The second link in the story ("half of the traffic from Chrome browsers is using QUIC already") is broken - it's an empty <a> tag, with no href. Also means we can't workaround it, since we don't have any hints about the destination.
And frankly, if you had decent spam filters on your own personal domain, you probably wouldn't be seeing these emails anyway. I doubt anyone with a Gmail or Yahoo or Outlook.com address sees this stuff.
My suggestions? Quit worrying about it, and quit running your own mail server. You may think you know what you are doing, but you almost certainly don't.
Being aware of attempts to get past your security is a sign of incompetence?
From the Consumer Reports articles, they also mentioned the drop in projected range from the cold. However, they relayed the Tesla response that when the car is started, the warming battery should restore some of that range; in one of their test drives, they mentioned the projected mileage never went back up, but never went down either (went from 85m->50m overnight, then "remained steady for most of [the morning] 28-mile drive").
In fact, we should do that. Set up contribution funds seperate from taxes for certain programs that people would be able to contribute to at will. I'd contribute to NASA in a heartbeat. And give people a tax credit for doing so. You dont contribute, you pay taxes like normal, You do contribute, your final tax bill is reduced by say 5%, since your donation to a specific thing you feel strongly about will likely more than offset the credit.
The problem with that is it can be used to protest/starve programs, by donating to *anything* else and thereby lowering the 'normal' tax funding pool. While that's true of any donate-for-tax-credit system, this one would be much more direct, particularly since the donations are funding government programs and thus still factoring into the federal budget.
While you could argue that's "democracy in action", it seems more like the "majority mob rule", particularly when looking at rights- and aid-related programs.
Even with a craft docked to every module, they probably wouldn't stop having the crew shelter in docked vessel(s) capable of crew-return.
If you have the crew in arbitrary locations, then damage could isolate the crew from their lifeboats. If you require the crew to be adjacent to their lifeboat, damage to that module is still a large hazard, since you have to evacuate it post-failure. By sheltering in the lifeboats themselves, they become the only critical target - damage to anywhere aside from the Soyuz capsule, Soyuz orbital module, and the docking interface is 'fine' for crew safety, aside from secondary debris concerns.
Given the emphasis placed on crew safety, I'd think it'd take an awful lot to convince them to keep the crew outside of the lifeboats during a potential conjunction. The increased risk simply isn't a worthwhile tradeoff for the working time you'd reclaim.
The Dragon (or any other commercial-crew vehicle) would simply add another location to shelter in, and potentially remove the need to shelter in the capsule during some Russian spacewalks (which use the docking module as an airlock, causing crew to potentially be cut off from a Soyuz docked to the Russian segment were an emergency to occur).
The point is to raise awareness that many of them are people too, not just scum that get in your way. From the sound of it, you are the kind of person they're trying to raise awareness *in*.
And many (most?) shelters require homeless to leave during the day (excluding sufficiently harsh weather, where the homeless shelter often becomes a hypothermia/hyperthermia shelter during the day), necessitating they spend most of their time on the streets.
And when there is only one computer available for watching objectional meterial and it is in constant use? Hey, I know, why don't we set up "Free Speech Zones"?
Seriously, though, once you accept the principle of requiring the library patron to move to another computer, it can easily become a free speech issue. As other have pointed out, it might start with porn, but what about academic books on human anatomy? Who gets to decide what is objectionable?
When I worked at a library, the policy was that if someone was viewing porn in a central, high-traffic area, and we got a complaint, there were two basic options: ask the patron to move to a less visible computer (nothing special, simply for example use a computer a little further from the isle rather than the one facing the whole room) or ask the patron to have a shroud added to the kiosk (a standard option for anyone to reduce shouldersurfing - I never saw one actually used). The patron absolutely had the right to view the porn regardless of the complain, so our request to the patron was based on politeness and courtesy rather than a requirement or order - they could refuse it.
