The NOAA/NWS? I don't usually hear about them f'ing up, occasional stories about politicians leaning on them maybe, but generally they get their job done quietly in the background with no one noticing. They produce some great data too...
The problem with that is it will break nontrivial uploads using POST since they won't complete in 5 seconds. The real solution is to not count threads or connections below a certain utilization threashold towards the capped max and kill them once you hit real starvation.
Not quite. Sid is always sid. Squeeze becomes stable when it's released. Packages automatically move from unstable (always sid) to testing (currently squeeze) when they have no RC bugs for 10 days and all their dependencies can move together. Eventually, this is frozen and all moves happen by hand, as the release is prepared. This change will propagate to squeeze soonish though, assuming there are no bugs.
We're disagreeing about the core of the problem. Mozilla's ultimatum was:
- All changes the distributor wishes to make to the source code must be
provided as discrete patches, along with a description of why the change
is required
- Releases are expected to be based on the CVS tag and/or source tarball
for the release version, plus approved patches.
- build configurations should also be submitted for approval.
- The logo and the trademark are required to be used together.
The first part is pretty standard in Debian packages, using either dpatch or quilt to create discreet patches with descriptions at the top. The second point is generally done too, though with packages for bug fixes. Those patches are generally taken from upstream CVS and probably count as "approved." The third is a bit strange, but probably doable, it's most likely referring to the./configure flags, and such, which I don't see much disagreement about. The last point is what I was saying - Debian could not under it's own policies ship the logo since it is not free software. (For Debian, anything in binary form is software and has to meet the same levels of freedom).
You're not characterizing the Debian/Mozilla disagreement very well - it had much more to do with the logo and a lot less with the patches. (When Mozilla granted Ubuntu the right to use the trademark, they announced "This is the right way to do patching!" on a diff LARGER than the Debian one. The Debian patches were mainly bugfixes already committed to Mozilla's CVS that hadn't shipped yet anyway).
The main issue is that Debian refuses to ship anything not under an open source license that meets the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG). While the Firefox codebase is free, the logo can not be distributed in modified form, violating the DFSG. For several years, Debian had an agreement with Mozilla that it was fine to ship Firefox named as-is but with a plain logo (though Debian still lobbied for a free logo). However, when the person in charge of trademark enforcement at Mozilla was replaced, they became much more concerned about branding and revoked this permission, insisting that it be shipped with either both the name and the logo or neither.
Debian was perfectly willing to do this is the logo was re-licensed under a free license (and still protected under trademark) but Mozilla was worried this would cause a dilution of their trademark and refused. Thus, unable to ship any non-free material because of their standards, Debian was forced to remove the name as well.
Apparently I missed them. I never fly southwest because they don't ever cover the routes I frequent so they didn't pop into my head.
My point still remains, almost all of the major carriers (and whether Southwest is a major carrier or a niche one is debatable) charge the same for luggage.
With regard to SRB failure, I'm not convinced that a catastrophic failure of an Ares rocket is survivable. Certainly, if there is an engine failure, you can abort to avoid crashing into the ground. However, should a catastrophic explosion occur, I'm not sure that the LES has sufficient time to separate Orion. I could be completely wrong though.
With regard to the SSME (space shuttle main engines), there are non-recoverable (ditch) abort modes where the crew is supposed to be able to survive but with a loss-of-vehicle, using the Inflight Crew Escape System (ICES). Supposedly, a 3-out SME failure is survivable for most of the ascent profile, and porentially even for the first 90 seconds (use the SRB's limited steering ability to get a steady orientation and ICES to evacuate).
As far as I could tell, the maneuver doesn't happen until it's mostly out of the atmosphere so there's less resistance. Doesn't the shuttle normally pitch tank-up, shuttle-down during ascents? That would probably make the maneuver easier.
While I agree with most of your points, the claim that the shuttle lacks "[t]he potential to abort a mission after launch before reaching orbit" is false. The shuttle in fact has three separate non-orbital abort modes:
Return To Launch Site (RTLS) - Keep going until the SRBs are detached, flip over, fire main engines and head back to Kennedy
Transoceanic Abort Landing (TAL) - Land somewhere in Africa or Europe
Abort Once Around (AOA) - Abort on a suborbital trajectory, circle the earth once, then land (Very small window)
Really? My high school had the ingredients and I think even a small jar in the back room. They used to use it as a demo but stopped.
