Good. Yet in the real world of corporate environments people use dropbox (and similar things, google drive etc) all the time, because it does something that corporate IT does not do.
It's all very well saying "it's rubbish". Provide an alternative. Windows file shares on a high-fenced intranet just doesn't work when people need to get access to that document from their phone in the back of a taxi in Tajikistan.
The Sun never setting on Britain's empire is a faded memory when it ended a very long time ago; England is perceived as just another back water pub. You need to let it go.
You mean F counters as in "First Class"? Even then my experience (not with BA) is that there are lineups. Much shorter, usually only one or two passengers ahead of me.
Yes. I guess I get to the airport at the right time. My last flight was sin-syd, and I arrived at t-120 as I had a meeting to phone in for at t-90. Not a ingle person at any of the counters, including the economy ones.
At hong long there was a queue, I just walked to the front.
Frequent flyers tend not to suffer the same way tht infrequent flyers that fly once a month or something do. t least at checkin. Queues at security, boarding, even at the lounge, are all far higher.
Try recently removed the people checking your bp at Manchester and put in an automated scanner. It's now slower than it used to be, but Manchester's profits have presumably increased now they've laid off a dozen people.
At heathrow they have "e-passport" desks. These take 15 seconds to clear the average person. They are manned by 3 people, and can pass 3 people at a time.
The manual border desks take 12 seconds to clear the average person, therefore faster than e-passport.
Iris is better, they aren't manned, tale about 15 seconds, but suffer from people who arent registered trying to use them.
In my experience, technology is brought in to airports to reduce staffing levels, and increases the time taken for the average passenger.
Saving 2 minutes will make diddly squat when you've still got conformance at t-35, and close of bag drop at t-40.
There's that, but I wish they would design airports better. Why, when I'm transiting a counrty, do I need to exit the secure part of the airport and have to pass through security yet again to get to my next gate.
Because the country the airport is in doesn't trust arrivin flight security.
If you fly man-lhr-nbo, you don't pass through security at heathrow.
Some terrible airports like AMS and SIN have security at the gate in any case. There's a reason I connect through t5 on ba, not ams on klm.
I believe when flying domestically in the u.s you don't need to reclear security.
Computer science as much about coding as astronomy is about building telescopes...
Computer science needs a computer less than astronomy needs a telescope.
I personally hate computer science. I'm a broadcaster. I make solutions to get things on air. Part of that involves writing code, part of it involves wiring up cables, bust most of it involves understanding broadcast and understanding journalists.
Coding is a very useful tool, more specific than "writing a report", but certainly less specific, and certainly more useful, than knowing how to "use word".
Computer Science is a science, for people with frizzy grey hair, that live in ivory towers and have little practical knowhow. You lock them in a room and occasionally things emerge that you can see a practical application for. It's essential, and it's all way beyond me. they need to know how to code as much as I do, possibly less.
I fly BA a bit, 56 flights with them this year. I check a bag on almost all of them. There's rarely a queue.
I call BS. Either you're flying out of a very small airport or checking in hours in advance. You see queues are almost inevitable when the system requires you to interact with an agent. Just do the math: 320 passengers in a transoceanic flight, let's optimistically assume we have 8 counters open, so that is a load of 40 people per counter.
The majority of passengers aren't allowed to use the F counter(s). If you're somewhere like Heathrow (hardly a "very small airport"), the walk from the train to the security to the lounge takes about 10 minutes. Adding a minute to drop off your bag at one of the many empty counters you pass doesn't really add anything to the total time spent in the airport, especially when you have to queue up for a "visa check" anyway at heathrow.
I did once have a situation recently where I waited for 20 seconds for one person to finish up, rather than walk a little further to an empty counter.
The idea is to further move the burden of travel on to the passenger.
Which is something I am gladly burdened with. You may have a rose coloured view of how things used to be but in peak hour I am eternally grateful that I can check myself in, print my own boarding pass, and until recently had to spend time weighing and tagging my bags with printed pieces of paper.
