I love coffee, I dink a lot, but I find myself most unaffected by caffeine. It doesn't wake me up or give me energy
I'm like you... except for the withdrawal bit. No effect on me whatsoever except for the throbbing headache I get at around 4pm if I don't have any coffee at all. A single espresso during the day keeps it at bay.
Of course right this minute I'm working in the netherlands so my actual intake is somewhere between 5 and 10 double espressos a day.
People don't drink actual coffee anymore. They drink iced-mocha-caramel-chocolate fuckuccinos
Those aren't people, those are animals. Though people in Europe would claim that Americans never actually ever drank coffee and despite all the associated health risks at least the iced-mocha-caramel-chocolate fuckuccinos is remotely palatable:-)
Yet they'll not realize that it is essentially pointless because mobiles don't have a decent resolutions for useful HD
Not entirely sure what kind of a shitty backwards phone you have along with your desperate need for an updated prescription but even the difference between 720p and 1080p is easily visible on a mobile phone screen.
In that much time, the price is not going to substantially change.
So what you're saying is that HFT is so pointless that there's no reason for it to exist in the first place? So the market has solved itself then right, and we're not actually having this discussion?
If you're not buying and selling millions of shares a day
You may not be, but the people you trade through are. The costs associated with delays in trading directly translates to risk, that risk directly translates to a bigger buy/sell spread so you can absorb the costs.
If I go out and drop $1000 on stocks every couple of months, the fact that I could have gotten them $3 cheaper is pretty immaterial.
One day I hope we get to transaction fees that are this low. If you may a transaction and then hold on to shares for years and let it be then you're hardly a backyard stock trader. There are plenty of people who are facing hundreds of dollars in transaction costs a month for their home trading schemes.
The only arguments for HFT seem to be made by those engaging in HFT
The only people you're listening to are the HFTs. There are plenty of arguments for it from stock brokers, exchanges, and economists alike, not to mention those people who actively research market stability. Thought the latter are ultimately quite split on the net benefit to society as the liquidity that HFT provides to a market disappears at a time when its stabilising effect is most needed: flash crashes. None the less aside from a few prominent bugs that have made the last few flash crashes a bit worse there has been an almost market wide benefit to HFT benefitting not only people who trade stocks directly but also those who have others do it for them... like anyone with a pension.
with 30 years of experience deconstructing production chains to find efficiencies, improve quality and lower build costs
So professionals in the art of ripping some design decisions to shreds. Interestingly the only things he mentioned in his video even remotely relevant to users he seems to dislike from personal preference (door to heavy, not liking the design of the handle, pulling a hidden lever rather than the button to open the car). If that is all he's got to complain about that doesn't sound like much of a turn-off.
Incidentally every other person whose ripped into the model 3 for things they don't like the end conclusion is almost universally to buy given how awesome it is to drive making little details in a budget EV quite forgivable.
There are costs to HTTPS, and a great deal of technical debt would be incurred in forcing older sites to deploy it.
It's not that much, and if you can't put the effort into this debt one could argue that you don't actually care about hosting the content in the first place.
Using HTTPS also prohibits the development of other options, any of which may actually be far superior, in other words, premature optimization.
A stupid argument that could be applied to every system ever invented. Also quite wrong. Just because we're talking HTTPS today doesn't mean it will be HTTPS tomorrow. Heck internet protocols have developed a lot over the years, there's no reason this would be their death.
Grow up, kids.... HTTPS is like beta software... it's not done yet.
Welcome to security. While you want for the perfect everything proof solution, I'm going to put a lock on my front door. May I suggest you take up a hobby, you'll be waiting a loooooong time.
A public library has a budget. My bookcase at home does not, yet I can still read 20-year-old books from it. The fact that web software cannot be kept running without frequent intervention is not a feature, but a major failing of the entire ecosystem.
Your bookcase is not a comparable analogy. The public library is. You're not in the business of serving your books to random strangers who want to walking in browse and read.
