Interesting link but too shy on details. It says that they have identified a component in the rubidium clocks which short circuits, but to date the hydrogen master clocks are failing at twice the rate of the rubidium ones.
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activit... this link provides more information on the problems with the PHM clocks. It appears there are multiple mechanisms causing multiple different devices to fail.
According to Wikipedia the mitigation that ISRO has made is to power down 2 of the rubidium clocks and only power them back up in case the primary fails. Could be related to the ESA's work.
Since when do people get fired via FedEx? I mean it's fitting for Oracle because it really seems like the single most expensive way of doing something.
You're telling me they announce lay offs by mail? What happens if I ignore the delivery?
Doesn't everyone? Normally the formalities are done via internal mail.
I mean you can feel free to ignore it as much as you want, but you may find at some point you're no longer let into the building, no longer paid, and someone comes knocking at your door to return that company phone that you failed to give back.
Yes. Both IRNSS and GALILEO use SpectraTime (a Swiss company) as the supplier of clocks.
GALILEO has suffered from 9 clock failures, but no more than 2 in any single satellite so they are still 100% operational... for now. IRNSS has suffered from 5 clock failures, but 3 were in the same satellite rendering satellite 1A unusable.
Neither of those work. It's really easy to get hundreds of IPs and/or virtual computers legally for pennies and an illegal botnet can easily have 10k+ bots so your 3.47 days becomes seconds.
In theory you're right. In practice you're wrong. The vast majority of attacks are not well targeted and will come from single IPs and take ages to switch. You can see that anywhere someone logs fail2ban hits on a Linux machine. There's so much low hanging fruit out there that even a simple scheme is likely to make people back off.
The SDXC standard theoretically goes all the way up to 2TB, so anything that supports SDXC cards *might* work just fine with these new cards, no one knows for sure until someone tries.
That last part is more key than anything else. There have been a few points in the past where the standards have changed but the form factors have not. Combined with filesystem changes. Both 2GB and 32GB had technological limits. That pretty much introduced the concept of advertising "supported" capacities.
That said, any company that implements SDXC should theoretically be able to go to 2TB. What they don't advertise is "works with SD cards up to 2TB" because: a) Someone will rightfully call them out on the fact that they hadn't tested that. b) There's a chance that a new standard will come in at 1TB and manufacturers will release those 1TB and 2TB cards with a different standard that can't be read. Then the vendor will get called out on their marketing.
1. I pre-purchase tickets and get to chose which seat I sit in. 2. I can chose a seat with private arm rests and a recliner. 3. I show up when I want which is invariably after the adverts have finished. 4. They serve alcohol. 5. Long movies have a break so you can go to the bathroom and stock up on more alcohol. 6. I don't have to listen to idiots beside me because it seems like in every other country the experience is somewhat respected. Something to do with people like that getting instantly kicked out without refund.
I'm "hearing-challenged" and the subtitles in theaters are horrible, hard to read, and NEVER at the same focal distance as the screen.
May I suggest you try an optometrist too? There's a shitload to complain about the movie going experience, but being unable to read the subtitles? Other than the fact I live in a non-english speaking country and the movies don't always have the courtesy to double subtitle (makes it hard to watch spy films or any film where the antagonist is foreign), that complaint is a new one.
Not at all. The effort and emails depend on the primary communication method. If the only way Amazon ever contacts you is via email then you don't have much of a case at all.
If however they often send you spam snail mail and then suddenly something important only comes out via email, then you have a case.
Even now I see the warnings suggest that even with "proper" viewing glasses, you really shouldn't expose yourself for more than a few minutes.
Proper solar filters allow you to stare at the sun indefinitely. I have no problem staring at the sun through a powerful telescope and my eclipse glasses are made from the same material as the filter on my scope.
People need to buy eclipse glasses without quotes around the word proper.
The frequency response and dynamic range are at or above the limits of the human ear. That's why those numbers were chosen for CDs.
False. Firstly the dynamic range of the human is is 120dB though you'd probably go deaf attempting to exploit that range. That is the reason digital master tapes use 20bit for recording, and SACD / DVD-A both have higher dynamic range than that. Plus electronics these days can actually get quiet enough to resolve these kind of minute outputs. 16bit was chosen for CDs due to the technological limits at the time. Heck Philips wanted to use 14bits but Sony at the time still was a quality audio company and wanted to push the boundaries.
