I must be missing something here: A large nuclear power plant is on the order of 1000MW - 1GW. A sustained 100 GW is roughly 10% of the current United States total electrical production.
It's a staggering amount of power. Even if you built huge solar arrays around Mercury's orbit - the power is cheap but building the array isn't.
Insane velocities. First off: Equatorial orbits are rare. This means nearly every orbit has a significant north/south vector. And we have polar orbits as well. In short: you have to try really hard to have anything resembling the same direction. Wolfram Alpha pegs the average orbital velocity at 29.8 km/s. Thes velocities can easily be nearly 'head-on' at 60 km/s of impact velocity. Even a fraction of a gram impacting at those speeds is a very bad day.
The ISS has over 100 shielding systems for kinetic impact (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whipple_shield). EVA suits are designed to be 'bullet' proof, and to maintain pressure after being hit by a meteor (for a while, at least).
The space shuttle generally flew 'backwards and upside down' to attempt to protect the crew from impacts. (http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae524.cfm)
A big reason for the large inspection time between shuttle flights was to find & replace tiles damaged by micrometeors.
You forgot the threats against international 'meddling' that will accompany Kim Jong-un's proclamation. That or it's a reaction against recent provocations against the DPRK.
I'm sure my most recent trip to the toilet will be among the listed provocations.
I think an anti-satellite missile would result in more than 5 pieces.
To say nothing of the fact that any interceptor capable of getting to Hitomi would be detected by the US Joint Space Operations Center and the Russian equivalent.
It takes a big rocket to get up there.
Given the velocities involved, a few flecks of paint that broke off of an earlier mission could do it, especially if they managed to hit something pressurized. (Note: I have no idea if Hitomi had propellant).
Mainly, I think they've overstated the technical difficulty of providing the FBI with what it wants. Does anyone really think it would take man-months to change the number of PIN tries or the timeout between them?
How, pray tell, is this "golden key" (a magic OS update that helps the FBI) to be installed without wiping the phone?
Even in the iPhone's DFU mode, you can't change the OS without wiping the data on the phone, nor can you back up the phone's data without unlocking it.
Funny thing about that: it also prevents thieves from doing the same things to stolen phones.
It's almost as if Apple thought through these issues when they designed the iPhone and iOS. Phones get stolen, and protecting your customers private information from criminals is a laudable thing to do.
There's a lot of "They're smart, they'll think of something" hand waving by politicians, pundits, and government talking heads, which only proves much of the "discussion" is largely magical thinking.
At the end of the day, code that goes in meets a few criteria:
1.) (the most important one): Somebody gives a crap. 2.) Somebody gives a crap and actually writes decent code 3.) Somebody gives a crap and gives so much of a crap that they're willing to do an additional 400-500% of work to get the patch into the main codebase.
Seriously, complaining what some nebulous "they" should do something is just stupid. This isn't a product that people buy, no project manager doing focus research on what consumers want, and no manager telling an employee "do this or you're fired".
There's just some guy/gal out there with an itch to scratch, who couldn't possibly care less what you want.
The thing that's insidious about product placement is also the thing which makes it tolerable: "real life" is essentially product placement everywhere, because everything under the sun is branded. Stuck in traffic? Stare at the Chevrolet logo in front of you. Walking behind somebody -- yup, clothing logo. Staring at somebody's tight behind? Little red Levi's tag. That homeless guy walking across the street? Covered in a the local team's old logo...
So if my business is, say, making people unable to turn their TVs on, the people in the TV industry should just "adapt" to people being unable to use their product?
Don't talk crap. Adblock doesn't prevent people from using their web browsers.
A closer descrition: "If somebody is making a technology that prevents TV's from showing advertising, the TV industry should adapt to people not watching ads."
Well, let's look at the situation: We've had DVR's that can skip commercial for nearly a generation now.
Some of the more forward-looking companies in the TV industry has adapted to a model that has no ads: See Netflix, Amazon Prime video, and Hulu +'s ad-free option.
Each of those networks produce their own highly-rated, highly-watched content.
There are, of course, incumbents who refuse to adapt.
Ironically, the ones who refuse to adapt are all advertising companies: the old TV and cable networks. Their refusal to adapt is well described in their anger/frustration that Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon do not report their viewerships (ie. "ratings").
Well, let's think about that for a second: What are ratings for? They're to provide a value for how much an advertising slot during the show should cost.
Well... Netflix doesn't show ads, so what is the point of ratings? Netflix knows how many people are watching, and they know what it costs to stream. As long as they've got a profit, and their customers are happy, why do they care what advertisers think?
It's the advertisers trying refusing to change their habits, and refusing to accept that consumers are so tired of advertising that consumers prefer to pay directly for content than get it "free" with commercials.