My college chem professor did it as a demo one day in class. It was the shock-and-awe demo class at the end of the semester, with all kinds of fun stuff being demoed. (Large, prominent US University).
It can be more secure, but usually isn't. That's because it's intended to be public. The signing thing works though it requires 2 sets of keys (though only one is unique to each kindle)
With RSA, the encryption key is not meant to be kept secure - it's of the form (e,n) where e is usually a common value like 3 or 7 or a few others, and the same for all keys and n is unique, but a part of the private key, which is (d,n). Thus, given the private key, (d,n), it'd be easy to guess e, assuming a standard implementation.
IANAcryptographer, but public key cryptography is a no-brainer for this scenario. Amazon should have created an RSA keypair for each kindle sold. Amazon would keep the private key and put the public key on the Kindle. When selling an E-Book, Amazon would just encrypt the Mobi file with its private key. That way, it wouldn't matter if some third party obtained the RSA public key for a specific kindle --- all he could do with it pound sand, since Amazon would keep the private keys secure and internal.
And if the e-book is encrypted using RSA and the device doesn't have the private key, how is it supposed to decrypt it? If Amazon is keeping the private key, you can only do signing, in which case you only need one pair for all Kindle's anyway.
Actually, if you read the "Falcon Luner Capability Guide" linked at the top of the Falcon 9 Page, there's the line "Missions to Trans Lunar Injection will have an additional charge of $10M since the
second stage is nonrecoverable." (Page 8, section 3.3.4).
Seems to be a minor detail, but does still hint to the Falcon9 as being re-usable.
There are already regulations prohibiting publishing images above a certain resolution. See the thread the other day on the new google (branded) satellite for more info.
Slashdot Mirror
The NOAA/NWS? I don't usually hear about them f'ing up, occasional stories about politicians leaning on them maybe, but generally they get their job done quietly in the background with no one noticing. They produce some great data too...
The problem with that is it will break nontrivial uploads using POST since they won't complete in 5 seconds. The real solution is to not count threads or connections below a certain utilization threashold towards the capped max and kill them once you hit real starvation.
Not quite. Sid is always sid. Squeeze becomes stable when it's released. Packages automatically move from unstable (always sid) to testing (currently squeeze) when they have no RC bugs for 10 days and all their dependencies can move together. Eventually, this is frozen and all moves happen by hand, as the release is prepared. This change will propagate to squeeze soonish though, assuming there are no bugs.
- All changes the distributor wishes to make to the source code must be provided as discrete patches, along with a description of why the change is required - Releases are expected to be based on the CVS tag and/or source tarball for the release version, plus approved patches. - build configurations should also be submitted for approval. - The logo and the trademark are required to be used together.
The first part is pretty standard in Debian packages, using either dpatch or quilt to create discreet patches with descriptions at the top. The second point is generally done too, though with packages for bug fixes. Those patches are generally taken from upstream CVS and probably count as "approved." The third is a bit strange, but probably doable, it's most likely referring to the ./configure flags, and such, which I don't see much disagreement about. The last point is what I was saying - Debian could not under it's own policies ship the logo since it is not free software. (For Debian, anything in binary form is software and has to meet the same levels of freedom).
You're not characterizing the Debian/Mozilla disagreement very well - it had much more to do with the logo and a lot less with the patches. (When Mozilla granted Ubuntu the right to use the trademark, they announced "This is the right way to do patching!" on a diff LARGER than the Debian one. The Debian patches were mainly bugfixes already committed to Mozilla's CVS that hadn't shipped yet anyway).
The main issue is that Debian refuses to ship anything not under an open source license that meets the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG). While the Firefox codebase is free, the logo can not be distributed in modified form, violating the DFSG. For several years, Debian had an agreement with Mozilla that it was fine to ship Firefox named as-is but with a plain logo (though Debian still lobbied for a free logo). However, when the person in charge of trademark enforcement at Mozilla was replaced, they became much more concerned about branding and revoked this permission, insisting that it be shipped with either both the name and the logo or neither.
