Preserving Radio Silence At the Square Kilometer Array 27
johnslater writes: The Guardian has a story on the radio silence requirements at the Square Kilometer Array in Australia. The RF requirements for the SKA are far more stringent than at the US National Radio Quiet Zone at Greenbank, to such an extent that the specialized supercomputers to control the array have specially shielded data centers, and the as-yet-unbuilt supercomputer to process the data will be located hundreds of miles away in Perth. To quote Dr John Morgan in the article: "You can guarantee that the thing that SKA will be remembered for ... is going to be the thing you have not thought of. It's the unknown unknown."
FYI radio astronomers: Beware dodgy microwave oven (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:FYI radio astronomers: Beware dodgy microwave o (Score:5, Interesting)
I've met a couple of the chaps working on the South African SKA site, very interesting characters to say the least.
One of the things that stuck in my mind was how sensitve the receivers are, if they unpack them and a cell phone is on in the direction of the receiver horn, they'll blow the circuits instantly.
They also have controlled perimeters where phones are locked away and even airplane transponders are switched off before they cross the perimeter. Ridiculously sensitive stuff.
Moore interestingly (Score:4, Informative)
since a supercomputer does not presently exist that can deal with the volume of data the SKA will produce.
The formula for human advancement: Christmas trees, spiders, cows, and eternal optimism.
Re:everything is known (Score:5, Insightful)
Please stop using the phrase or variants of the phrase "unknown unknowns", such a phrase so to speak lack poignancy, coherence and it doesn't have any resemblence of meaning. The very notion of unknown unknowns is ultimately something purely idiotic and thus isn't useful as knowledge. Also, the idiotic potential isn't even on par with phenomenology or anything philosophical to my knowledge, the phrase is so to speak similar to Sokrates' saying that "I know that I know nothing".
Stop this idiocy please and stop using the phrase "unknown unknowns".
Much simpler to say "you don't know what you don't know", right? That Socrates was a bit over-rated, don't you think?
Re: (Score:1)
I would argue that a phrase like "unknown unknowns" are based on pure ignorance. A phrase like "I know that I know nothing" hints at being an 'agnostic' (doubting true knowledge), while "unknown unknowns" as idiotic ignorance is likely prone to sensationalistic ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
Dear coward
I would argue that a phrase like "unknown unknowns" are based on pure ignorance.
You would argue. Yes you would. It's to be expected. It's not rational, or helpful, but you would. It's what tossers do, argue purely for the sake of argument.
A phrase like "I know that I know nothing" hints at being an 'agnostic' (doubting true knowledge),
Or an honest assessment of a knowledgeable person on their confidence in the degree and importance of what they know about a given subject. Don't you think?
while "unknown unknowns" as idiotic ignorance is likely prone to sensationalistic ideas.
That is a patently idiotic display of sensational ignorance.
You should stop preening now - your sister needs the mirror and you look stupid standing there with your dick in your hand.
Re: (Score:2)
"That Socrates was a bit over-rated, don't you think?"
I drank what?
Re: (Score:2)
"That Socrates was a bit over-rated, don't you think?"
I drank what?
[smile] Did you know he had a choice? Do you know what the other option was?
Users of linux take note - those daemons may be the death of you.
Re:Unknown unknowns bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
Please stop using the phrase or variants of the phrase "unknown unknowns", such a phrase so to speak lack poignancy, coherence and it doesn't have any resemblence of meaning. The very notion of unknown unknowns is ultimately something purely idiotic and thus isn't useful as knowledge.
I disagree with this notion.
I've often been asked to plan projects there there have been several known unknowns.
Typically this leads to a list of unknowns that has to be resolved before a meaningful plan can be realized. Apart from those there sometimes are unforeseen unknowns. Either because things that were considered known turned out to misinformation or simply because the customer had needs that they forgot to tell us.
This naturally leads to a report of previously unknown unknowns.
While it can be argued that it isn't useful knowledge it is needed to have an expression for those occurrences to inform investors why the old project plan doesn't work and a new one has to be made.
"Unknown unknowns" might be a vague expression, but without suggesting a better one to distinguish it from known unknowns it is a bit rude to call it idiocy.
Re: (Score:2)
Apart from those there sometimes are unforeseen unknowns. Either because things that were considered known turned out to misinformation or simply because the customer had needs that they forgot to tell us.
It gets even better. In project management terms we also actually try and quantify the "unknown unknowns", not just the "known unknowns". Rather, at the outset we try to get a feel for the risk that things will crop up that we didn't or couldn't foresee or plan for. This is based on things like; Have we done something similar in the past? (i.e. our degree of experience) What is the state of knowledge in the world about this task? What's the state of science? How good have we been at dealing with unforeseen
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Donald Rumsfeld gave this speech about "unknown unknowns." It goes something like this: "There are things we know we know about terrorism. There are things we know we don't know. And there are things that are unknown unknowns. We don't know that we don't know." He got a lot of grief for that. And I thought, "That's the smartest and most modest thing I've heard in a year."
-- David Dunning, author of the Dunning-Kruger Effect
Re: (Score:2)
[...]I thought, "That's the smartest and most modest thing I've heard in a year."
Agreed. He attributes the phrase to William Graham (NASA) in his memoir. Kirke Borne (NASA, Big Data) says [youtube.com] he said it Homeland Security. Likely both version are true. Likely also that it's derived from Nassim Nicholas Taleb's Black Swan theory [wikipedia.org].
Crackpots ? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and why should they keep the "non-RF" people out ?
Re: (Score:2)
just no RF computers (Score:2)
Sounds like an ideal site for all-optical computing.
No, I'm not serious -- there's no chance of designing a completely electron-free system of a computer, memory, keyboard, and display. (at least not yet...)
But really -- it's not hard to build Farday-cage-style workrooms. It's things like RF LED light controllers, RFID door / ID badge systems, and all the other little things (OnStar) that nobody thinks about.
Re: (Score:2)
Ideal place for a medical trial (Score:2)
We need to study the incidence of all morbidity (disease) in the population of Green Bank over a long period of time. This would establish a once-and-for-all data baseline in a "radio-free" population for comparison against populations exposed to various forms of radio waves.