44.1kHz was chosen due to the Nyquist theorem and due to how it fits in with broadcast video frequencies (no need to create special equipment to record if you can use the same for everything). The problem is that while nyquist theorem says you can perfectly represent the limits of human hearing with 44.1kHz, nyquist also showed that you end up with imaging effects starting at 44.1kHz which interfere with the lower frequencies and thus need to be filtered out to not damage the audio signal. The attempts at filtering this out was one of the reasons some early CDs players sounded quite horrible making the vinyl crowd wonder WTF was wrong with the world that this technology is getting so hyped. It wasn't until upsamping and delta-sigma modulation were introduced and we started coverting 44.1kHz to 88.2kHz or soon after MUCH higher (352.8kHz is standard for even cheap consumer junk now) for the purposes of the analogue conversion that this problem was really solved. And not liking to mess with the up-sampling of the signal is why SACD / DVD-A both have higher sampling rates.
Nowadays with music compressed to buggery, and with out understanding and design of signal processing equipment anything more than 44.1/16 actually is just taking up extra space, but the choice for CD was due to the limitations of the time and people craved more in the early days precisely because of how bad it sounded.
I think HD radio killed itself. I just went through a phase:
1. What is HD radio? Turns out it's not Satellite radio or DAB, shit I didn't even know this existed. - Marketing Failure. 2. How can I receive HD radio? So I went to HD Radio's website and clicked on a list of brands of receivers. Okay so I didn't recognise any of the brands that popped up in all, so I filtered. Sony : Nothing. Kenwood : Nothing. JVC : Nothing. Pioneer : Nothing. - Okay so I can't listen to it from equipment by normal manufacturers. 3. Where can I listen to it? Oh USA only, and even then coverage is like 70%.
Why did this proprietary company come along and compete with DAB+ and other internationally used standards? I can pick up >100 DAB+ stations in both my standard Kenwood car radio and my Sony receiver in the living room. And if I wanted something portable, well there's plenty to chose from too.
The USA is truly bizarre in its effort to be different.
Radio has never been a great way to discover music.
Found the millennial, or maybe you're a Gen Y that probably still fits too.
Radio most definitely was a great way to discover music. Back when DJs decided what to play, fresh bands sent tapes in to radio stations to get exposure, and the industry wasn't dominated by men in suits.
It was so prevalent that at one point when music tastes started changing radio stations that would play the new music got outlawed which led to the whole rise of pirate radio.
Listening to "live" music through a radio is sort of pointless
Sounds like the only "live" music you listen to is bands playing their set pieces as if reading from music.The beauty of live music is the variance you get when bands decide to cover others, try songs they've never played, or just plain mess around with songs they are famous for.
Religion concern itself with "why". Science concerns itself with "how".
You can't understand the why without explicitly knowing the how. Science is as much concerned with why as religion, it just chooses not to skip the critical step that is required for something to make sense.
Risk is a function consequence and likelihood. Given the troll paid someone $5000 to forget this just happened, what about this situation make you think the likelihood of them winning was anything above 0?
The consequence may be high, but the risk was low.
I understand exactly what a company is for. I also understand why therefore they should not be put on some pedestal. They did the bare minimum and even scored $5000 for their efforts. Nothing more.
No trolls were hurt in the making of this crappy story, and Kaspersky deserves absolutely no credit for anything.
From what I've read, people are rightfully afraid of riding on the bullet train.Do you think they'll want to ride on an even faster and less safe version?
There's so much in that sentence that is wrong, let's start: - You read something: Provide citations. Let's see all the people who are "afraid" of train travel on a service that has never in its history never killed a single person. - Then let us look at the word "rightfully". If it is so rightful then I'm sure you can provide citations of how the train is an accident waiting to happen, and how riding that train will have a higher risk of death than doing the same trip by e.g. car. - You then made an extrapolation that people who have no idea about risk will continue to make really poor choices, yeah I'll give you that one. If someone is (wrongly) afraid of travelling on the bullet train then they will be (wrongly) afraid of travelling on another. - But you then extrapolated safety to be related to speed without justification of why. What makes a faster train less safe than existing status quo. Remember that the bullet train has never had a fatality. The same can not be said for many slower trains. So provide some citations that the result will be less safe.
Would you rather be in a train crashing at 600mph or 60mph?
Given the odds of crashing in a train, I'll take the 600mph thanks.
Just spend the money on regular trains/trams. No ego contests comparable to having the tallest building.
Having the tallest building is an ego contest. Having the fastest trains are not. There's an economic benefit to not having people tied up in transit when they could be working or consuming.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting link but too shy on details. It says that they have identified a component in the rubidium clocks which short circuits, but to date the hydrogen master clocks are failing at twice the rate of the rubidium ones.
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activit... this link provides more information on the problems with the PHM clocks. It appears there are multiple mechanisms causing multiple different devices to fail.
According to Wikipedia the mitigation that ISRO has made is to power down 2 of the rubidium clocks and only power them back up in case the primary fails. Could be related to the ESA's work.
