Linux hosted not Linux powered. Android users do not see Linux. The vast majority of Android developers do not even see Linux. The minority who jump through hoops to access Linux are pretty much just accessing POSIX calls so they don't really care about Linux either. Linux could be replaced with BSD and few would care or notice. Android is essentially its own operating system from both the user and developer perspective.
No, transactions in bitcoin are in no way obscured. The fundamental underpinning of bitcoin is the blockchain which is a public ledger of each and every transaction. The blockchain is the very sort of graph of relationships that the NSA sought to create with access to all phone company metadata. Its not the coin that is important, its the connection that was made from one account to another. (Dis)Aggregation does not change this.
States have always tried to regulate their own airspace, and the FAA keeps having to smack them down. Seriously, if it's in the air states have no control.
California taxes the owners of "real" aircraft, there are no FAA objections. California is generally dealing with ownership, the FAA generally dealing with operations. California would seem to be legally clear to require owners to license and insure their drones.
A crash of bitcoin value would not affect merchants, open or black market. They don't really hold bitcoins, many never see nor touch a bitcoin. Their bitcoin payment processor automatically converts bitcoins to fiat for the merchant. Whether the fiat based price of a product or service is ten bitcoins one day and one hundred bitcoins the next does not matter, the payment processor is converting the fiat price to bitcoin in real time for each customer.
It might make it easier for developers but not for users. Say I need two apps. One developer remains a a given level, the other updates. I now cannot use them together.
A developer who demanded a lower than current level of an OS would last about five minutes. In reality it would not even be "easier" for the developers because they would soon be non-existent.
It might make it easier for developers but not for users. Say I need two apps. One developer remains a a given level, the other updates. I now cannot use them together. A developer who demanded a lower than current level of an OS would last about five minutes. In reality it would not even be "easier" for the developers because they would soon be non-existent.
You misunderstand, its easier on the developer from a testing perspective. Being able to install 7, 8 or 9 as desired on a given device for example. Right now we have to buy extra devices and designate them not to be upgraded in order to get such iOS coverage. Simulators are convenient but not totally effective for testing. iPod touches have been convenient for this but now with the phones having different screen sizes they are a little less so.
That said, a developer can't require an old iOS version in the sense that they can enforce it. They can only target that old iOS version in terms of what functionality and programming APIs they use but such code will still run on newer versions of iOS due to backwards compatibility. iOS even goes into a compatibility mode when an app is too old to support a new screen size.
Apple already updates obsolete versions of iOS when there is a critical security problem. Specifically when that version is the most recent that some particular device can run. I recall getting such an update on an old device I keep for development purposes. Similar story for Mac OS X.
A rare lawsuit I hope succeeds to a degree. I hope this results in Apple updating their OS installation system to allow the final revisions of the last couple major versions, ex IIRC 8.4.1, 7.1.2. It would make life a little simpler for developers.
Note this does not necessarily increase Apple's support burden. Such final versions are often the most recent supported by a particular device and thus will still get very critical security updates. Ex IIRC 7.1.2 is the most recent version for the iPhone 4. I recall getting such a critical update to an obsolete iOS version.
While mules are well known to be more sure footed, more resilient to heat, and less prone to disease and injury they are also known to be less reliable under fire. That horses have more "bravery", allowing them to not only be used as pack animals but reliable partners in battle even in the age of gunpowder. While this particular horse's exploits are exemplary, as are the actions of many recognized heroes, it is in the nature of horses that such examples arise.
Do mules make 51 supply runs under fire and without a handler in a single day, carrying out wounded on the return leg. Horses have. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Bioengineer a horse that can eat MREs and you'll have a quiet (but smelly) alternative to this robot.
No need to bioengineer, nature has already provided such horses. "She was fond of a wide variety of foodstuffs, entertaining the platoon by eating scrambled eggs and drinking Coca-Cola and beer. Food could not be left unattended around her. She was known to eat bacon, buttered toast, chocolate bars, hard candy, shredded wheat, peanut butter sandwiches and mashed potatoes." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Good luck getting a mule to march for 24 hours straight.
Horses can be more reliable. "... in a single day, she made 51 solo trips to resupply multiple front line units. She was wounded in combat twice..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
True, but real horses or mules tend to react poorly to gunfire.