I was told it was very rare to have a complaint come up, however (I never had to deal with one personally, since I worked mostly in the Young Adult section, next to the Children's section, and our computers generally weren't the ones picked to view porn on anyway).
The electronics are not shot. The article is misleading. They do not brick it. They blacklist the IMEI
Unfortunately, "bricking" rarely means what it used to - now it generally seems to mean "unable to be used for (the speaker's) primary usage case" (usually a software-based broad denial of access to functionality) rather than the former meaning along the lines of "damage to hardware such that the device cannot function to any significant extent, and would require hardware component replacement/repair in order to regain that functionality".
Earth-bound Humans are currently better at many impomptu, lightweight manual tasks than Earth-bound robots -- but are they still better when encumbered in a 200-pound spacesuit, with gloves like oven mitts? I'd argue that a robot (either locally or remotely controlled) might be more agile than a human in that situation, if only because the robot doesn't need to be hermetically sealed into a life-support system that inhibits its movements.
The one counter example was the final Hubble servicing mission, where for a while there were plans to do it with a robot instead of astronauts (and hence why it had so many unusual, specialized, robot-like tools involved). In the actual mission, several parts did not go as planned, with the most extreme being the removal of a handle - it was supposed to be 4 simple screws, but they wound up having to physically flex-and-yank it to break it off. If it had been a robot, the question is if it could've exerted that much force on the object, since there were no planned tasks requiring something similar.
Essentially, humans bring with them a decent sized generic skills & capabilities toolbox, that you generally can't leave behind (presuming a sufficiently generalized spacesuit). Robots are unlikely to have capabilities outside the scope of their predicted mission (including that mission's contingency cases). That grants humans an extra degree of versatility.
The distinction is, this is a fusion reactor used to generate neutrons, not to be an electricity generator. It's the latter part that's such a difficult challenge.
I believe the distinction is damaged versus melted. They had thought only a limited portion of the rods was likely damaged, but found that a (smaller) portion was much more seriously damaged (melted). It doesn't actually directly comment on the accuracy of the 55% figure.
Also, given the other articles (such as The Japan Times linked below), the 5 ft. of melted rod appears to be circumstantial conjecture based on a likely prolonged period of being not being water-covered, rather than having a more concrete or direct basis. So the actual extent of the damage (worse or better) is still unclear.
the Leonardo Multipurpose Module built by the Italian Space Agency
The Italian Space Agency built most of the 'US' segments. I know they built Node 1 (Unity), Node 2 (Harmony), and Node 3 (Tranquility); I believe they built the US Lab (Destiny) as well. So while they did build the MPLM modules (including Leonardo), it's hardly their largest product on the station;)
(Italy built the US segments due to US budget cuts; in return for eating some of the cost, they gained infrastructure and expertise. One way that paid off was with Columbus, the European lab - the same number of storage/science racks as the Nodes, but smaller and lighter, so it cost the European Space Agency less of its bartered 'upmass' to send it to orbit, allowing them to send it with several of its racks pre-installed, unlike most other segments of the station which arrived empty)
With physics texts at least, they usually have an absurd amount of typos, primarily in the formulae and definitions of values - ie, the math parts. In most of the cases I've seen, new editions are primarily about trying to correct these typos, though they tend to only correct a small portion of them each time.
That's basically a scam. The law should be changed, or they should basically admit that 'anything goes' and the casino can always weasel out of any situation. (Maybe in big neon letters above the door).
The second link confirms that there still will be no LAN support - the 'offline' mode is for the single-player only. Any networked game, including on a LAN, has to go through Battle.net 2.
Isn't that probably part of the point? If you can't replay the (old) library you already have, you (might) be more likely to buy popular_new_game instead. Or at least, so I'm guessing the theory goes...