In the same way, internet consumers are sick of being monitored and assaulted all of the time by intrusive advertisers who continue to try to force increasingly unpalatable advertising upon consumers.
Rule number 3: If you make a product, don't point to benchmarks that test something entirely unrelated. ie. if you make CPU's don't argue that your product is better because of a third party hard drive.
+this. I've also done High performance computing for over a decade, and claiming that one company's benchmark is unfair is crap when every other open benchmark tells a similar story.
It broke my heart to see AMD fall the way they did, but when you can compile and run the benchmarks yourself, with whatever compiler you choose, and see, with perfect clarity, how badly AMD gets mauled by Intel's chips. Those of us working in High Performance Computing don't care who makes the part, we just need the part that's best for a particular application - so we benchmark the hell out of everything. Memory performance, CPU performance, I/O performance... Then you do price vs performance, and TCO (including the cost of electricity, since the electric bill to run 50,000 cores full tilt is not small).
I know I'm not playing favorites; I know GCC, Microsoft Visual Studio, Clang, Pathscale, PGI, and any of the other compilers Intel doesn't make don't have the purported "run faster on Intel" flag.
AMD makes CPU's and AMD cherry-picked benchmarks that aren't a test of a CPU. WTF is that supposed to say when you're a CPU manufacturer? ie. "Compare the speed when we pick a workload that's dependent on the performance of all the shit we didn't make."
How about we compare AMD and Intel CPU's based on the speed of Western Digital hard drives? Sound fair? That's great!!!, AMD thinks so too!
AMD used to make a world-beating product, with better speed, better memory performance, better I/O performance and lower power usage. That was eight years ago
I've gotten tired of hearing AMD's "next generation" will change everything, and they'll beat Intel. It's the same story with every generation since Barcelona, ending with the same disappointment.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but routing is not the same thing as managing address pools.
IANA, the RIR's, and national registries coordinate IP Address allocation so that IP addresses are (hopefully) unique.
Managing a database of unique numbers is entirely different from routing packets around a global heterogeneous network.
IANA is also a department of ICANN, which manages the root DNS servers. - again, managing translation of words to ip addresses, which is similarly related to routing.
its kind of like the difference between a government surveyor, who assigns addresses to homes (i.e. the number), and the means by which various public and private organizations deliver packages to that address (routing).
As most consumer and small business routers run Linux and use Netfilter, it's not much of a stretch to ask "how do you do it on Linux?"
Well, with Netfilter, it's pretty simple to setup an effective IPv6 firewall that offers at least as much 'protection' offered by NAT in IPv4. ie.) allow only incoming requests that are 'related' to requests made from inside. Then if you have specific hosts/ports to open, you can add an exception in the exact same way you do for port mapping in IPv4.
If you want to be more specific about what transits the firewall, you just add more firewall rules -- which aren't any different than making rules with IPv4.
About the only practical difference is that with IPv4, you can get away with memorizing IP addresses, while with IPv6, mere mortals aren't going to memorize the full address. But that's what DNS is for -- and DNS for IPv6 isn't any more difficult than it is in IPv4.
Spreading misinformation doesn't help anybody, especially when IPv6 isn't that hard to use.
Now, if your Cisco/Juniper/commercial firewall and/or routers seem like an unmanageable mess, it's time to talk to your vendor about their product's deficiencies and ease of use. The response will probably be a lot of handwaving that amounts to "there are consulting dollars to be made, and you must pay it." If like paying to be abused, that's your choice, and I'm not going to question your decision making process. Some people like that sort of thing. Just be aware that it doesn't have to be that way.
Slashdot Mirror
I must be missing something here: A large nuclear power plant is on the order of 1000MW - 1GW. A sustained 100 GW is roughly 10% of the current United States total electrical production.
It's a staggering amount of power. Even if you built huge solar arrays around Mercury's orbit - the power is cheap but building the array isn't.
Mine used to be coal powered, but natural gas became cheaper.
The correction is appreciated!
Tthere are many sources of micrometeors. Debris from launches are one, but earth has collected plenty of pebbles in retrograde orbits over the æons.
I also wonder what the relative velocities of objects in the various seasonal meteor showers are (persied, gemenid if I remember right)
Thanks for the correction!
I'd agree overall, but a Lagrange orbit isn't necessarily the final destination.
My personal favorite is the flaming fireball of awesomeness.
Insane velocities. First off: Equatorial orbits are rare. This means nearly every orbit has a significant north/south vector. And we have polar orbits as well. In short: you have to try really hard to have anything resembling the same direction. Wolfram Alpha pegs the average orbital velocity at 29.8 km/s. Thes velocities can easily be nearly 'head-on' at 60 km/s of impact velocity. Even a fraction of a gram impacting at those speeds is a very bad day.