Just like people, they can be trained and acclimated. Horses have worked out well for the Marines in the past, even in a completely autonomous mode.
"... Reckless was bought by members of the United States Marine Corps and trained to be a pack horse for the Recoilless Rifle Platoon, Anti-Tank Company, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division. She quickly became part of the unit and was allowed to roam freely through camp, entering the marines' tents, where she would sleep on cold nights, and was known for her willingness to eat nearly anything, including scrambled eggs, beer, coca-cola and, once, about $30 worth of poker chips.
She served in numerous combat actions during the Korean War, carrying supplies and ammunition, and was also used to evacuate wounded. Learning each supply route after only a couple of trips, she often traveled to deliver supplies to the troops on her own, without benefit of a handler. The highlight of her nine-month military career came in late March 1953 during the Battle for Outpost Vegas when, in a single day, she made 51 solo trips to resupply multiple front line units. She was wounded in combat twice..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"You do realize that growing potatoes in a human habitat in orbit and growing potatoes in a human habitat on Mars are closely related problems, very closely related?
How? One is a microgravity and the other is 38% of Earth gravity.
Gravity is not the main problem. NASA is focusing on aeroponics approaches that are compatible with micro and zero g.
Thank you for confirming that you do not know what a "human habitat" is. Hint: Its not a colony.
People on Mars would have to live somewhere. It would be in... a habitat!!!
Apparently a simpler clue is needed: You are the only one talking about a colony in this conversation.
The international space station is a human habitat and it is in an even more hostile environment than mars.
You're either (1) joking, (2) delusional, or (3) didn't make yourself clear.
You forgot option (4). You erroneously conflate relative ease of visiting and supply with a hostile environment.
People have been living in that particular habitat for 15+ years.
It's -- on average -- 250 miles away, not 140 million miles away.
Are you replying to the correct individual? I'm the one who wrote: "You do realize that growing potatoes in a human habitat in orbit and growing potatoes in a human habitat on Mars are closely related problems, very closely related? Having astronauts on long endurance missions grow some of their own food is not only cost effective but incredibly good for morale."
So, take the $100 billion (*not* including the $50 billion in Shuttle launches) cost of the ISS and multiply it by a jillion.
That's what the Mars Colony would cost, and it's why there will never be a Mars Colony until some miraculous new compact power source can be invented.
Thank you for confirming that you do not know what a "human habitat" is. Hint: Its not a colony.
Take the Atacama Desert and make it 10,000x less suitable to life. That's Mars. IOW, there aren't going to be any human habitats on Mars.
You don't seem to understand what a human habitat is. The international space station is a human habitat and it is in an even more hostile environment than mars. People have been living in that particular habitat for 15+ years.
(1) The vehicle will no longer be in compliance with regulations that permit the privilege of taking your vehicle onto a public road. Merely driving it on a public road may make one vulnerable to civil charges, loss of driving privilege, confiscation of vehicle, etc. Much like drunk driving regardless of whether an accident occurs or not.
(2) It will void your insurance coverage and make you fully liable for anything that occurs. There will probably be no "hacking" coverage available to a regular person. Only certain research entities, including the auto company's, will probably be able to get coverage regarding software related incidents.
You mean geeks think they're better than everyone? I can't believe it. This figuratively blows my mind.
Such thoughts are a side effect of elevated midichlorian levels. Extremely high levels lead to one thinking they are near god-like individuals who should run the universe.
Because NASA keeps on suggesting idiotic stuff. Like growing potatoes on Mars.
You do realize that growing potatoes in a human habitat in orbit and growing potatoes in a human habitat on Mars are closely related problems, very closely related? Having astronauts on long endurance missions grow some of their own food is not only cost effective but incredibly good for morale.
Slashdot Mirror
While it sells many Linux-powered Android devices
Linux hosted not Linux powered. Android users do not see Linux. The vast majority of Android developers do not even see Linux. The minority who jump through hoops to access Linux are pretty much just accessing POSIX calls so they don't really care about Linux either. Linux could be replaced with BSD and few would care or notice. Android is essentially its own operating system from both the user and developer perspective.