And it would mean that indian ships require to have multiple positioning systems.
I think you'll find all ships already have multiple positioning systems.
Since when do people get fired via FedEx? I mean it's fitting for Oracle because it really seems like the single most expensive way of doing something.
You're telling me they announce lay offs by mail? What happens if I ignore the delivery?
Doesn't everyone? Normally the formalities are done via internal mail.
I mean you can feel free to ignore it as much as you want, but you may find at some point you're no longer let into the building, no longer paid, and someone comes knocking at your door to return that company phone that you failed to give back.
do they share the same vendor for their clocks?
Yes. Both IRNSS and GALILEO use SpectraTime (a Swiss company) as the supplier of clocks.
GALILEO has suffered from 9 clock failures, but no more than 2 in any single satellite so they are still 100% operational ... for now.
IRNSS has suffered from 5 clock failures, but 3 were in the same satellite rendering satellite 1A unusable.
If you want to be pedantic about language then sure. More power to you.
Neither of those work. It's really easy to get hundreds of IPs and/or virtual computers legally for pennies and an illegal botnet can easily have 10k+ bots so your 3.47 days becomes seconds.
In theory you're right. In practice you're wrong. The vast majority of attacks are not well targeted and will come from single IPs and take ages to switch. You can see that anywhere someone logs fail2ban hits on a Linux machine. There's so much low hanging fruit out there that even a simple scheme is likely to make people back off.
The SDXC standard theoretically goes all the way up to 2TB, so anything that supports SDXC cards *might* work just fine with these new cards, no one knows for sure until someone tries.
That last part is more key than anything else. There have been a few points in the past where the standards have changed but the form factors have not. Combined with filesystem changes. Both 2GB and 32GB had technological limits. That pretty much introduced the concept of advertising "supported" capacities.
That said, any company that implements SDXC should theoretically be able to go to 2TB. What they don't advertise is "works with SD cards up to 2TB" because:
a) Someone will rightfully call them out on the fact that they hadn't tested that.
b) There's a chance that a new standard will come in at 1TB and manufacturers will release those 1TB and 2TB cards with a different standard that can't be read. Then the vendor will get called out on their marketing.
Fuck American Movie Theaters -- they SUCK.
There FTFY.
Now compared to my experience:
1. I pre-purchase tickets and get to chose which seat I sit in.
2. I can chose a seat with private arm rests and a recliner.
3. I show up when I want which is invariably after the adverts have finished.
4. They serve alcohol.
5. Long movies have a break so you can go to the bathroom and stock up on more alcohol.
6. I don't have to listen to idiots beside me because it seems like in every other country the experience is somewhat respected. Something to do with people like that getting instantly kicked out without refund.
I'm "hearing-challenged" and the subtitles in theaters are horrible, hard to read, and NEVER at the same focal distance as the screen.
May I suggest you try an optometrist too? There's a shitload to complain about the movie going experience, but being unable to read the subtitles? Other than the fact I live in a non-english speaking country and the movies don't always have the courtesy to double subtitle (makes it hard to watch spy films or any film where the antagonist is foreign), that complaint is a new one.
Are you actually implying that Trump *only just* went blind?
Not at all. The effort and emails depend on the primary communication method. If the only way Amazon ever contacts you is via email then you don't have much of a case at all.
If however they often send you spam snail mail and then suddenly something important only comes out via email, then you have a case.
Even now I see the warnings suggest that even with "proper" viewing glasses, you really shouldn't expose yourself for more than a few minutes.
Proper solar filters allow you to stare at the sun indefinitely. I have no problem staring at the sun through a powerful telescope and my eclipse glasses are made from the same material as the filter on my scope.
People need to buy eclipse glasses without quotes around the word proper.
Even now I see the warnings suggest that even with "proper" viewing glasses, you really shouldn't expose yourself for more than a few minutes.
If you see a warning like that then throw the glasses away and buy proper ones without the quotes.
The frequency response and dynamic range are at or above the limits of the human ear. That's why those numbers were chosen for CDs.
False. Firstly the dynamic range of the human is is 120dB though you'd probably go deaf attempting to exploit that range. That is the reason digital master tapes use 20bit for recording, and SACD / DVD-A both have higher dynamic range than that. Plus electronics these days can actually get quiet enough to resolve these kind of minute outputs. 16bit was chosen for CDs due to the technological limits at the time. Heck Philips wanted to use 14bits but Sony at the time still was a quality audio company and wanted to push the boundaries.
