SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Spotted at Andrew Plotkin's blog is an interesting article on the two word control panel in the original Apollo Guidance Computer, which talks about the use of "VERB" and "NOUN" controls on the original instrument panel.
This then links to a Discover Magazine Article How Verbs and Nouns Got Apollo to the Moon, which describes how the Apollo astronauts interacted with the guidance computer by:
[...] entering Noun-Verb combination commands in lieu of a string of written words. To keep it simple, the commands were written out in short hand. For example, V37N31E stood for Verb 37 Noun 31 and Enter to get the program running.
[...] It might not seem like it, but the Noun-Verb arrangement and verbiage comes from the fact that the computer engineers who built and used the Apollo guidance computer were also inventing it as they went along. They didn't have backgrounds in computer engineering because the field didn't exist then as it does today. But they all spoke English, so carrying over the same language structure simplified things for everyone. It's a perfect example of the brilliant simplicity that went into so much engineering of the Apollo era.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday September 05 2017, @04:37PM
I understood perfectly. That's not billowing. Billowing looks like this [youtube.com].
But there must be one if the moon landings were faked. You can't believe the Moon landings were hoaxed without believeing there was a conspiracy to do so.
I haven't personally attacked you at all. I merely outlined what I would honestly expect to happen.
I haven't said that word once in this discussion, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up as if I have.
What use would a telescope have been for exploring the Moon/scoring Cold War points, which is what they were there to do?
If NASA had wanted a telescope in space they would have and could have just sent one up to LEO for a fraction of the cost. Whatever time was spent doing science on the Moon should be spent doing Moon science. That's just common sense.
When I said "citation needed" earlier it was a pithy way of saying "what image?" So... what image?
He's likely inferring too much from a low quality video, but forgive me if I don't take the time to read and understand the entire paper (have you done so? Could you repeat the process?). There's no way you can accurately measure the angular width of the vehicle for more than a few seconds of that footage, for a start. More info here [braeunig.us], particularly the last section, last sentence notwithstanding.
The main problem is that I haven't got time to start trying to work out exactly what particular piece of evidence you're talking about when you briefly mention one thing or another. I can't read your mind.
What doctored photographs, for instance? I mean, which ones specifically? I can hardly argue the point if I don't know which photo(s) you're talking about.
I've been perfectly civilized. I didn't call you deluded.
And why are you acting like I should be grateful that you've deigned to engage with me? You're just some guy behind a keyboard, same as me.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk