Linux was *NOT* the only alternative. Not even the most secure alternative. Just the most actively developed.
Other alternatives are the various BSDs. They existed then and were stable then. I'm not really sure about the differences between them, or whether they are more significant than the differences between the various Linux distros.
You've got me. It's an interesting question. OTOH, there are supposedly a lot of known ways of accessing the host computer from the VM, and perhaps those don't require out-of-order execution to implement.
You are making an assumption about what "access" means. It *might* mean physical access, but it could also include remote access. The summary, at least, wasn't clear about that.
Well, to be fair a lot of the hype about the AMD problem was because it was presented in a way that made it look as if Intel sponsored the release of information. I'm still not sure that isn't true.
They aren't useless, but you need a LOT of different ones. And actually, just saying "test track" is going to put your imagery in the wrong scenario. Testing mazes is a better image. Each maze designed by a different group, and required to be significantly different from all the others. And you need each different maze to come in a lot of variations. One of them, e.g., might have a random selection of man hole covers that could pop open in front of it, or might not. Another random intrusions from the side. Etc. Look at video games for inspiration of what might happen, the ones where people have to dodge. Also look at shopping malls. Etc.
No, it's not simple. But it should result in improved results. And be sure to redo old mazes occasionally to ensure that new learning doesn't override old.
Which means that it needs to be able to handle those situations on it's own. I'm not sure that 30 seconds is sufficient, as I've seen people take longer than that to be able to disengage.
But there are cases where it would be extremely useful. The one mentioned above is "The car can handle freeway driving, but the exit you need is 30 seconds ahead, so get ready to take over.", and that seems like a quite plausible one with a multitude of use cases.
Also, I'm not clear as to the relevance of your mention of "novice pilots". I think you've got a use case in mind that isn't occurring to me.
The problem here is that analysis makes it clear that management was pushing things ahead even when problems were reported.
There are various things that should have happened if the car were working as designed, but which didn't happen. It didn't slow, it didn't attempt to dodge. It didn't use lidar (I believe that's built into this model of car). Etc. Possibly those wouldn't have prevented the accident, but they should have reduced it's impact. But more to the point, even if this is an edge case where they wouldn't have helped, they should have been tried, because they *might* have helped.
Management had been warned that things weren't progressing satisfactorily, and their response was to push ahead with testing in order to meet their deadline.
I'm not sure they're at fault in this accident. I not only haven't studied it, I'm not an expert in the appropriate fields. But it's clear that the reactions of the car were not acceptable. There's a large gap between "at fault" and "good performance".
I'm sorry, but your linked article causes me to feel the theory is less worthy of investigating that I did before I went to it. And a search of the text did not include the word "Jupiter" so it can't count as a pre-existing prediction.
Depends on the event. IIRC in track there were often 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place trophies. Probably copied from the Olympics. Or perhaps from horse racing. (I'm not really sure what "Win, place, and show" means.)
To be fair, it seems as if that is also the police line, so that's probably where they got there information. If a large number of groups say the same thing, the first thing to suspect is not that they were conspiring, but that they used the same source.
Well, *I* feel like suing them (not enough to do it, because Experian already went that way, and you can't sue them), and I've never had a Facebook account. I'm just certain they've got my info anyway.
The second amendment (and many of the others) has already been adapted counter to its wording to adjust it to fit modern situations. This is really something the Federal government should have no say on, as the clear wording of the 2nd amendment says. (Nowhere does it say that the federal government has anything to do with "a well regulated militia", and originally it didn't.) This is something that should be handled by the states, or better by the cities and counties. There are areas where a gun is a useful tool...but it's not inside the cities.
So the mistake is that the rules that were supposed to restrict the federal government are applied without consideration to the states, and that doesn't work properly. So they have to use perversions of the proper understanding of what the words mean to get things to work at all. Of course, that was what some people wanted all along....
Yes/No. It's true that bullying is natural, and a part of the way humans naturally react, and if you want to live in the trees, it's a reasonable approach. But it penalizes the intelligent as well as the stupid. In fact, it penalizes anyone identifiably different in some "important to fashion" way. So if you want a technical civilization, you need to suppress it.
OTOH, you also need to reward achievement of any sort. Sports and martial arts teams are a good idea, as long as you don't make everyone participate. But basic physical activity is also important...so you need classes for those who *aren't* on the activity teams. Mechanics classes are important for those with skills in that area, etc. And everyone needs to master the basics.
