The Starliner does not use a pure (or even rich) oxygen atmosphere. It uses "cabin pressure of 96.5 kPa (14.0 psia) to 102.7 kPa (14.9 psia), ppO2 of 19.4 kPa (2.82 psia) to 22.7 kPa (3.30 psia), ppCO2 not to exceed 4 mmHg" in accordance with "ISS Crew Transportation and Services Requirements Document The ISS Crew Transportation and Services Requirements Document (CCT-REQ-1130)". CTS craft have fo conform to the ISS atmosphere composition, which is earth-normal (sea level) pressure and oxygen/nitrogen mix.

In other words, "cloud" company uses another "cloud" company to host its code and between the two of 'em couldn't keep the data out of unauthorized hands.

Gee, if only the "cloud" security company had setup an internal/self-hosted/on-prem code versioning repository and protected access to it with their own products/services (which they claim are super secure and the bees-knees), instead of hosting it with another "cloud" company...

Yeeeeah... no sympathy here.

The universe in which people have differing opinions and are free to express them.

Fuck you, Microsoft.

I used to be excited for a new version of Windows to roll out. Sure there'd be bugs and minor annoyances, but those I could live with.

These days? I couldn't give two craps about whatever shit like this adds to your bottom line. All I know is I fear every new version of your OS, instead of welcoming it. OSes aren't supposed to make people fearful. And that's the impact to *my* bottom line.

Make your money somewhere else. Anywhere else. Anywhere I can avoid. Stop turning your base OS into a fucking scene out of every animated-ad-ridden future semi-distopian sci-fi movie ever made.

Those who are panicing are displaying a lack of adherance to the true principles of science.

TBBT's always been exactly that... a theory. Until proven sufficiently, it remains merely a theory. So this new data will either refine the theory, or the theory will prove so entirely broken it'll be thrown out and a new theory will take its place.

Nobody panic, everybody carry on.

Warp speed, Mrs. Nichols

I'm guessing the following is where it was meant to go, not some random youtube video?

https://www.fsf.org/blogs/sysa...

... to further its own earnings, and influence over the lives of millions/billions of people, complains when someone else gathers as much data as they can about the company.

Now that's comedy.

I'm tired of software vendors removing functionality and configurability for the sake of protecting uninformed and/or lazy end users.

If they want to add safer functionality, fine. If they want to set the defaults so that the lusers are protected from themselves, fine.

Do not, Do NOT, DO NOT take away the choice to use functionality that might not be good for uninformed end users, from the informed end user. Want to make it take some effort "like are you sure, are you REALLY SURE?", fine, but don't lock informed users out completely. OS vendors, always give me the option to use passwords if I want to. Browser vendors, always give me the option to bypass certificate issues if I want to.

Of course, my rant above won't have any effect at all if the vendors are themselves lazy (don't want to support "old" functionality in their codebases so rip it out), and if the vendors don't think that the software should be working for the end users, as opposed to the other way around.

I picked a heck of a few years to quit sniffing glue...

Change in and of itself is neither good nor bad. It's the impact of that change, positive or negative, that cause folk to speak of "good/bad" change.

Others in this thread, and in the past, have spoke about change designed to "sell"... "look, this is new and improved!" Well, marketing aside, new, yes, but improved? More often than not, more'n just a few people disagree that the change is an improvement. You're never going to be able to please 100% of your audience or customer base, but if you can keep most of 'em happy, you're doing allright. I don't think the tech companies are... and they're forcing their (re)designs on their user base. Being forced to live with a crappy product because you have no other option (vendor lockin, E/E/E, etc) rankles most folk.

For me, the biggest thing I loathe about the MS-change-parade is that they keep messing with the gorram start menu. Old Win10 LTS build? Button X is up there. New Win10 LTS build? Button X is now over there. Win server? Button X went that-a-way, padnuh.

I like to operate on muscle memory. For the first few clicks interacting with the start menu, I want my user logoff, control panel, and windows explorer icons in the same spot. As I drill down into the menu, of course I might expect things to change (as programs are added/removed, etc).

I like to keep my memory sharp by, y'know, using it. I want to be able to remember where a particular program is (or where I moved it to in a way that made sense to me). Sure, it's nice to have a search function to go find a not-oft used program or file, but I don't want to have to depend on that for day to day stuff, and that's the way MS and others are heading because they're following Google's lead (right off the cliff, perhaps...)

IMO, Microsoft was lazy, trying to make a one-size-fits-all GUI that served desktops, tablets, phones, etc, and they failed in this endeavor, and made everything sub-optimal across all platforms.