If and when open Linux development becomes chaotic AT&T can fork and maintain its own distro. Imagine, AT&T maintaining its own version of *nix? ;-)
No, transactions in bitcoin are in no way obscured. The fundamental underpinning of bitcoin is the blockchain which is a public ledger of each and every transaction. The blockchain is the very sort of graph of relationships that the NSA sought to create with access to all phone company metadata. Its not the coin that is important, its the connection that was made from one account to another. (Dis)Aggregation does not change this.
States have always tried to regulate their own airspace, and the FAA keeps having to smack them down. Seriously, if it's in the air states have no control.
California taxes the owners of "real" aircraft, there are no FAA objections. California is generally dealing with ownership, the FAA generally dealing with operations. California would seem to be legally clear to require owners to license and insure their drones.
A crash of bitcoin value would not affect merchants, open or black market. They don't really hold bitcoins, many never see nor touch a bitcoin. Their bitcoin payment processor automatically converts bitcoins to fiat for the merchant. Whether the fiat based price of a product or service is ten bitcoins one day and one hundred bitcoins the next does not matter, the payment processor is converting the fiat price to bitcoin in real time for each customer.
It might make it easier for developers but not for users. Say I need two apps. One developer remains a a given level, the other updates. I now cannot use them together.
A developer who demanded a lower than current level of an OS would last about five minutes. In reality it would not even be "easier" for the developers because they would soon be non-existent.
It might make it easier for developers but not for users. Say I need two apps. One developer remains a a given level, the other updates. I now cannot use them together. A developer who demanded a lower than current level of an OS would last about five minutes. In reality it would not even be "easier" for the developers because they would soon be non-existent.
You misunderstand, its easier on the developer from a testing perspective. Being able to install 7, 8 or 9 as desired on a given device for example. Right now we have to buy extra devices and designate them not to be upgraded in order to get such iOS coverage. Simulators are convenient but not totally effective for testing. iPod touches have been convenient for this but now with the phones having different screen sizes they are a little less so.
That said, a developer can't require an old iOS version in the sense that they can enforce it. They can only target that old iOS version in terms of what functionality and programming APIs they use but such code will still run on newer versions of iOS due to backwards compatibility. iOS even goes into a compatibility mode when an app is too old to support a new screen size.
As an instrument rated private pilot, I do not ever recall using one, although I certainly know what one is.
You didn't use one in flight school? There is not one in some deep dark recess of your flight bag just in case?
I haven't used mine in over a decade.
But is it still in your flight bag just in case?
Apple already updates obsolete versions of iOS when there is a critical security problem. Specifically when that version is the most recent that some particular device can run. I recall getting such an update on an old device I keep for development purposes. Similar story for Mac OS X.
A rare lawsuit I hope succeeds to a degree. I hope this results in Apple updating their OS installation system to allow the final revisions of the last couple major versions, ex IIRC 8.4.1, 7.1.2. It would make life a little simpler for developers.
Note this does not necessarily increase Apple's support burden. Such final versions are often the most recent supported by a particular device and thus will still get very critical security updates. Ex IIRC 7.1.2 is the most recent version for the iPhone 4. I recall getting such a critical update to an obsolete iOS version.
That's an exceptional horse, do you have a way to clone her?
Like human Marines cloning is not necessary. Just careful selection from the overall population. :-)
While mules are well known to be more sure footed, more resilient to heat, and less prone to disease and injury they are also known to be less reliable under fire. That horses have more "bravery", allowing them to not only be used as pack animals but reliable partners in battle even in the age of gunpowder. While this particular horse's exploits are exemplary, as are the actions of many recognized heroes, it is in the nature of horses that such examples arise.
Do mules make 51 supply runs under fire and without a handler in a single day, carrying out wounded on the return leg. Horses have. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Bioengineer a horse that can eat MREs and you'll have a quiet (but smelly) alternative to this robot.
No need to bioengineer, nature has already provided such horses. "She was fond of a wide variety of foodstuffs, entertaining the platoon by eating scrambled eggs and drinking Coca-Cola and beer. Food could not be left unattended around her. She was known to eat bacon, buttered toast, chocolate bars, hard candy, shredded wheat, peanut butter sandwiches and mashed potatoes."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Good luck getting a mule to march for 24 hours straight.