In my own undergraduate experience at least, students *did* cheat more in CS courses than in other classes, regardless of major. In part this was due to the different 'honor code' for the CS department than elsewhere (any form of collaboration whatsoever was cheating, unless otherwise specified by the professor), but it was also in the nature of the work. "Copying" someone else's homework in, say, physics or math, a student typically attempts to make their writeup distinct from the original, which involves reprocessing the math and requires some actual understanding of the techniques involved. As a result, they actually did gain some level of learning from the assignment, even if no where near as much as if they'd done it 'properly'. In CS, most people would go for a straight carbon-copy, resulting in zero learning.
To me, that's the largest distinction - the way in which students leech off each other in CS is different, and results in less learning; combined with more draconian cheating regulations (which, by making any collaboration cheating, encourage people to either work in solitude or go all-out on the cheating, rather than actually trying to work together), it leads to a much worse cheating problem.
This was my biggest frustration in college CS. We got zero feedback on our code - you got a numerical grade, and that was it, most of the time. Rarely, you got back a categorical breakdown of that number (the points for 'correctness', 'comments', etc), and only a handful of times in the entire major did I actually get back comments (usually a relatively useless one-liner, such as "good comments", or my favorite, "this is so almost wrong, but not"). Then, as since, I've relied on my highschool experience for external suggestions and feedback - my highschool CS teacher went through and marked up every assignment turned in, giving you huge amounts of feedback on your coding practices. College CS was a huge waste on that front, which was a major dissappointment.
A figured I'd better google some numbers. Wikipedia says $60 million or $1.3 billion per launch, depending on how you calculate it. Nasa says $450 million per launch. NASA's figure is more expensive than Soyuz for 6 astronauts. Wikipedia's low end figure is obviously a lot cheaper (and kind of hard to believe).
Part of the premise of the shuttle system was a very low per-launch cost, with a high cost-of-ownership, providing an economic way to support a very high launch rate. We've never even come close to the launch rate that this premise was based on, and thus been unable to reap the magnitude of savings it was intended to provide - instead, we've just been "stuck" with that high cost-of-ownership. But given that intent behind its design, an incremental launch cost of ~$60 million (which is what that Wikipedia number claimed to be - the cost to add/remove a launch, ignoring all cost-of-ownership factors) seems believable.
(the $1.3 billion number attempted to include the system's total cost, including design, construction, maintenance, facilities, etc, divided evenly across all missions flown, making it likely a more useful number)
Your scenario removes scarcity from the equation. While you can copy digital_file for nearly-free, the creator of digital_file still needs to buy food and other costly goods. Under your example, the *only* thing that costs time is development of initial copies - *everything* is copyable for free, which means that the creator of something does need to buy anything.
That's a fundamental shift, that makes your example unrelated to the case you're trying to prove.
A half-hour of half-hearted PE can make a surprising difference. I remember in highschool, PE was mandatory in 9th and 10th grades and only rarely taken electives (like weightlifting) for the 11th and 12th grades. I was truly surprised by the difference not having PE made in the way I felt overall. Not being a particularly sporty person, most of the activity on my own time was limited to long walks, so PE was the main source of "vigorous" activity. Even if it wasn't perfect, it still seemed to make an important difference, and ironically made its best educational point when it 'suddenly' went away.
I know this is a purely subjective account, but at the time it felt like the most likely culprit by far, given the details of how things felt (muscles, etc), how much of the rest of my lifestyle had stayed constant, and the way random exercise temporarily alleviated the new symptoms.
Then you'll wind up with a population of sneezing soldiers, with very few monks. So how do you design content for that game? If you design content to need a strong mix of soldiers and monks, it will be railed against as too hard (since there aren't monks to fill the monk aspects of the encounter) or it will be ignored. If you design content to be doable by a mostly- or all-soldier force, then you're just reenforcing the bias against monks, and so why bother including monks at all?