Perhaps the mistake is to separate kids by age rather than by aptitudes, but you need to be careful to not create an us-vs-them within the structure, and that's difficult unless there are a lot of shared activities where accomplishment is a shared result.
I think the basic problem is that schools are designed to create assembly line workers. Most people don't like that, so it creates resentment which expresses itself in some way. "Summerhill" is a very interesting book on the subject of schools, but it required a selected student body and a special teacher. And a high teacher to student ratio.
Can you give me a link to a paper predicting the vorticies at Jupiter's poles before they were observed? I don't know enough to check the validity of the calculations vs. standard calculations, but a pre-existing prediction would be relatively convincing.
Calculations that I can't check don't mean much to me. Predictions of things that were later observed do, and are relatively unambiguous.
It's also a vindication of the approach used to discover Neptune. The approach was not controversial in any community I know of (well, except the flat earthers).
Well, were I to want to acquire music, I'd prefer a CD because downloads too often die for one reason or another. (E.g., I wipe the partition that they were downloaded into.)
OTOH, due to the RIAA legal practices, I've stopped acquiring music. Since I have many old CDs, I find that I don't miss it. (Interestingly, I don't listen to most of the ones I own. Only about 20.)
I think you need a clearer idea about how bright a 10th magnitude star is. Even when flaring it would be barely visible. Or perhaps you should read one of the links.
Also, it's not clear to me why this event/analysis should cause me to be dubious about conventional science. The step from the event to your conclusion needs considerable justification.
Except that the volcanic eruptions left evidence, so we don't need to look for an alternate explanation. And, for that matter, so did various large floods. And so did a few meteor impacts.
Now we mean something different by a "supervolcano" than did our ancestors. Something that wiped out everyone (except a few) within walking distance would once have been a universal catastrophe, but we wouldn't even count an eruption of the Yellowstone super volcano as a universal catastrophe. Horrendous, yes, and killing everyone we knew, quite plausibly, but that's not universal...well, not what *we* mean by universal. Don't try to tell that to your tribal ancestors.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux was *NOT* the only alternative. Not even the most secure alternative. Just the most actively developed.
Other alternatives are the various BSDs. They existed then and were stable then. I'm not really sure about the differences between them, or whether they are more significant than the differences between the various Linux distros.
You've got me. It's an interesting question. OTOH, there are supposedly a lot of known ways of accessing the host computer from the VM, and perhaps those don't require out-of-order execution to implement.
You are making an assumption about what "access" means. It *might* mean physical access, but it could also include remote access. The summary, at least, wasn't clear about that.
Well, to be fair a lot of the hype about the AMD problem was because it was presented in a way that made it look as if Intel sponsored the release of information. I'm still not sure that isn't true.
IIUC, it's only the older models of the Atom that are safe. The more recent models have the same flaw.
This all depends on what "access" means. If it means browser drive-by, then it's quite dangerous. If it means physical access, then it's trivial.
They aren't useless, but you need a LOT of different ones. And actually, just saying "test track" is going to put your imagery in the wrong scenario. Testing mazes is a better image. Each maze designed by a different group, and required to be significantly different from all the others. And you need each different maze to come in a lot of variations. One of them, e.g., might have a random selection of man hole covers that could pop open in front of it, or might not. Another random intrusions from the side. Etc. Look at video games for inspiration of what might happen, the ones where people have to dodge. Also look at shopping malls. Etc.
No, it's not simple. But it should result in improved results. And be sure to redo old mazes occasionally to ensure that new learning doesn't override old.
Which means that it needs to be able to handle those situations on it's own. I'm not sure that 30 seconds is sufficient, as I've seen people take longer than that to be able to disengage.
But there are cases where it would be extremely useful. The one mentioned above is "The car can handle freeway driving, but the exit you need is 30 seconds ahead, so get ready to take over.", and that seems like a quite plausible one with a multitude of use cases.
Also, I'm not clear as to the relevance of your mention of "novice pilots". I think you've got a use case in mind that isn't occurring to me.
The problem here is that analysis makes it clear that management was pushing things ahead even when problems were reported.
There are various things that should have happened if the car were working as designed, but which didn't happen. It didn't slow, it didn't attempt to dodge. It didn't use lidar (I believe that's built into this model of car). Etc. Possibly those wouldn't have prevented the accident, but they should have reduced it's impact. But more to the point, even if this is an edge case where they wouldn't have helped, they should have been tried, because they *might* have helped.