There's no public knowledge system that is maintenance free. And just like your bookcase, go to your favourite website and hit print. Then you can freely keep the text as long as you want as well. Like your bookcase it'll be useless for everyone else too.
We wouldn't have to if people would do their jobs properly
No you don't understand. This isn't the kind of paperwork that puts checks and balances on people.
But you do need to inspect and test it anyway.
Didn't say you don't. But that doesn't change between the nuclear and the process industry... Actually yes it does, the process industry actually do it better.
Whole-project cookie cutter designs can be used only in the easy cases...snip... A power plant is surely something else already for its strong connections to other systems and the environment?
No it definitely isn't. Nuclear power is incredibly simple from a process design and understanding point of view. Dangerous, large, expensive, yes, but incredibly simple nonetheless. The results are literally cookie cutter designs. That worthless paperwork I alluded to? That was all wasted time after we were given the exact design to work with, validated it, presented it back unchanged, and then sat around as people navalgazed over a standard perscripted design. A power plant has very little external systems influencing it.
An oil refinery, or an olefin cracker, now we're talking interconnected systems! Now we're also talking technologies where a fundamental design is given but there is a lot of leeway in the actual implementation. From an engineering point of view, nuclear power is pretty much off the shelf. You want to build an AP1000? You will build it exactly as that design which was approved in 2005 says, with regulators checking and second guessing the very designs that they gave you in the first place.
Sorry mate but that is utter horseshit. The fundamentals to keeping nuclear reactors under control are ludicrously simple, the safety scenario even simpler. A nuclear reactor is not a complex system. A dangerous one, a large one, but far from complex.
But since you pointed out three specific things: Chernobyl: there was no fundamental misunderstanding of the risks when designing the Chernobyl reactor. It had a working safety system. Someone purposely disabled it and it got listed as operator error. This is also something that since the 90s operators are no longer capable of doing. Sellafield: I don't know why you would list this one with the others. It was a reactor poorly designed, with engineering problems ignored, operating in a way never intended with a design that wouldn't be considered for power. So quite irrelevant in discussions of nuclear safety. It belongs more in a list of nuclear accidents for weapons research. Fukushima: The fundamentals of the safety here were also well understood and considering the disaster which preceded it things went exceptionally well.
Now as bad as that sounds you just listed 3 incidents that predated fundamental movements of process safety. In the rest of the industry you can find thousands more such incidents with some common trends that the nuclear industry shares: The accidents decreased over the years as plants were built and the processes governing our fundamental understanding of safety improved. Key words such as management of change, abnormal operating risk assessment, and inherently safer designs are common place across all process and energy sectors these days, concepts which didn't actually exist when these plants were built.
Now with the benefit of 50 years of development in the process safety area we have reactor designs such as the AP1000 where you're simply not able to recreate incidents of Fukushima and Chernobyl with a focus on inherently safer processes and passive cooling. Designs in the nuclear industry as well as the entire process sector have over the years changed from relying on expert operation, to assuming everyone out there is an idiot and to not rely on any kind of expert knowledge.
The key thing there: The process industry without it's paperwork has developed faster and safety than the nuclear industry did. Bureaucracy doesn't just add cost and complexity, it is literally able to hold back progress in an industry.
No, Government policy is choosing wind. The free market is following whatever is cost effective. There is no subsidy farming, that's just the free market being nudged by policy.
Still a better outcome for the human race than all those people killed by the fossil fuel industry. Hell if you judge an energy source by it's death from incidents only then we should immediately stop using hydroelectric dams. Those things have killed more people than any other energy source. It's just not safe.
It's not that someone can MITM you on your home LAN. It's that web browsers make no distinction between a home LAN, where a MITM is less likely, and a coffee shop LAN, where a MITM is more likely.
Indeed, fortunately you can make that distinction when a warning is presented to you about that device you're trying to access, as is the case already.
The summary mentions not only Search but also Chrome.
