Hacking group says it has 9/11 legal documents that will 'burn down deep state'

[Replies From View]

You should have seen the car my grandad had in the sixties, it was archaic to what we have now, and he always got to where ever he wanted to get to...wait...what?

Could he use it to get to where we go now, though - specifically locations as they are in January 2019?

No he couldn't - instead he could only travel to places as they were in the 1960s.


The point is that your granddad's car was all well and good, but is it still all well and good?  I very much doubt it, teleologically speaking.

[phantom_power]

How important is computer power to the actual difficulties of going to the moon anyway? It doesn't take much processor power or storage space to plan and execute a flight plan. A lot of it is down to accuracy and calibration of instruments I would have thought, along with physical considerations such as the construction of the transportation and the stresses and strains on the astronauts, physically and mentally. Weren't computers with a similarly crude level of processing used for air traffic control and other complex tasks in the 60s?

[Talulah, really!]

10 LOOK UP
20 IS IT NIGHT? IF YES THEN GOTO 30 ELSE GOTO 10
30 SEE BIG ROUND THING IN SKY? IF YES THEN GOTO 40 ELSE GOTO 10
40 GOTO MOON

[Replies From View]

I never knew about the ELSE command.  Bloody hell.

[Dex Sawash]

10 LOOK AROUND YOU

20 IS IT NIGHT? IF YES THEN GOTO 30 ELSE GOTO 10
30 SEE BIG ROUND THING IN SKY? IF YES THEN GOTO 40 ELSE GOTO 10
40 GOTO MOON

Ftfy

[Paul Calf]

edit:can't be arsed to make it work.

[marquis_de_sad]

The ones they didn't destroy, that is.

I like the way you keep mentioning this as if it's sinister. This being a comedy forum, I think many of us will be familiar with the idea that tapes get wiped. Or as you and Morbo would put it, destroyed.

[buzby]

How important is computer power to the actual difficulties of going to the moon anyway? It doesn't take much processor power or storage space to plan and execute a flight plan. A lot of it is down to accuracy and calibration of instruments I would have thought, along with physical considerations such as the construction of the transportation and the stresses and strains on the astronauts, physically and mentally. Weren't computers with a similarly crude level of processing used for air traffic control and other complex tasks in the 60s?

The Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) had a 16-bit processor (built from 4100 NOR gates in ICs containing 1 or 3 gates) running at 1MHz and had 4kwords (8kb) of RAM and 32kwords (64kb) of ROM, with both being implemented in magnetic rope core memory. One of the first examples of a mutitasking Real Time OS was developed to run the navigation software. That software was basically an autopilot and it used both inertial and celestial navigation sensors to maintain it's course (the AGC used in the Lunar Module also used RADAR to track the position of the Command Module during descent and ascent). However, for most of the mission the position was regularly updated using coordinates supplied to the crew by Mission Control based on position data derived from NASA's deep space tracking network, which was more accurate than the data computed by the AGC from it's sensors.

The AGC was extremely advanced for it's day, particualrly in terms of packaging and the software it ran, but the IBM 9020 mainframe clusters used in the FAA's ATC system (which started to be rolled out in 1965) were much more powerful, with each ATC centre being equipped with a cluster of up to 12 System/360 Model 50s (Which had 32-bit processors, 512kb of magnetic core RAM, hard disks and tape drives).

After the Apollo flights ceased, a spare AGC was adapted by NASA to develop the world's first digital Fly-By-Wire flight control system for an aircraft, fitted into an experimental Vought F-8 Crusader. Another was modified for use in the US Navy's DSRV-1 rescue submersible.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

Can you join my quiz team?

[BlodwynPig]

The Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) had a 16-bit processor (built from 4100 NOR gates in ICs containing 1 or 3 gates) running at 1MHz and had 4kwords (8kb) of RAM and 32kwords (64kb) of ROM, with both being implemented in magnetic rope core memory. One of the first examples of a mutitasking Real Time OS was developed to run the navigation software. That software was basically an autopilot and it used both inertial and celestial navigation sensors to maintain it's course (the AGC used in the Lunar Module also used RADAR to track the position of the Command Module during descent and ascent). However, for most of the mission the position was regularly updated using coordinates supplied to the crew by Mission Control based on position data derived from NASA's deep space tracking network, which was more accurate than the data computed by the AGC from it's sensors.