Debian was perfectly willing to do this is the logo was re-licensed under a free license (and still protected under trademark) but Mozilla was worried this would cause a dilution of their trademark and refused. Thus, unable to ship any non-free material because of their standards, Debian was forced to remove the name as well.
And by "modern" you of course must mean "40-year-old"...
The two VC25s are designated SAM (Special Air Mission) 2800 and SAM 2900.
Ya, but just a couple weeks till slope day!
- Another Cornell Student
Apparently I missed them. I never fly southwest because they don't ever cover the routes I frequent so they didn't pop into my head.
My point still remains, almost all of the major carriers (and whether Southwest is a major carrier or a niche one is debatable) charge the same for luggage.
With regard to SRB failure, I'm not convinced that a catastrophic failure of an Ares rocket is survivable. Certainly, if there is an engine failure, you can abort to avoid crashing into the ground. However, should a catastrophic explosion occur, I'm not sure that the LES has sufficient time to separate Orion. I could be completely wrong though.
With regard to the SSME (space shuttle main engines), there are non-recoverable (ditch) abort modes where the crew is supposed to be able to survive but with a loss-of-vehicle, using the Inflight Crew Escape System (ICES). Supposedly, a 3-out SME failure is survivable for most of the ascent profile, and porentially even for the first 90 seconds (use the SRB's limited steering ability to get a steady orientation and ICES to evacuate).
As far as I could tell, the maneuver doesn't happen until it's mostly out of the atmosphere so there's less resistance. Doesn't the shuttle normally pitch tank-up, shuttle-down during ascents? That would probably make the maneuver easier.
It's a capsule. It's designed to splashdown in the ocean on completion of a successful mission too.
More information at obligatory wiki link.
And who should you fly instead?
United: $15 first/$25 second
US Air: $15/$25
Delta: $15/$25
Continental: $15/$25
Northwest: $15/$25
I got bored here, but I think you get the picture....
Really? My high school had the ingredients and I think even a small jar in the back room. They used to use it as a demo but stopped.
My college chem professor did it as a demo one day in class. It was the shock-and-awe demo class at the end of the semester, with all kinds of fun stuff being demoed. (Large, prominent US University).
It can be more secure, but usually isn't. That's because it's intended to be public. The signing thing works though it requires 2 sets of keys (though only one is unique to each kindle)
With RSA, the encryption key is not meant to be kept secure - it's of the form (e,n) where e is usually a common value like 3 or 7 or a few others, and the same for all keys and n is unique, but a part of the private key, which is (d,n). Thus, given the private key, (d,n), it'd be easy to guess e, assuming a standard implementation.
IANAcryptographer, but public key cryptography is a no-brainer for this scenario. Amazon should have created an RSA keypair for each kindle sold. Amazon would keep the private key and put the public key on the Kindle. When selling an E-Book, Amazon would just encrypt the Mobi file with its private key. That way, it wouldn't matter if some third party obtained the RSA public key for a specific kindle --- all he could do with it pound sand, since Amazon would keep the private keys secure and internal.
And if the e-book is encrypted using RSA and the device doesn't have the private key, how is it supposed to decrypt it? If Amazon is keeping the private key, you can only do signing, in which case you only need one pair for all Kindle's anyway.
Actually, if you read the "Falcon Luner Capability Guide" linked at the top of the Falcon 9 Page, there's the line "Missions to Trans Lunar Injection will have an additional charge of $10M since the second stage is nonrecoverable." (Page 8, section 3.3.4).
Seems to be a minor detail, but does still hint to the Falcon9 as being re-usable.
The AUVSI Autonomous Underwater Vehicle competition is getting there.
I keep saying we should weaponize the vehicles anyway...
ctrl+r (in bash?): reverse incremental search through history.
Nice! Thanks!
The real question is, do they taste good fried?
Bravo.
And where would you launch it?
I would think most places with the capabilities to launch a satellite like that would have laws restricting it's use.
There are already regulations prohibiting publishing images above a certain resolution. See the thread the other day on the new google (branded) satellite for more info.