The ISS has over 100 shielding systems for kinetic impact (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whipple_shield). EVA suits are designed to be 'bullet' proof, and to maintain pressure after being hit by a meteor (for a while, at least).
The space shuttle generally flew 'backwards and upside down' to attempt to protect the crew from impacts. (http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae524.cfm)
A big reason for the large inspection time between shuttle flights was to find & replace tiles damaged by micrometeors.
Seriously: space ain't a walk in the park.
You forgot the threats against international 'meddling' that will accompany Kim Jong-un's proclamation. That or it's a reaction against recent provocations against the DPRK.
I'm sure my most recent trip to the toilet will be among the listed provocations.
I think an anti-satellite missile would result in more than 5 pieces.
To say nothing of the fact that any interceptor capable of getting to Hitomi would be detected by the US Joint Space Operations Center and the Russian equivalent.
It takes a big rocket to get up there.
Given the velocities involved, a few flecks of paint that broke off of an earlier mission could do it, especially if they managed to hit something pressurized. (Note: I have no idea if Hitomi had propellant).
To each their own, but when I think of positive attributes for a doughnut, crispy is not on the list.
In fact, crispy is near the top of the field labeled "negative attributes for doughnuts".
Just spout a vulnerability off in front of their sales people and see how they react.
Um...
I don't know what kind of interactions you've had with salespeople in general, but that reaction has nothing to do with Apple.
It's kind of like asking the your DB admin to do your dental work -- it's just not their field.
Mainly, I think they've overstated the technical difficulty of providing the FBI with what it wants. Does anyone really think it would take man-months to change the number of PIN tries or the timeout between them?
How, pray tell, is this "golden key" (a magic OS update that helps the FBI) to be installed without wiping the phone?
Even in the iPhone's DFU mode, you can't change the OS without wiping the data on the phone, nor can you back up the phone's data without unlocking it.
Funny thing about that: it also prevents thieves from doing the same things to stolen phones.
It's almost as if Apple thought through these issues when they designed the iPhone and iOS. Phones get stolen, and protecting your customers private information from criminals is a laudable thing to do.
There's a lot of "They're smart, they'll think of something" hand waving by politicians, pundits, and government talking heads, which only proves much of the "discussion" is largely magical thinking.
Yahoo!
I'd say I'm ridiculously excited about this, but I don't want to understate it.
Htop is one of those little gems that made the world a better place to be.
Kudos & thanks to the developers!!!
And yet a MacBook Pro from 9 years ago (2007) works with all of the latest Apple software, including El Capitan.
I have a feeling my hardware will fail before Apple's support will.
First of all: GTK has OpenGL support, so that's already there. Has nothing to do with the web.
Although WebGL does implement OpenGL in a full-fledged web page, and I'm pretty sure GTK's WebGL just leverages GTK's OpenGL widgets.
Really, it's just a step towards what we've all known: Emacs has taken another step to becoming a modern graphical operating system.
Next, we need to be able to boot to Emacs from Grub, instead of using a hack like Linux to bootstrap Emacs.
The point is somebody thought it'd be a neat thing to do, did the work, and herded it into the codebase.
End of story.
At the end of the day, code that goes in meets a few criteria:
1.) (the most important one): Somebody gives a crap.
2.) Somebody gives a crap and actually writes decent code
3.) Somebody gives a crap and gives so much of a crap that they're willing to do an additional 400-500% of work to get the patch into the main codebase.
Seriously, complaining what some nebulous "they" should do something is just stupid. This isn't a product that people buy, no project manager doing focus research on what consumers want, and no manager telling an employee "do this or you're fired".
There's just some guy/gal out there with an itch to scratch, who couldn't possibly care less what you want.
(S)he who codes, decides. End of story.
The thing that's insidious about product placement is also the thing which makes it tolerable: "real life" is essentially product placement everywhere, because everything under the sun is branded. Stuck in traffic? Stare at the Chevrolet logo in front of you. Walking behind somebody -- yup, clothing logo. Staring at somebody's tight behind? Little red Levi's tag. That homeless guy walking across the street? Covered in a the local team's old logo...
So if my business is, say, making people unable to turn their TVs on, the people in the TV industry should just "adapt" to people being unable to use their product?
Don't talk crap. Adblock doesn't prevent people from using their web browsers.
A closer descrition: "If somebody is making a technology that prevents TV's from showing advertising, the TV industry should adapt to people not watching ads."
Well, let's look at the situation: We've had DVR's that can skip commercial for nearly a generation now.
Some of the more forward-looking companies in the TV industry has adapted to a model that has no ads: See Netflix, Amazon Prime video, and Hulu +'s ad-free option.
