them.

Note that we are not talking about the pressure of the solar wind. That's much smaller that the pressure of solar radiation.

Submission + - GE Canada struggling to find PDP-11 programmers for its nuclear control systems 5

AmiMoJo writes: A representative from GE Canada has posted a job offer to the Vintage Computer forum for a PDP-11 assembly language programmer. Apparently the original job posting failed to turn up any qualified candidates to support the nuclear industry's existing robotic control systems, which they say they are committed to running until 2050. If they are having trouble finding anyone now one wonders how hard it will be in 37 years time.

Comment Re:Unreasonable expectations (Score 1) 226

It is precisely because of the arrogance your are displaying that nobody in their right mind (and left hemisphere) would hire a physicists. There are as smart engineering students as "smart physics students".

I never said that engineers weren't smart. The focus of engineering education has both advantages and disadvantages. Often. the best results come from teamwork between physicists and engineers. Physicists tend not to be so good at the messy practicalities.

Comment Unreasonable expectations (Score 3, Informative) 226

Young people should not go into physics expecting to become tenured professors. It might happen, but it's unlikely. And besides, why would you want to? Because your professor thinks you should aspire to it? It's actually not that great a job.

However. physics is still a great field of study because you can take it so many places. You can do engineering that engineers can't do because while they know the shortcuts while you know the fundamentals. I know a number of physicists who work in medical imaging, for example. The best RF engineer I know has a physics degree. A physicist needs great math skills, and unlike mathematicians, needs to be able to apply them in the real world. A smart physics student will take some classes outside of physics, and make mental connections between fields. If you're at a university, you should exploit the situation (and avoid being exploited).

Comment Re:More false history (Score 1) 206

Well, let's not be so impolite. Nevertheless, I agree that Galileo was strongly driven by his desire to win whatever debate he was involved in. This was a serious character flaw, and a big problem in his dealings with the Inquisition. They allowed him the out of saying that the Earth's motion was merely a convenient hypothesis. That would have been consistent with his argument that the Earth's motion was not detectable by its inhabitants because motion is relative. But he wouldn't take the next obvious step: if motion is relative, which objects you consider your fixed reference is arbitrary. He was certainly smart enough to see this, but his desire to win overtook his reasoning facilities, I think.

Comment Re:And again.. (Score 1) 123

So, if this new technology ever becomes practical, you'll see it in fast clocking cores where essentially every gate and flip flop is busy all of the time. The surrounding support circuits will still be silicon.

Heh, so the internal logic is running at 400GHZ, and the rest of the chip is running at 10GHZ? Is that even practical?

Yes. Clock speed mismatch in different parts of a system is common with current technology. Cores commonly clock faster than memories, and much faster than many peripherals.

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?

Working...