44.1kHz was chosen due to the Nyquist theorem and due to how it fits in with broadcast video frequencies (no need to create special equipment to record if you can use the same for everything). The problem is that while nyquist theorem says you can perfectly represent the limits of human hearing with 44.1kHz, nyquist also showed that you end up with imaging effects starting at 44.1kHz which interfere with the lower frequencies and thus need to be filtered out to not damage the audio signal. The attempts at filtering this out was one of the reasons some early CDs players sounded quite horrible making the vinyl crowd wonder WTF was wrong with the world that this technology is getting so hyped. It wasn't until upsamping and delta-sigma modulation were introduced and we started coverting 44.1kHz to 88.2kHz or soon after MUCH higher (352.8kHz is standard for even cheap consumer junk now) for the purposes of the analogue conversion that this problem was really solved. And not liking to mess with the up-sampling of the signal is why SACD / DVD-A both have higher sampling rates.
Nowadays with music compressed to buggery, and with out understanding and design of signal processing equipment anything more than 44.1/16 actually is just taking up extra space, but the choice for CD was due to the limitations of the time and people craved more in the early days precisely because of how bad it sounded.
I think HD radio killed itself. I just went through a phase:
1. What is HD radio? Turns out it's not Satellite radio or DAB, shit I didn't even know this existed. - Marketing Failure.
2. How can I receive HD radio? So I went to HD Radio's website and clicked on a list of brands of receivers. Okay so I didn't recognise any of the brands that popped up in all, so I filtered. Sony : Nothing. Kenwood : Nothing. JVC : Nothing. Pioneer : Nothing. - Okay so I can't listen to it from equipment by normal manufacturers.
3. Where can I listen to it? Oh USA only, and even then coverage is like 70%.
Why did this proprietary company come along and compete with DAB+ and other internationally used standards? I can pick up >100 DAB+ stations in both my standard Kenwood car radio and my Sony receiver in the living room. And if I wanted something portable, well there's plenty to chose from too.
The USA is truly bizarre in its effort to be different.
Radio has never been a great way to discover music.
Found the millennial, or maybe you're a Gen Y that probably still fits too.
Radio most definitely was a great way to discover music. Back when DJs decided what to play, fresh bands sent tapes in to radio stations to get exposure, and the industry wasn't dominated by men in suits.
It was so prevalent that at one point when music tastes started changing radio stations that would play the new music got outlawed which led to the whole rise of pirate radio.
Listening to "live" music through a radio is sort of pointless
Sounds like the only "live" music you listen to is bands playing their set pieces as if reading from music.The beauty of live music is the variance you get when bands decide to cover others, try songs they've never played, or just plain mess around with songs they are famous for.
For a significant, but less vocal part of religious folk
Yeah if I denied the fundamental parts of my faith for fear of being outcast, I too wouldn't be very vocal about it.
Religion concern itself with "why".
Science concerns itself with "how".
You can't understand the why without explicitly knowing the how. Science is as much concerned with why as religion, it just chooses not to skip the critical step that is required for something to make sense.
There are also plenty of religious folk who use their brains
This! Religious folk even have names for those people. They call them "heathens" and then cast them out.
Risk is a function consequence and likelihood. Given the troll paid someone $5000 to forget this just happened, what about this situation make you think the likelihood of them winning was anything above 0?
The consequence may be high, but the risk was low.
I understand exactly what a company is for. I also understand why therefore they should not be put on some pedestal. They did the bare minimum and even scored $5000 for their efforts. Nothing more.
No trolls were hurt in the making of this crappy story, and Kaspersky deserves absolutely no credit for anything.
From what I've read, people are rightfully afraid of riding on the bullet train.Do you think they'll want to ride on an even faster and less safe version?
There's so much in that sentence that is wrong, let's start:
- You read something: Provide citations. Let's see all the people who are "afraid" of train travel on a service that has never in its history never killed a single person.
- Then let us look at the word "rightfully". If it is so rightful then I'm sure you can provide citations of how the train is an accident waiting to happen, and how riding that train will have a higher risk of death than doing the same trip by e.g. car.
- You then made an extrapolation that people who have no idea about risk will continue to make really poor choices, yeah I'll give you that one. If someone is (wrongly) afraid of travelling on the bullet train then they will be (wrongly) afraid of travelling on another.
- But you then extrapolated safety to be related to speed without justification of why. What makes a faster train less safe than existing status quo. Remember that the bullet train has never had a fatality. The same can not be said for many slower trains. So provide some citations that the result will be less safe.
Would you rather be in a train crashing at 600mph or 60mph?
Given the odds of crashing in a train, I'll take the 600mph thanks.
Just spend the money on regular trains/trams. No ego contests comparable to having the tallest building.
Having the tallest building is an ego contest. Having the fastest trains are not. There's an economic benefit to not having people tied up in transit when they could be working or consuming.