The AGC was extremely advanced for it's day, particualrly in terms of packaging and the software it ran, but the IBM 9020 mainframe clusters used in the FAA's ATC system (which started to be rolled out in 1965) were much more powerful, with each ATC centre being equipped with a cluster of up to 12 System/360 Model 50s (Which had 32-bit processors, 512kb of magnetic core RAM, hard disks and tape drives).

After the Apollo flights ceased, a spare AGC was adapted by NASA to develop the world's first digital Fly-By-Wire flight control system for an aircraft, fitted into an experimental Vought F-8 Crusader. Another was modified for use in the US Navy's DSRV-1 rescue submersible.

Top of the head? or did you look this up. Astounding.

[buzby]

Top of the head? or did you look this up. Astounding.

Had to check the RAM and ROM sizes for the AGC, and the number of System/360s in an ATC cluster. There were two AGC production blocks and the first block (which never flew on a manned mission) only had half the memory.

[Johnny Yesno]

How important is computer power to the actual difficulties of going to the moon anyway? It doesn't take much processor power or storage space to plan and execute a flight plan. A lot of it is down to accuracy and calibration of instruments I would have thought, along with physical considerations such as the construction of the transportation and the stresses and strains on the astronauts, physically and mentally. Weren't computers with a similarly crude level of processing used for air traffic control and other complex tasks in the 60s?

The Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) had a 16-bit processor (built from 4100 NOR gates in ICs containing 1 or 3 gates) running at 1MHz and had 4kwords (8kb) of RAM and 32kwords (64kb) of ROM, with both being implemented in magnetic rope core memory. One of the first examples of a mutitasking Real Time OS was developed to run the navigation software. That software was basically an autopilot and it used both inertial and celestial navigation sensors to maintain it's course (the AGC used in the Lunar Module also used RADAR to track the position of the Command Module during descent and ascent). However, for most of the mission the position was regularly updated using coordinates supplied to the crew by Mission Control based on position data derived from NASA's deep space tracking network, which was more accurate than the data computed by the AGC from it's sensors.

The AGC was extremely advanced for it's day, particualrly in terms of packaging and the software it ran, but the IBM 9020 mainframe clusters used in the FAA's ATC system (which started to be rolled out in 1965) were much more powerful, with each ATC centre being equipped with a cluster of up to 12 System/360 Model 50s (Which had 32-bit processors, 512kb of magnetic core RAM, hard disks and tape drives).

After the Apollo flights ceased, a spare AGC was adapted by NASA to develop the world's first digital Fly-By-Wire flight control system for an aircraft, fitted into an experimental Vought F-8 Crusader. Another was modified for use in the US Navy's DSRV-1 rescue submersible.

Hey! Crisps? was about to tell us all this but you had to jump in there first and show off, didn't you? I hope pissing on his chips has made you happy.

[phantom_power]

Added to that is the fact that technologies are built on top of each other so no that anything to do with the moon landings is hopelessly obsolete you pretty much have to start from scratch. You can also factor in increases in health and safety legislation, smaller drive from above to actually achieve something that has already been done and loads of other factors.

All in all it is slightly unusual rather than utterly remarkable that no-one has been back

[Talulah, really!]

edit:can't be arsed to make it work.

....said every Brexiteer ever.



                                                                                     Satire!!!!

[mothman]

Scrolling past, sees

... deep state tracking network...

AHA! Now it's all coming out! Goes back to read again

... NASA's deep space tracking network...

Aww.

[Johnny Yesno]

Added to that is the fact that technologies are built on top of each other so no that anything to do with the moon landings is hopelessly obsolete you pretty much have to start from scratch. You can also factor in increases in health and safety legislation, smaller drive from above to actually achieve something that has already been done and loads of other factors.

All in all it is slightly unusual rather than utterly remarkable that no-one has been back

Also, I heard that critical systems are still kept deliberately low tech because you can be sure that anything that uses more than 10,000 lines of code will definitely contain bugs.