If MS came up with a Windows desktop that went back to the look of Windows 2000/NT, clean, no frills, back to the old start menu, everything in one control panel - I would kiss them on the feet, even if I had to play whack-a-mole with telemetry blocking on a regular basis. But, they're too far gone down the road for anybody except a risk-taker with an exceptional set of balls to turn 'em back. Not holding my breath on that one...

I'll leave bitching and moaning about the UX/UI industry and its failings in general for another day.

The treadmills (and other excercise equipment, like the ergometers and the resistive excercise machines) are to varying degrees isolated from the ISS structure foremost because the ISS is a micro-gravity research facility. Since the crew must excercise regularly, and they do not all do so at once (equipment availability, task scheduling, etc), if the equipment was not isolated there would be a significant portion of each day when micro-gravity experiments could not be performed, as their environment would be disrupted by the transient accelerations associated with excercise equipment use. This would somewhat defeat the idea of having the station in the first place.

A structure being rotated in free space (essentially in an environment with no significant outside accellerations being applied) at a constant rate does not experience resonance due to said rotation. Resonance results from a periodically applied force (i.e. accelleration), whereas the constant rate rotation produces a constant force.

In my experience, wide configuration of "proper" rDNS for IPv6 addresses in use seems lacking.This makes some e-mail checks (forward/reverse/IP/HELO) not work, and that's my primary area of interest/concern, as such checks are, from my perspective, a must when it comes to combatting spam these days.

i see this issue as an impedement to full, IPv6-only transition for many e-mail server operators.

Apparently not...

This does not appear to be the first time that the ISS has lost attitude control:

https://archive.org/details/NA...

I read a lot of folk here and elsewhere bagging on Nauka in particular and the Russian space program in general. And it's not to say that the module's age or the state of Roscosmos aren't contributing factors. But...

I'd hazard a guess that this was not a stuck-thruster scenario, but a case of the separate GNC in Nauka thinking it was still free-flying, and thinking it wasn't in the attitude it was supposed to be in, and trying to correct it. I'd also like to point out that this is essentially what happened with the first Starliner flight - a US-made, brand new bit of spacecraft kit. If it can happen to that, it can happen to anything.

It's my understanding that at the time of the issue, although Nauka was hard-docked, there were no hard-wired data/control connections between the vehicles. So, I would hazard another guess that the only direct communication between Nauka and the rest of the ISS, if any, was by way of RF links. And, I would also guess that the combined USOS/ROS ISS GNC systems may not be equipped to issue guidance commands to a docked craft that is not hard-wired into the command network.

Either way... I'm glad they got the situation under control, and nobody was hurt. And I'm sure there's lots of smart people checking the health of the station, and working to make sure this doesn't happen again.

ISS management did retain the Pirs for several days past the originally scheduled departure due to the issues with Nauka. The fact that they proceeded with the undocking would suggest that they feel the issues with Nauka are sufficiently resolved to allow for a safe docking with the ISS (at which point, the Nauka engines would probably not be used again due to the off-axis docking arrangement for this module). There are also probably constraints on having both modules free-floating within close proximity to the ISS.

But, let's assume that something did prevent Nauka from ever docking, and look at what basic capacity/capability was lost with the absence of Pirs:

• Reduction in habitable volume in the ROS of 13 cubic meters (out of a total ISS habitable volume of 915 cubic meters - so about 1.5%)
• Reduction of airlocks in the ROS from 2 to 1 (the Poisk, virtually identical to Pirs, and docked opposite it, can also serve as an airlock) and the overall ISS from 3 to 2

The docking port that was occupied by Pirs can be used directly by Soyuz/Progress craft (and was in the early history of the station), so no trouble there. And there would be a reduction in exterior surface area to mount equipment, but all the items on the exterior of Pirs that needed to be retained had already been temporarily or permanently relocated.

Sure, there's risks, but they appear low given the above. The loss of capacity/capability with the removal of Pirs is small, while the increase in capacity/capability with the addition of Nauka is significant.

Also keep in mind that Nauka can operate independently while on-orbit for some time. If the initial docking attempt failed or was called off, another could be attempted once further troubleshooting/diagnostics occured. They can also park the Nauka in a coelliptic orbit several KM in front or behind the station, to possibly allow the ISS to act as a relay (as Russia does not, to the best of my knowledge, have an equivalent to the full-orbit TDRS coverage that NASA does, thus relying on ground stations which do not cover the entire orbit), or at least allow the ISS crew to manually relay commands/data to/from the Nauka.