QANTAS already have this system. When I book online it is literally 2 clicks from an email to check-in. When I get to the terminal a scanner checks the barcode on my phone, I get a ticket, the bag goes on a conveyor with no further interaction required, and I walk to my gate.
I am interested in how you think that saving 2 minutes will do nothing if you're already not happy with how long the process takes? Improvements aren't good enough? We need to make it perfect in one go?
Rose tinted? It's been a long time since I saw a queue at check in. For economy of course, even once for business, but not for F checkin. Perhaps this will appeal to the occasional flyer that doesn't make oneworld emerald, but more the majority of us check in isn't an issue. Immigration in the states (over 2 hours last time I flew to IAD)
Now the lack of decent fast track on boarding, or at security, is something where time can be saved. In fact my last flight there was no fast track at all!
Saving 2 minutes won't actually happen in reality, as I'll still have to queue up (all flights from heathrow requirie a visit to get a "visa check".
I usuallyplan my arrival at the airport to get there within a few minutes of bag drop closing so this isnt going to help.
At best it means 2 more minutes in a crappy airport lounge. I won't be able to arrive at the airport any later than I do now, and it won't help deliver my bag any quicker. In fact it may well cause my bag to get lost.
Let's face it- the Taliban got knobbled for less than that...
A more apt description would be Iraq, who had change the currency they used to trade oil, and got wiped back to the stone age in "Shock and Awe" tactics.
The idea is to further move the burden of travel on to the passenger.
I fly BA a bit, 56 flights with them this year. I check a bag on almost all of them. There's rarely a queue. The current baggage tags work wonders, there's a secondary sticker in case the main one gets ripped off, and it has your name on it which is handy when checking you've got the right one at the carrousel.
I arrive at the airport, walk to the desk, drop my bag off, shove my passport over and smile. They give me a nice boarding card (which is often for a seat some rows in front of where I'd selected), put a label on my bag and send it off into the depths of the airport, issue me with a lounge invite (at some airports), and it gives me an opportunity to ask where the lounge is, as many airports I only visit once every couple of years.
It's simple, quick and cheap. If my bag does for some reason arrive at Baku airport instead of Changi, I'm confident they'll be able to read the tag and return it whence it came.
The company is hoping that upgrading to a high-tech version will shave a few minutes off the check-in process and get people to their flights faster.
No, they want to reduce the number of staff since their disastrous merger with Iberia.
Saving 2 minutes will make diddly squat when you've still got conformance at t-35, and close of bag drop at t-40.
You'd have to somehow get the car in front of the embassy door: inside the building, in a corridor, you'd need a tiny, tiny car that car climb stairs or fit in elevators.
If it's not specifically authorized in the Constitution, it's not legitimate authority. Generalized surveillance is prohibited by the 4th amendment, no matter how many representatives or judges have oversight. Congressional oversight of an unconstitutional law does not make that law legitimate, it makes those congress people traitors to their oath to defend the Constitution. The only way to make this legal is to amend the Constitution.
Your vaunted piece of paper hasn't been relevant for years..Apart from the 3rd amendment, you don't have to give up your spare room to home a squaddie. However the way that Americans fawn over people in uniform makes me think the social pressure would be too much to resist anyway.
Indeed. The extremely thin skin that people have developed over the past few decades is very frustrating, as is the reliance on a media ecosystem dedicated to sensationalizing to make money.
Well, sorta. If you do enough technobabble and you're willing to count close enough as a hit, then getting it right isn't that hard.
Point in case, in ST's case the Navigational Deflector (emitted by the deflector dish) was actually supposed to protect against space debris, micro-meteorites, etc. (Still a good idea, mind you, because when you're moving even close enough to the speed of light, a single grain of sand packs more energy than a broadside from a 20'th century battleship.)