Each of those networks produce their own highly-rated, highly-watched content.
There are, of course, incumbents who refuse to adapt.
Ironically, the ones who refuse to adapt are all advertising companies: the old TV and cable networks. Their refusal to adapt is well described in their anger/frustration that Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon do not report their viewerships (ie. "ratings").
Well, let's think about that for a second: What are ratings for? They're to provide a value for how much an advertising slot during the show should cost.
Well... Netflix doesn't show ads, so what is the point of ratings? Netflix knows how many people are watching, and they know what it costs to stream. As long as they've got a profit, and their customers are happy, why do they care what advertisers think?
It's the advertisers trying refusing to change their habits, and refusing to accept that consumers are so tired of advertising that consumers prefer to pay directly for content than get it "free" with commercials.
In the same way, internet consumers are sick of being monitored and assaulted all of the time by intrusive advertisers who continue to try to force increasingly unpalatable advertising upon consumers.
Rule number 3: If you make a product, don't point to benchmarks that test something entirely unrelated. ie. if you make CPU's don't argue that your product is better because of a third party hard drive.
+this. I've also done High performance computing for over a decade, and claiming that one company's benchmark is unfair is crap when every other open benchmark tells a similar story.
It broke my heart to see AMD fall the way they did, but when you can compile and run the benchmarks yourself, with whatever compiler you choose, and see, with perfect clarity, how badly AMD gets mauled by Intel's chips. Those of us working in High Performance Computing don't care who makes the part, we just need the part that's best for a particular application - so we benchmark the hell out of everything. Memory performance, CPU performance, I/O performance... Then you do price vs performance, and TCO (including the cost of electricity, since the electric bill to run 50,000 cores full tilt is not small).
I know I'm not playing favorites; I know GCC, Microsoft Visual Studio, Clang, Pathscale, PGI, and any of the other compilers Intel doesn't make don't have the purported "run faster on Intel" flag.
AMD makes CPU's and AMD cherry-picked benchmarks that aren't a test of a CPU. WTF is that supposed to say when you're a CPU manufacturer? ie. "Compare the speed when we pick a workload that's dependent on the performance of all the shit we didn't make."
How about we compare AMD and Intel CPU's based on the speed of Western Digital hard drives? Sound fair? That's great!!!, AMD thinks so too!
AMD used to make a world-beating product, with better speed, better memory performance, better I/O performance and lower power usage. That was eight years ago
I've gotten tired of hearing AMD's "next generation" will change everything, and they'll beat Intel. It's the same story with every generation since Barcelona, ending with the same disappointment.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but routing is not the same thing as managing address pools.
IANA, the RIR's, and national registries coordinate IP Address allocation so that IP addresses are (hopefully) unique.
Managing a database of unique numbers is entirely different from routing packets around a global heterogeneous network.
IANA is also a department of ICANN, which manages the root DNS servers. - again, managing translation of words to ip addresses, which is similarly related to routing.
its kind of like the difference between a government surveyor, who assigns addresses to homes (i.e. the number), and the means by which various public and private organizations deliver packages to that address (routing).
Yeah, the left foot not knowing what the right is doing & all that.
And then there's socks, gloves, earrings, contact lenses...
Not all ISP's are equal. I get a maximum of four subnets, and the ISP (Comcast/Xfinity) only offers one subnet by default.
I'll get by, somehow, but I really wanted to be able to address every article of clothing in my wife's wardrobe.
I call BS.
As most consumer and small business routers run Linux and use Netfilter, it's not much of a stretch to ask "how do you do it on Linux?"
Well, with Netfilter, it's pretty simple to setup an effective IPv6 firewall that offers at least as much 'protection' offered by NAT in IPv4. ie.) allow only incoming requests that are 'related' to requests made from inside. Then if you have specific hosts/ports to open, you can add an exception in the exact same way you do for port mapping in IPv4.
If you want to be more specific about what transits the firewall, you just add more firewall rules -- which aren't any different than making rules with IPv4.
About the only practical difference is that with IPv4, you can get away with memorizing IP addresses, while with IPv6, mere mortals aren't going to memorize the full address. But that's what DNS is for -- and DNS for IPv6 isn't any more difficult than it is in IPv4.
Spreading misinformation doesn't help anybody, especially when IPv6 isn't that hard to use.
Now, if your Cisco/Juniper/commercial firewall and/or routers seem like an unmanageable mess, it's time to talk to your vendor about their product's deficiencies and ease of use. The response will probably be a lot of handwaving that amounts to "there are consulting dollars to be made, and you must pay it." If like paying to be abused, that's your choice, and I'm not going to question your decision making process. Some people like that sort of thing. Just be aware that it doesn't have to be that way.