It comes down to questions of diversity, complexity, and time. Diversity in an MMO is usually seen as a good thing - a variety of classes or skills, a variety of roles, etc. Diversity also gives you more ways to do the same thing, adding potential for more variety and complexity to content. And arguably most importantly, there is the finite amount of development time - in a perfect world, there would be content designed for every concievable playstyle and group/raid makeup, but in the real world you can only design for a tiny fraction of that space. By (attempting to) create content that, in general, requires that diversity of skills/classes, you hit the broadest swath of players and encourage players to take advantage of the diversity.
But all these things require balance to be meaningful - if soldiers are superior to monks in most or all ways that most players find significant, then the player population will probably be heavily biased towards soldiers instead of monks, and there will be real trouble trying to create content that works for your population without destroying what little diversity you have.
Slashdot Mirror
Though the first link's article does mention the destination, https://blog.chromium.org/2015...
The second link in the story ("half of the traffic from Chrome browsers is using QUIC already") is broken - it's an empty <a> tag, with no href. Also means we can't workaround it, since we don't have any hints about the destination.
And frankly, if you had decent spam filters on your own personal domain, you probably wouldn't be seeing these emails anyway. I doubt anyone with a Gmail or Yahoo or Outlook.com address sees this stuff.
My suggestions? Quit worrying about it, and quit running your own mail server. You may think you know what you are doing, but you almost certainly don't.
Being aware of attempts to get past your security is a sign of incompetence?
From the Consumer Reports articles, they also mentioned the drop in projected range from the cold. However, they relayed the Tesla response that when the car is started, the warming battery should restore some of that range; in one of their test drives, they mentioned the projected mileage never went back up, but never went down either (went from 85m->50m overnight, then "remained steady for most of [the morning] 28-mile drive").
The problem with that is it can be used to protest/starve programs, by donating to *anything* else and thereby lowering the 'normal' tax funding pool. While that's true of any donate-for-tax-credit system, this one would be much more direct, particularly since the donations are funding government programs and thus still factoring into the federal budget.
While you could argue that's "democracy in action", it seems more like the "majority mob rule", particularly when looking at rights- and aid-related programs.
Even with a craft docked to every module, they probably wouldn't stop having the crew shelter in docked vessel(s) capable of crew-return.
If you have the crew in arbitrary locations, then damage could isolate the crew from their lifeboats. If you require the crew to be adjacent to their lifeboat, damage to that module is still a large hazard, since you have to evacuate it post-failure. By sheltering in the lifeboats themselves, they become the only critical target - damage to anywhere aside from the Soyuz capsule, Soyuz orbital module, and the docking interface is 'fine' for crew safety, aside from secondary debris concerns.
Given the emphasis placed on crew safety, I'd think it'd take an awful lot to convince them to keep the crew outside of the lifeboats during a potential conjunction. The increased risk simply isn't a worthwhile tradeoff for the working time you'd reclaim.
The Dragon (or any other commercial-crew vehicle) would simply add another location to shelter in, and potentially remove the need to shelter in the capsule during some Russian spacewalks (which use the docking module as an airlock, causing crew to potentially be cut off from a Soyuz docked to the Russian segment were an emergency to occur).
The point is to raise awareness that many of them are people too, not just scum that get in your way. From the sound of it, you are the kind of person they're trying to raise awareness *in*.
And many (most?) shelters require homeless to leave during the day (excluding sufficiently harsh weather, where the homeless shelter often becomes a hypothermia/hyperthermia shelter during the day), necessitating they spend most of their time on the streets.
When I worked at a library, the policy was that if someone was viewing porn in a central, high-traffic area, and we got a complaint, there were two basic options: ask the patron to move to a less visible computer (nothing special, simply for example use a computer a little further from the isle rather than the one facing the whole room) or ask the patron to have a shroud added to the kiosk (a standard option for anyone to reduce shouldersurfing - I never saw one actually used). The patron absolutely had the right to view the porn regardless of the complain, so our request to the patron was based on politeness and courtesy rather than a requirement or order - they could refuse it.
I was told it was very rare to have a complaint come up, however (I never had to deal with one personally, since I worked mostly in the Young Adult section, next to the Children's section, and our computers generally weren't the ones picked to view porn on anyway).