[LanceUppercut]

Flight 93's ATC radar altitude track shows it climbing to it's cruise altitude of 35000 feet, before climbing to 41000 feet once the hijackers took control followed by a series of three steep dives. It never flew at low level.:


My point is you wouldn't send a Predator drone to shoot down an airliner as apart from it needing to be in exactly the right place at the right time (which is pretty difficult given how slow Predators fly) the chances of a successful shootdown against an airliner are less than 50% with small IR-guided missiles like a Sitinger (which was designed to shoot down slow-moving low flying low-IR targets like helicopters, or fast-moving low flying high-IR targets like ground attack aircraft). You would send a fighter armed with real air-to-air missiles like an AIM-9X Sidewinder or AIM-120 AMRAAM.

In regards  to what the woman in the video says, a Predator has a wingspan of 50-55 feet, which is a lot bigger than her people carrier. The Air-to-Surface missile they try to say it was in the video is the AGM-158 JASSM. The problem with that supposition is that it didn't exist. Production of the prototypes began in December 2001 to begin testing the following year, but repeated launch test failures delayed the completion of the development programme until April 2003. Even then, it wasn;t reliable enough to enter service, so a further improvement programme was required, but that was delayed until 2008 to save money and it only entered into operational service in 2009.

Thanks for that pal, learn something new every day.

I guess it's one of those things we may never find out what really happened without 100% proof. Just seems too coincidental for so much weird and shady stuff to happen(Building 7 just collapsing as one example) in one day.

The link below goes over flight 93's timeline but again that seems to open up more questions than answers!

I honestly don't know what to believe, but since I got interested in the possible conspiracy theories something just seems off about the whole thing.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/unanswered-questions-the-mystery-of-flight-93-173206.html

[Sebastian Cobb]

[BlodwynPig]

Anyone who is interested in conspiracy theory accompanied by brilliant ambient/IDM sounds, The Black Dog have a series of Conspiracy Tapes (1-8 so far, including Flat Earthers, Dawkins (Darth Dawkins), Vaccination, and Brian Harvey/Dolphin Square) - name your price on their bandcamp page.

[buzby]

Also, I heard that critical systems are still kept deliberately low tech because you can be sure that anything that uses more than 10,000 lines of code will definitely contain bugs.

Legacy critical systems are usually kept in service because it's too expensive to go back and reimplement and more importantly test a replacement from scratch. For example, System X telephone exchanges are based on hardware ranging from the late 70s to the late 90s, with close to 1000 different hardware boards that can be found in an exchange. There are about 5 million lines of code that run across that hardware, and t took about 5000 people across 3 companies to develop and test it it to it's full capability over a period of 20 years (though it's still having new features and hardware developed for it now). Most of that was paid for by the government under a 'cost plus' development contract (at least until BT was privatised).

Introducing a replacement for one old board or making major changes to the code in one software subsystem can have knock on effects throughout the whole system, so testing for as many combinations and eventualities as is feasible is vital, and often actually accounts for more of the final cost than the actual software or hardware development. Luckily for me it also means the customers put off switching their networks over to newer systems as they are nowhere near as capable or reliable as the legacy system, as they have been developed and tested using less rigorous modern methods and no private company can afford to test their product as thoroughly as something that was paid for under a government contract.

The navigation, guidance and flight control system in the Space Shuttle was another example. It used 5 AP-101B military -grade ruggedised computers whose design was derived from the IBM System/360 mainfraime architecture from the 1960s (the AP-101 was originally developed to implement the Fly-By-Wire system for the F-15 fighter following the success of NASA's prototype system using the Apollo Guidance Computer). It wasn't until the 1990s that NASA upgraded the Shuttles to use the AP-101S version, which had semiconductor memory instead of magnetic core storage. The AP-101 is still in use in the F-15, B-1B, B52, E3 Sentry and other applications because the cost of testing and recertifying any more modern replacement or re-implementation of the system is too high.

The usual rule for designing any electronics for a military application is that it has to use components that have been flight certified (i.e. reliability tested to MIL standards) by the manufacturer and they have to be available for spares for at least 30 years. The F22 Raptor, the USAF's top-of-the-line fighter, has avionics computers based on the Intel I960MX embedded processor that was introduced in 1984 and ceased production in January 2004 (though they were obsolete on the civilian market long before that). The USAF had to make a 'last time buy' of 820 CPUs from Intel in November 2003 to support future F22 spares requirements, and an estimate for eventually replacing the computers with newer systems based on those developed for the F35 and upgrading the F16 was estimated at $300-500 million.