The summary mentions lots of things. They also mention the words "insecure" "penalising" and even threw in some articles such as "that" and "the". Understanding english goes beyond looking at what is mentioned and actually reading sets of words in something called a "sentence" and when you elevate yourself to that level of understanding you'll realise you'll be just fine accessing HTTP sites in Chrome.
Sure the fact that a business of some scope is tied to a specific personal credit card seems problematic
It's not problematic, it's evidence of a business that isn't buying something worthy of the alleged $millions worth of loss. Likewise that they don't seem to have a SLA in place that at least offers 24h customer support contact numbers.
The credit card is a red herring. The real issue is what appears to be Google's cavalier attitude toward cancelling their customer's hosting
The credit card thing is not a red herring. Any cloud provider giving a service worthy of $1m / day if it goes doesn't receive payment via credit card. The credit card bit here is evidence that someone bought something very cheap and nasty. No customer service is more evidence of that.
The aggrieved party here did not need or expect an enterprise SLA
I didn't say enterprise SLA. SLA come in all shapes and sizes, and cover all sorts of things. Even small companies should have a SLA in the contract to cover basic things like customer service escalation and phone numbers.
Alas, it seems Big Brother Google was too busy snooping on the world to provide basic service to their paying customers.
Just to play on your words here, "basic service" is exactly what is being provided here. You want something more, pay more.
Sounds like a quick way of losing a lot of money. Pirate radio equipment is often seized, rarely are there people sitting around with it. And now you've just spent $2m for something that will just pop up somewhere else in a few days time.
Slashdot Mirror
Why? Did the bitcoin price change the number of mobile phones being shipped?
It could just be that coffee drinkers belong preferentially to a more wealthy group
A comment brought to you by the 1100s.
I love coffee, I dink a lot, but I find myself most unaffected by caffeine. It doesn't wake me up or give me energy
I'm like you ... except for the withdrawal bit. No effect on me whatsoever except for the throbbing headache I get at around 4pm if I don't have any coffee at all. A single espresso during the day keeps it at bay.
Of course right this minute I'm working in the netherlands so my actual intake is somewhere between 5 and 10 double espressos a day.
People don't drink actual coffee anymore. They drink iced-mocha-caramel-chocolate fuckuccinos
Those aren't people, those are animals. Though people in Europe would claim that Americans never actually ever drank coffee and despite all the associated health risks at least the iced-mocha-caramel-chocolate fuckuccinos is remotely palatable :-)
Buy an espresso machine already.
Yet they'll not realize that it is essentially pointless because mobiles don't have a decent resolutions for useful HD
Not entirely sure what kind of a shitty backwards phone you have along with your desperate need for an updated prescription but even the difference between 720p and 1080p is easily visible on a mobile phone screen.
In that much time, the price is not going to substantially change.
So what you're saying is that HFT is so pointless that there's no reason for it to exist in the first place? So the market has solved itself then right, and we're not actually having this discussion?
If you're not buying and selling millions of shares a day
You may not be, but the people you trade through are. The costs associated with delays in trading directly translates to risk, that risk directly translates to a bigger buy/sell spread so you can absorb the costs.
If I go out and drop $1000 on stocks every couple of months, the fact that I could have gotten them $3 cheaper is pretty immaterial.
One day I hope we get to transaction fees that are this low. If you may a transaction and then hold on to shares for years and let it be then you're hardly a backyard stock trader. There are plenty of people who are facing hundreds of dollars in transaction costs a month for their home trading schemes.
The only arguments for HFT seem to be made by those engaging in HFT
The only people you're listening to are the HFTs. There are plenty of arguments for it from stock brokers, exchanges, and economists alike, not to mention those people who actively research market stability. Thought the latter are ultimately quite split on the net benefit to society as the liquidity that HFT provides to a market disappears at a time when its stabilising effect is most needed: flash crashes. None the less aside from a few prominent bugs that have made the last few flash crashes a bit worse there has been an almost market wide benefit to HFT benefitting not only people who trade stocks directly but also those who have others do it for them ... like anyone with a pension.