Dealing with particles via magnetic field was actually the job of the Bussard Collectors (you know, those red glowing things at the front of the nacelles), a.k.a., ramscoops. Which actually didn't deflect it, but collected all that mostly hydrogen in the ship's path.
So, yeah, if you make a complete hash of which did what, and how, and still call it a ST deflector shield, yeah, you can count it as a hit.
But then by the same lax standard I can claim that Jesus endorsed binary code. Matthew 5:37: "But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.":p
(And yes, I'm a huge ST and SW nerd. I know, I know, I'll go not get laid now.;)
Yes, the Enterprise had several deflector dishes (main deflector for one) for moving things out of the way Yes it had ramscoops for collecting things
It (at least the D, the greatest of all Enterprises) also specifically had low power navigational shields
Lasers can't even penetrate our navigation shields. Don't they know that?
border control mostly cares about plants, animals, insects, large amounts of precious metals, illegal drugs, kiddie porn
no one cares about you carrying around ripped music and movies
i've traveled around the world and from all the nonsense you read about US law enforcement i've had less trouble at US Customs than almost anywhere in the world. including Europe.
I've just taken flight 57 of the year. I last saw a customs agent at heathrow 18 months ago. I went through the red channel and had to phone them up to get them to come out and stamp a carnet.
Right now it doesn't matter if it were 1.5 light seconds away. We can't get there. It may as well be in another universe. By the time we can conveniently travel that far, the whole concept of distance will be meaningless. For the sake of argument, yes, 22 light years is closer than 13 billion, but for now, in practical terms, the distance is infinite. If you already bought your ticket, I would suggest you ask for a refund.
22 years means you can send a message and get a response in your lifetime.
So narrow that not even a serving military officer selling US made weapons to a group that had killed over a hundred US marines less than a year previously (Hezbolla), via a declared enemy of the United States (Iran), doesn't count as treason.
Ahh yes
Stan: In the 80s there was Cold War drama.
We fought the Commies inside Nicaragua.
Our friends were the Contras. Freedom was their mantra.
So we sent them lots of money for guns and landmines.
But Congress stopped the Contra money flow
Just 'cause they moved a teeny bit of blow.
But then a hero came forth.
His name was Oliver North.
He and Reagan went around the sissy Congress.
OLLIE NORTH! OLLIE NORTH!
Stan (speaking): You see, North secretly sold missiles to a harmless country called Iran who would always be a grateful ally. Then he gave the profits to the Contras. Genius!
Stan: But the sales were uncovered by the press.
Contras: Awwww.
Press: He he.
Stan: Reagan and North began to stress.
Reagan: Well...
North: Nyaay!
Stan: 'Cause what they did was technically high treason! (But it was totally justified.)
Stan: North volunteered to take the blame,
to save Reagan from prison rape shame.
The truth he did bury with his hot secretary.
Thanks to her shredder, he got off totally scot-free!
The BBC and the New York Times also have articles reporting the Edward Snowden has left Hong Kong on a flight to Moscow.
You realise all news organisations use the same sources? Certainly the Bbc didn't have anyone on the plane (not enough notice I guess, even if they had someone that could transit in Russia without a visa).
It's like the old tale, channel A report a rumour, channel b repeat it, channel a report that it's confirmed based on channel b's report.
Sending someone to Mars is a complete waste of money in the short term. As is finding water or even signs of life on that planet.
And before you jump down my throat about bullshit such as Space R&D leads to beneficial offshoot technology, realize that we do not need to spend $100 Billion dollars to send someone to Mars with the offshoot of having a better memory foam for our mattresses, new flavor of Tang, or a more grippy version of Velcro.
$100 billion is about 12 hours of earth's output, It's peanuts.
If money could solve the energy crisis, it would be solved.
Slashdot Mirror
No, but people do wear contact lenses, and I'm not sure that the systems deal well with that.
Iris passport control at heathrow copes fine.