Unfortunately, "bricking" rarely means what it used to - now it generally seems to mean "unable to be used for (the speaker's) primary usage case" (usually a software-based broad denial of access to functionality) rather than the former meaning along the lines of "damage to hardware such that the device cannot function to any significant extent, and would require hardware component replacement/repair in order to regain that functionality".
Earth-bound Humans are currently better at many impomptu, lightweight manual tasks than Earth-bound robots -- but are they still better when encumbered in a 200-pound spacesuit, with gloves like oven mitts? I'd argue that a robot (either locally or remotely controlled) might be more agile than a human in that situation, if only because the robot doesn't need to be hermetically sealed into a life-support system that inhibits its movements.
The one counter example was the final Hubble servicing mission, where for a while there were plans to do it with a robot instead of astronauts (and hence why it had so many unusual, specialized, robot-like tools involved). In the actual mission, several parts did not go as planned, with the most extreme being the removal of a handle - it was supposed to be 4 simple screws, but they wound up having to physically flex-and-yank it to break it off. If it had been a robot, the question is if it could've exerted that much force on the object, since there were no planned tasks requiring something similar.
Essentially, humans bring with them a decent sized generic skills & capabilities toolbox, that you generally can't leave behind (presuming a sufficiently generalized spacesuit). Robots are unlikely to have capabilities outside the scope of their predicted mission (including that mission's contingency cases). That grants humans an extra degree of versatility.
The distinction is, this is a fusion reactor used to generate neutrons, not to be an electricity generator. It's the latter part that's such a difficult challenge.
I believe the distinction is damaged versus melted. They had thought only a limited portion of the rods was likely damaged, but found that a (smaller) portion was much more seriously damaged (melted). It doesn't actually directly comment on the accuracy of the 55% figure.
Also, given the other articles (such as The Japan Times linked below), the 5 ft. of melted rod appears to be circumstantial conjecture based on a likely prolonged period of being not being water-covered, rather than having a more concrete or direct basis. So the actual extent of the damage (worse or better) is still unclear.
the Leonardo Multipurpose Module built by the Italian Space Agency
The Italian Space Agency built most of the 'US' segments. I know they built Node 1 (Unity), Node 2 (Harmony), and Node 3 (Tranquility); I believe they built the US Lab (Destiny) as well. So while they did build the MPLM modules (including Leonardo), it's hardly their largest product on the station ;)
(Italy built the US segments due to US budget cuts; in return for eating some of the cost, they gained infrastructure and expertise. One way that paid off was with Columbus, the European lab - the same number of storage/science racks as the Nodes, but smaller and lighter, so it cost the European Space Agency less of its bartered 'upmass' to send it to orbit, allowing them to send it with several of its racks pre-installed, unlike most other segments of the station which arrived empty)
With physics texts at least, they usually have an absurd amount of typos, primarily in the formulae and definitions of values - ie, the math parts. In most of the cases I've seen, new editions are primarily about trying to correct these typos, though they tend to only correct a small portion of them each time.
Most of them have that. The sign reads "casino".
The second link confirms that there still will be no LAN support - the 'offline' mode is for the single-player only. Any networked game, including on a LAN, has to go through Battle.net 2.
Isn't that probably part of the point? If you can't replay the (old) library you already have, you (might) be more likely to buy popular_new_game instead. Or at least, so I'm guessing the theory goes ...
It does if you fertilize the fields with the dead and/or their byproducts.
In my own undergraduate experience at least, students *did* cheat more in CS courses than in other classes, regardless of major. In part this was due to the different 'honor code' for the CS department than elsewhere (any form of collaboration whatsoever was cheating, unless otherwise specified by the professor), but it was also in the nature of the work. "Copying" someone else's homework in, say, physics or math, a student typically attempts to make their writeup distinct from the original, which involves reprocessing the math and requires some actual understanding of the techniques involved. As a result, they actually did gain some level of learning from the assignment, even if no where near as much as if they'd done it 'properly'. In CS, most people would go for a straight carbon-copy, resulting in zero learning.