So, you don't know what the word "American" means so I didn't bother to read the rest of your ignorant drivel.
LOL. Nice comeback mate. That comment would be really gutting if you didn't need to read 3/4 of my post it in order to make it.
with 30 years of experience deconstructing production chains to find efficiencies, improve quality and lower build costs
So professionals in the art of ripping some design decisions to shreds. Interestingly the only things he mentioned in his video even remotely relevant to users he seems to dislike from personal preference (door to heavy, not liking the design of the handle, pulling a hidden lever rather than the button to open the car). If that is all he's got to complain about that doesn't sound like much of a turn-off.
Incidentally every other person whose ripped into the model 3 for things they don't like the end conclusion is almost universally to buy given how awesome it is to drive making little details in a budget EV quite forgivable.
There are costs to HTTPS, and a great deal of technical debt would be incurred in forcing older sites to deploy it.
It's not that much, and if you can't put the effort into this debt one could argue that you don't actually care about hosting the content in the first place.
Using HTTPS also prohibits the development of other options, any of which may actually be far superior, in other words, premature optimization.
A stupid argument that could be applied to every system ever invented. Also quite wrong. Just because we're talking HTTPS today doesn't mean it will be HTTPS tomorrow. Heck internet protocols have developed a lot over the years, there's no reason this would be their death.
Grow up, kids.... HTTPS is like beta software... it's not done yet.
Welcome to security. While you want for the perfect everything proof solution, I'm going to put a lock on my front door. May I suggest you take up a hobby, you'll be waiting a loooooong time.
Think of the children's...energy prices. All that unnecessary encrypting costs electricity, times billions of pages per day.
It really doesn't. Not in the scheme of loading up content online.
A public library has a budget. My bookcase at home does not, yet I can still read 20-year-old books from it. The fact that web software cannot be kept running without frequent intervention is not a feature, but a major failing of the entire ecosystem.
Your bookcase is not a comparable analogy. The public library is. You're not in the business of serving your books to random strangers who want to walking in browse and read.
There's no public knowledge system that is maintenance free. And just like your bookcase, go to your favourite website and hit print. Then you can freely keep the text as long as you want as well. Like your bookcase it'll be useless for everyone else too.
AND the greenest source of base load power
And the deadliest to boot!
We wouldn't have to if people would do their jobs properly
No you don't understand. This isn't the kind of paperwork that puts checks and balances on people.
But you do need to inspect and test it anyway.
Didn't say you don't. But that doesn't change between the nuclear and the process industry. .. Actually yes it does, the process industry actually do it better.
Whole-project cookie cutter designs can be used only in the easy cases ...snip... A power plant is surely something else already for its strong connections to other systems and the environment?
No it definitely isn't. Nuclear power is incredibly simple from a process design and understanding point of view. Dangerous, large, expensive, yes, but incredibly simple nonetheless. The results are literally cookie cutter designs. That worthless paperwork I alluded to? That was all wasted time after we were given the exact design to work with, validated it, presented it back unchanged, and then sat around as people navalgazed over a standard perscripted design. A power plant has very little external systems influencing it.
An oil refinery, or an olefin cracker, now we're talking interconnected systems! Now we're also talking technologies where a fundamental design is given but there is a lot of leeway in the actual implementation. From an engineering point of view, nuclear power is pretty much off the shelf. You want to build an AP1000? You will build it exactly as that design which was approved in 2005 says, with regulators checking and second guessing the very designs that they gave you in the first place.
Sorry mate but that is utter horseshit. The fundamentals to keeping nuclear reactors under control are ludicrously simple, the safety scenario even simpler. A nuclear reactor is not a complex system. A dangerous one, a large one, but far from complex.
But since you pointed out three specific things:
Chernobyl: there was no fundamental misunderstanding of the risks when designing the Chernobyl reactor. It had a working safety system. Someone purposely disabled it and it got listed as operator error. This is also something that since the 90s operators are no longer capable of doing.