[Crisps?]

All in all it is slightly unusual rather than utterly remarkable that no-one has been back

Question for all the sheeplez, government shills  and paid NASA trolls of Cook'd and Bomb'd:

How many decades of nobody being able to put someone on the Moon would have to elapse since 1969 before you started to think they might have indeed faked it?

Nobody is even talking about doing it for at least another ten years, 60 years since the first time, and they'll end up cancelling and postponing, as usual. If nobody (else) had set foot on the Moon by, say, 2030 would anyone who now fully believes it start to question it?

[garnish]

Question for all the sheeplez, government shills  and paid NASA trolls of Cook'd and Bomb'd:

How many decades of nobody being able to put someone on the Moon would have to elapse since 1969 before you started to think they might have indeed faked it?

Nobody is even talking about doing it for at least another ten years, 60 years since the first time, and they'll end up cancelling and postponing, as usual. If nobody (else) had set foot on the Moon by, say, 2030 would anyone who now fully believes it start to question it?

TTHEYRE MAKING FOOOLS OF US

[Mr_Simnock]

Nobody is even talking about doing it for at least another ten years, 60 years since the first time, and they'll end up cancelling and postponing, as usual. If nobody (else) had set foot on the Moon by, say, 2030 would anyone who now fully believes it start to question it?

the idea that something isn't possible because it hasn't been repeated for a given length of time is interesting (I'm being kind) to say the least

[garnish]

Wait till he hears about the Renaissance

[Johnny Yesno]

Legacy critical systems are usually kept in service because it's too expensive to go back and reimplement and more importantly test a replacement from scratch. For example, System X telephone exchanges are based on hardware ranging from the late 70s to the late 90s, with close to 1000 different hardware boards that can be found in an exchange. There are about 5 million lines of code that run across that hardware, and t took about 5000 people across 3 companies to develop and test it it to it's full capability over a period of 20 years (though it's still having new features and hardware developed for it now). Most of that was paid for by the government under a 'cost plus' development contract (at least until BT was privatised).

Introducing a replacement for one old board or making major changes to the code in one software subsystem can have knock on effects throughout the whole system, so testing for as many combinations and eventualities as is feasible is vital, and often actually accounts for more of the final cost than the actual software or hardware development. Luckily for me it also means the customers put off switching their networks over to newer systems as they are nowhere near as capable or reliable as the legacy system, as they have been developed and tested using less rigorous modern methods and no private company can afford to test their product as thoroughly as something that was paid for under a government contract.

The navigation, guidance and flight control system in the Space Shuttle was another example. It used 5 AP-101B military -grade ruggedised computers whose design was derived from the IBM System/360 mainfraime architecture from the 1960s (the AP-101 was originally developed to implement the Fly-By-Wire system for the F-15 fighter following the success of NASA's prototype system using the Apollo Guidance Computer). It wasn't until the 1990s that NASA upgraded the Shuttles to use the AP-101S version, which had semiconductor memory instead of magnetic core storage. The AP-101 is still in use in the F-15, B-1B, B52, E3 Sentry and other applications because the cost of testing and recertifying any more modern replacement or re-implementation of the system is too high.

The usual rule for designing any electronics for a military application is that it has to use components that have been flight certified (i.e. reliability tested to MIL standards) by the manufacturer and they have to be available for spares for at least 30 years. The F22 Raptor, the USAF's top-of-the-line fighter, has avionics computers based on the Intel I960MX embedded processor that was introduced in 1984 and ceased production in January 2004 (though they were obsolete on the civilian market long before that). The USAF had to make a 'last time buy' of 820 CPUs from Intel in November 2003 to support future F22 spares requirements, and an estimate for eventually replacing the computers with newer systems based on those developed for the F35 and upgrading the F16 was estimated at $300-500 million.

Thanks Buzby. That's really informative. I (vaguely) knew the Space Shuttle uses really old computing gear. Isn't the same true for power stations?