To me, that's the largest distinction - the way in which students leech off each other in CS is different, and results in less learning; combined with more draconian cheating regulations (which, by making any collaboration cheating, encourage people to either work in solitude or go all-out on the cheating, rather than actually trying to work together), it leads to a much worse cheating problem.
This was my biggest frustration in college CS. We got zero feedback on our code - you got a numerical grade, and that was it, most of the time. Rarely, you got back a categorical breakdown of that number (the points for 'correctness', 'comments', etc), and only a handful of times in the entire major did I actually get back comments (usually a relatively useless one-liner, such as "good comments", or my favorite, "this is so almost wrong, but not"). Then, as since, I've relied on my highschool experience for external suggestions and feedback - my highschool CS teacher went through and marked up every assignment turned in, giving you huge amounts of feedback on your coding practices. College CS was a huge waste on that front, which was a major dissappointment.
Part of the premise of the shuttle system was a very low per-launch cost, with a high cost-of-ownership, providing an economic way to support a very high launch rate. We've never even come close to the launch rate that this premise was based on, and thus been unable to reap the magnitude of savings it was intended to provide - instead, we've just been "stuck" with that high cost-of-ownership. But given that intent behind its design, an incremental launch cost of ~$60 million (which is what that Wikipedia number claimed to be - the cost to add/remove a launch, ignoring all cost-of-ownership factors) seems believable.
(the $1.3 billion number attempted to include the system's total cost, including design, construction, maintenance, facilities, etc, divided evenly across all missions flown, making it likely a more useful number)
Your scenario removes scarcity from the equation. While you can copy digital_file for nearly-free, the creator of digital_file still needs to buy food and other costly goods. Under your example, the *only* thing that costs time is development of initial copies - *everything* is copyable for free, which means that the creator of something does need to buy anything.
That's a fundamental shift, that makes your example unrelated to the case you're trying to prove.
A half-hour of half-hearted PE can make a surprising difference. I remember in highschool, PE was mandatory in 9th and 10th grades and only rarely taken electives (like weightlifting) for the 11th and 12th grades. I was truly surprised by the difference not having PE made in the way I felt overall. Not being a particularly sporty person, most of the activity on my own time was limited to long walks, so PE was the main source of "vigorous" activity. Even if it wasn't perfect, it still seemed to make an important difference, and ironically made its best educational point when it 'suddenly' went away.
I know this is a purely subjective account, but at the time it felt like the most likely culprit by far, given the details of how things felt (muscles, etc), how much of the rest of my lifestyle had stayed constant, and the way random exercise temporarily alleviated the new symptoms.
Then you'll wind up with a population of sneezing soldiers, with very few monks. So how do you design content for that game? If you design content to need a strong mix of soldiers and monks, it will be railed against as too hard (since there aren't monks to fill the monk aspects of the encounter) or it will be ignored. If you design content to be doable by a mostly- or all-soldier force, then you're just reenforcing the bias against monks, and so why bother including monks at all?
It comes down to questions of diversity, complexity, and time. Diversity in an MMO is usually seen as a good thing - a variety of classes or skills, a variety of roles, etc. Diversity also gives you more ways to do the same thing, adding potential for more variety and complexity to content. And arguably most importantly, there is the finite amount of development time - in a perfect world, there would be content designed for every concievable playstyle and group/raid makeup, but in the real world you can only design for a tiny fraction of that space. By (attempting to) create content that, in general, requires that diversity of skills/classes, you hit the broadest swath of players and encourage players to take advantage of the diversity.
But all these things require balance to be meaningful - if soldiers are superior to monks in most or all ways that most players find significant, then the player population will probably be heavily biased towards soldiers instead of monks, and there will be real trouble trying to create content that works for your population without destroying what little diversity you have.