Sellafield: I don't know why you would list this one with the others. It was a reactor poorly designed, with engineering problems ignored, operating in a way never intended with a design that wouldn't be considered for power. So quite irrelevant in discussions of nuclear safety. It belongs more in a list of nuclear accidents for weapons research.
Fukushima: The fundamentals of the safety here were also well understood and considering the disaster which preceded it things went exceptionally well.
Now as bad as that sounds you just listed 3 incidents that predated fundamental movements of process safety. In the rest of the industry you can find thousands more such incidents with some common trends that the nuclear industry shares: The accidents decreased over the years as plants were built and the processes governing our fundamental understanding of safety improved. Key words such as management of change, abnormal operating risk assessment, and inherently safer designs are common place across all process and energy sectors these days, concepts which didn't actually exist when these plants were built.
Now with the benefit of 50 years of development in the process safety area we have reactor designs such as the AP1000 where you're simply not able to recreate incidents of Fukushima and Chernobyl with a focus on inherently safer processes and passive cooling. Designs in the nuclear industry as well as the entire process sector have over the years changed from relying on expert operation, to assuming everyone out there is an idiot and to not rely on any kind of expert knowledge.
The key thing there: The process industry without it's paperwork has developed faster and safety than the nuclear industry did. Bureaucracy doesn't just add cost and complexity, it is literally able to hold back progress in an industry.
No the US free market is choosing wind
No, the subsidy farming market is choosing wind.
No, Government policy is choosing wind. The free market is following whatever is cost effective. There is no subsidy farming, that's just the free market being nudged by policy.
Still a better outcome for the human race than all those people killed by the fossil fuel industry. Hell if you judge an energy source by it's death from incidents only then we should immediately stop using hydroelectric dams. Those things have killed more people than any other energy source. It's just not safe.
Yes, to make it safer. Yet that cost has not managed to prevent nuclear incidents.
Oh? How many nuclear incidents have we had in reactors that weren't built in the 60s?
It's not that someone can MITM you on your home LAN. It's that web browsers make no distinction between a home LAN, where a MITM is less likely, and a coffee shop LAN, where a MITM is more likely.
Indeed, fortunately you can make that distinction when a warning is presented to you about that device you're trying to access, as is the case already.
The summary mentions not only Search but also Chrome.
The summary mentions lots of things. They also mention the words "insecure" "penalising" and even threw in some articles such as "that" and "the". Understanding english goes beyond looking at what is mentioned and actually reading sets of words in something called a "sentence" and when you elevate yourself to that level of understanding you'll realise you'll be just fine accessing HTTP sites in Chrome.
Sure the fact that a business of some scope is tied to a specific personal credit card seems problematic
It's not problematic, it's evidence of a business that isn't buying something worthy of the alleged $millions worth of loss. Likewise that they don't seem to have a SLA in place that at least offers 24h customer support contact numbers.
The credit card is a red herring. The real issue is what appears to be Google's cavalier attitude toward cancelling their customer's hosting
The credit card thing is not a red herring. Any cloud provider giving a service worthy of $1m / day if it goes doesn't receive payment via credit card. The credit card bit here is evidence that someone bought something very cheap and nasty. No customer service is more evidence of that.
The aggrieved party here did not need or expect an enterprise SLA
I didn't say enterprise SLA. SLA come in all shapes and sizes, and cover all sorts of things. Even small companies should have a SLA in the contract to cover basic things like customer service escalation and phone numbers.
Alas, it seems Big Brother Google was too busy snooping on the world to provide basic service to their paying customers.
Just to play on your words here, "basic service" is exactly what is being provided here. You want something more, pay more.
It seems less expensive
For whom?
Sounds like a quick way of losing a lot of money. Pirate radio equipment is often seized, rarely are there people sitting around with it. And now you've just spent $2m for something that will just pop up somewhere else in a few days time.
a visit from the FCC and a fine would encourage Bob to not advertise
And what is the legal basis for fining Bob?
You have joined us in the brave world of common knowledge... the knowledge that the severity of the fine is rarely a deterrent of crime.