Horses can be more reliable. "... in a single day, she made 51 solo trips to resupply multiple front line units. She was wounded in combat twice ..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Previous experience with horses by the Marines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
True, but real horses or mules tend to react poorly to gunfire.
Just like people, they can be trained and acclimated. Horses have worked out well for the Marines in the past, even in a completely autonomous mode.
..."
"... Reckless was bought by members of the United States Marine Corps and trained to be a pack horse for the Recoilless Rifle Platoon, Anti-Tank Company, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division. She quickly became part of the unit and was allowed to roam freely through camp, entering the marines' tents, where she would sleep on cold nights, and was known for her willingness to eat nearly anything, including scrambled eggs, beer, coca-cola and, once, about $30 worth of poker chips. She served in numerous combat actions during the Korean War, carrying supplies and ammunition, and was also used to evacuate wounded. Learning each supply route after only a couple of trips, she often traveled to deliver supplies to the troops on her own, without benefit of a handler. The highlight of her nine-month military career came in late March 1953 during the Battle for Outpost Vegas when, in a single day, she made 51 solo trips to resupply multiple front line units. She was wounded in combat twice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"You do realize that growing potatoes in a human habitat in orbit and growing potatoes in a human habitat on Mars are closely related problems, very closely related?
How? One is a microgravity and the other is 38% of Earth gravity.
Gravity is not the main problem. NASA is focusing on aeroponics approaches that are compatible with micro and zero g.
Thank you for confirming that you do not know what a "human habitat" is. Hint: Its not a colony.
People on Mars would have to live somewhere. It would be in... a habitat!!!
Apparently a simpler clue is needed: You are the only one talking about a colony in this conversation.
The international space station is a human habitat and it is in an even more hostile environment than mars.
You're either (1) joking, (2) delusional, or (3) didn't make yourself clear.
You forgot option (4). You erroneously conflate relative ease of visiting and supply with a hostile environment.
People have been living in that particular habitat for 15+ years.
It's -- on average -- 250 miles away, not 140 million miles away.
Are you replying to the correct individual? I'm the one who wrote: "You do realize that growing potatoes in a human habitat in orbit and growing potatoes in a human habitat on Mars are closely related problems, very closely related? Having astronauts on long endurance missions grow some of their own food is not only cost effective but incredibly good for morale."
So, take the $100 billion (*not* including the $50 billion in Shuttle launches) cost of the ISS and multiply it by a jillion.
That's what the Mars Colony would cost, and it's why there will never be a Mars Colony until some miraculous new compact power source can be invented.
Thank you for confirming that you do not know what a "human habitat" is. Hint: Its not a colony.
Take the Atacama Desert and make it 10,000x less suitable to life. That's Mars. IOW, there aren't going to be any human habitats on Mars.
You don't seem to understand what a human habitat is. The international space station is a human habitat and it is in an even more hostile environment than mars. People have been living in that particular habitat for 15+ years.
Luddites had it right.
Stick with horses? That's also a self driving vehicle that you merely issue driving commands to.
If I am forbidden from hacking my car's software will I be unable to stop it when:
You can stop the adverts by purchasing a "no adverts" upgrade.
Seriously, there probably will be a kindle-like discount if you allow ads.
I expect it will go far beyond that in two ways.
(1) The vehicle will no longer be in compliance with regulations that permit the privilege of taking your vehicle onto a public road. Merely driving it on a public road may make one vulnerable to civil charges, loss of driving privilege, confiscation of vehicle, etc. Much like drunk driving regardless of whether an accident occurs or not.
(2) It will void your insurance coverage and make you fully liable for anything that occurs. There will probably be no "hacking" coverage available to a regular person. Only certain research entities, including the auto company's, will probably be able to get coverage regarding software related incidents.
You mean geeks think they're better than everyone? I can't believe it. This figuratively blows my mind.
Such thoughts are a side effect of elevated midichlorian levels. Extremely high levels lead to one thinking they are near god-like individuals who should run the universe.
Because NASA keeps on suggesting idiotic stuff. Like growing potatoes on Mars.
You do realize that growing potatoes in a human habitat in orbit and growing potatoes in a human habitat on Mars are closely related problems, very closely related? Having astronauts on long endurance missions grow some of their own food is not only cost effective but incredibly good for morale.