Management had been warned that things weren't progressing satisfactorily, and their response was to push ahead with testing in order to meet their deadline.
I'm not sure they're at fault in this accident. I not only haven't studied it, I'm not an expert in the appropriate fields. But it's clear that the reactions of the car were not acceptable. There's a large gap between "at fault" and "good performance".
I thought it was ARPA
I'm sorry, but your linked article causes me to feel the theory is less worthy of investigating that I did before I went to it. And a search of the text did not include the word "Jupiter" so it can't count as a pre-existing prediction.
Depends on the event. IIRC in track there were often 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place trophies. Probably copied from the Olympics. Or perhaps from horse racing. (I'm not really sure what "Win, place, and show" means.)
To be fair, it seems as if that is also the police line, so that's probably where they got there information. If a large number of groups say the same thing, the first thing to suspect is not that they were conspiring, but that they used the same source.
Well, *I* feel like suing them (not enough to do it, because Experian already went that way, and you can't sue them), and I've never had a Facebook account. I'm just certain they've got my info anyway.
The second amendment (and many of the others) has already been adapted counter to its wording to adjust it to fit modern situations. This is really something the Federal government should have no say on, as the clear wording of the 2nd amendment says. (Nowhere does it say that the federal government has anything to do with "a well regulated militia", and originally it didn't.) This is something that should be handled by the states, or better by the cities and counties. There are areas where a gun is a useful tool...but it's not inside the cities.
So the mistake is that the rules that were supposed to restrict the federal government are applied without consideration to the states, and that doesn't work properly. So they have to use perversions of the proper understanding of what the words mean to get things to work at all. Of course, that was what some people wanted all along....
Yes/No. It's true that bullying is natural, and a part of the way humans naturally react, and if you want to live in the trees, it's a reasonable approach. But it penalizes the intelligent as well as the stupid. In fact, it penalizes anyone identifiably different in some "important to fashion" way. So if you want a technical civilization, you need to suppress it.
OTOH, you also need to reward achievement of any sort. Sports and martial arts teams are a good idea, as long as you don't make everyone participate. But basic physical activity is also important...so you need classes for those who *aren't* on the activity teams. Mechanics classes are important for those with skills in that area, etc. And everyone needs to master the basics.
Perhaps the mistake is to separate kids by age rather than by aptitudes, but you need to be careful to not create an us-vs-them within the structure, and that's difficult unless there are a lot of shared activities where accomplishment is a shared result.
I think the basic problem is that schools are designed to create assembly line workers. Most people don't like that, so it creates resentment which expresses itself in some way. "Summerhill" is a very interesting book on the subject of schools, but it required a selected student body and a special teacher. And a high teacher to student ratio.
Can you give me a link to a paper predicting the vorticies at Jupiter's poles before they were observed? I don't know enough to check the validity of the calculations vs. standard calculations, but a pre-existing prediction would be relatively convincing.
Calculations that I can't check don't mean much to me. Predictions of things that were later observed do, and are relatively unambiguous.
It's also a vindication of the approach used to discover Neptune. The approach was not controversial in any community I know of (well, except the flat earthers).
Do you really take the artistic reconstructions seriously?
That is definitely wrong. I know people in two bands, and both make money by selling CDs at concerts.
Well, were I to want to acquire music, I'd prefer a CD because downloads too often die for one reason or another. (E.g., I wipe the partition that they were downloaded into.)
OTOH, due to the RIAA legal practices, I've stopped acquiring music. Since I have many old CDs, I find that I don't miss it. (Interestingly, I don't listen to most of the ones I own. Only about 20.)
Why do you believe it? I'm not asking for a quote from some authority.
I think you need a clearer idea about how bright a 10th magnitude star is. Even when flaring it would be barely visible. Or perhaps you should read one of the links.
Skepticism is not the same as hostility.
Also, it's not clear to me why this event/analysis should cause me to be dubious about conventional science. The step from the event to your conclusion needs considerable justification.
Except that the volcanic eruptions left evidence, so we don't need to look for an alternate explanation. And, for that matter, so did various large floods. And so did a few meteor impacts.
Now we mean something different by a "supervolcano" than did our ancestors. Something that wiped out everyone (except a few) within walking distance would once have been a universal catastrophe, but we wouldn't even count an eruption of the Yellowstone super volcano as a universal catastrophe. Horrendous, yes, and killing everyone we knew, quite plausibly, but that's not universal...well, not what *we* mean by universal. Don't try to tell that to your tribal ancestors.