[MojoJojo]

How many decades of nobody being able to put someone on the Moon would have to elapse since 1969 before you started to think they might have indeed faked it?

There is no number of years. It's an unrelated data point. You might as well ask how many images of jesus appearing in toast will it take to convince me the moon landings were fake.

What exactly is the logic that goes from "they haven't gone back" to "they never went there"?

[Buelligan]

Also, why does it matter?

Governments lie to us - we know this already.
Waste of public funds possibly used for nefarious purposes - we know this already.
Not a giant leap for mankind - we got fucking teflon, what more do you want?

At least they didn't kill a dog or wear a misogynistic shirt.

[Shit Good Nose]

Question for all the sheeplez, government shills  and paid NASA trolls of Cook'd and Bomb'd:

How many decades of nobody being able to put someone on the Moon would have to elapse since 1969 before you started to think they might have indeed faked it?

Nobody is even talking about doing it for at least another ten years, 60 years since the first time, and they'll end up cancelling and postponing, as usual. If nobody (else) had set foot on the Moon by, say, 2030 would anyone who now fully believes it start to question it?

No, fuck that - why don't YOU tell us what it will take to convince you that we did?

I note you also completely ignored buzby's exhaustive commentary on the matter...

[Blumf]

Not a giant leap for mankind - we got fucking teflon, what more do you want?

Point of order! Teflon was discovered in the late 1930s. It's main big-government project use was in the Manhattan Project, protecting valves and that from uranium hexafluoride. Even the cooking pan use pre-dates NASA, with some French geezer creating the Tefal brand (TEFlon ALuminium).

[phantom_power]

Legacy critical systems are usually kept in service because it's too expensive to go back and reimplement and more importantly test a replacement from scratch. For example, System X telephone exchanges are based on hardware ranging from the late 70s to the late 90s, with close to 1000 different hardware boards that can be found in an exchange. There are about 5 million lines of code that run across that hardware, and t took about 5000 people across 3 companies to develop and test it it to it's full capability over a period of 20 years (though it's still having new features and hardware developed for it now). Most of that was paid for by the government under a 'cost plus' development contract (at least until BT was privatised).

Introducing a replacement for one old board or making major changes to the code in one software subsystem can have knock on effects throughout the whole system, so testing for as many combinations and eventualities as is feasible is vital, and often actually accounts for more of the final cost than the actual software or hardware development. Luckily for me it also means the customers put off switching their networks over to newer systems as they are nowhere near as capable or reliable as the legacy system, as they have been developed and tested using less rigorous modern methods and no private company can afford to test their product as thoroughly as something that was paid for under a government contract.

The navigation, guidance and flight control system in the Space Shuttle was another example. It used 5 AP-101B military -grade ruggedised computers whose design was derived from the IBM System/360 mainfraime architecture from the 1960s (the AP-101 was originally developed to implement the Fly-By-Wire system for the F-15 fighter following the success of NASA's prototype system using the Apollo Guidance Computer). It wasn't until the 1990s that NASA upgraded the Shuttles to use the AP-101S version, which had semiconductor memory instead of magnetic core storage. The AP-101 is still in use in the F-15, B-1B, B52, E3 Sentry and other applications because the cost of testing and recertifying any more modern replacement or re-implementation of the system is too high.

The usual rule for designing any electronics for a military application is that it has to use components that have been flight certified (i.e. reliability tested to MIL standards) by the manufacturer and they have to be available for spares for at least 30 years. The F22 Raptor, the USAF's top-of-the-line fighter, has avionics computers based on the Intel I960MX embedded processor that was introduced in 1984 and ceased production in January 2004 (though they were obsolete on the civilian market long before that). The USAF had to make a 'last time buy' of 820 CPUs from Intel in November 2003 to support future F22 spares requirements, and an estimate for eventually replacing the computers with newer systems based on those developed for the F35 and upgrading the F16 was estimated at $300-500 million.

Yeah I know from experience that certifying and making safety cases for safety-critical systems can have massive costs where new code/hardware is involved and as the cost+ system of contracting has become a thing of the past and everything has to be costed in advance there is no appetite for updating any of it, even if the actual engineering costs are pretty low