As someone who has been responsible for medium sized infrastructures – © 500 desktops - , as well as enterprise wide security, I will say I explicitly deny dropbox for all users. It’s a huge security hole. Without the ability to control, monitor, secure and most importantly log, it will never make it in the corporate environment.
Good. Yet in the real world of corporate environments people use dropbox (and similar things, google drive etc) all the time, because it does something that corporate IT does not do.
It's all very well saying "it's rubbish". Provide an alternative. Windows file shares on a high-fenced intranet just doesn't work when people need to get access to that document from their phone in the back of a taxi in Tajikistan.
You're a slashdot guy, so you must be pretty talented.
LOL!
That assertion turned false way before Hemos left, let alone Taco.
The Sun never setting on Britain's empire is a faded memory when it ended a very long time ago; England is perceived as just another back water pub. You need to let it go.
Err no, still going
http://what-if.xkcd.com/48/
You mean F counters as in "First Class"? Even then my experience (not with BA) is that there are lineups. Much shorter, usually only one or two passengers ahead of me.
Yes. I guess I get to the airport at the right time. My last flight was sin-syd, and I arrived at t-120 as I had a meeting to phone in for at t-90. Not a ingle person at any of the counters, including the economy ones.
At hong long there was a queue, I just walked to the front.
Frequent flyers tend not to suffer the same way tht infrequent flyers that fly once a month or something do. t least at checkin. Queues at security, boarding, even at the lounge, are all far higher.
Try recently removed the people checking your bp at Manchester and put in an automated scanner. It's now slower than it used to be, but Manchester's profits have presumably increased now they've laid off a dozen people.
At heathrow they have "e-passport" desks. These take 15 seconds to clear the average person. They are manned by 3 people, and can pass 3 people at a time.
The manual border desks take 12 seconds to clear the average person, therefore faster than e-passport.
Iris is better, they aren't manned, tale about 15 seconds, but suffer from people who arent registered trying to use them.
In my experience, technology is brought in to airports to reduce staffing levels, and increases the time taken for the average passenger.
Saving 2 minutes will make diddly squat when you've still got conformance at t-35, and close of bag drop at t-40.
There's that, but I wish they would design airports better. Why, when I'm transiting a counrty, do I need to exit the secure part of the airport and have to pass through security yet again to get to my next gate.
Because the country the airport is in doesn't trust arrivin flight security.
If you fly man-lhr-nbo, you don't pass through security at heathrow.
Some terrible airports like AMS and SIN have security at the gate in any case. There's a reason I connect through t5 on ba, not ams on klm.
I believe when flying domestically in the u.s you don't need to reclear security.
Computer science as much about coding as astronomy is about building telescopes ...
Computer science needs a computer less than astronomy needs a telescope.
I personally hate computer science. I'm a broadcaster. I make solutions to get things on air. Part of that involves writing code, part of it involves wiring up cables, bust most of it involves understanding broadcast and understanding journalists.
Coding is a very useful tool, more specific than "writing a report", but certainly less specific, and certainly more useful, than knowing how to "use word".
Computer Science is a science, for people with frizzy grey hair, that live in ivory towers and have little practical knowhow. You lock them in a room and occasionally things emerge that you can see a practical application for. It's essential, and it's all way beyond me. they need to know how to code as much as I do, possibly less.
I fly BA a bit, 56 flights with them this year. I check a bag on almost all of them. There's rarely a queue.
I call BS. Either you're flying out of a very small airport or checking in hours in advance. You see queues are almost inevitable when the system requires you to interact with an agent. Just do the math: 320 passengers in a transoceanic flight, let's optimistically assume we have 8 counters open, so that is a load of 40 people per counter.
The majority of passengers aren't allowed to use the F counter(s). If you're somewhere like Heathrow (hardly a "very small airport"), the walk from the train to the security to the lounge takes about 10 minutes. Adding a minute to drop off your bag at one of the many empty counters you pass doesn't really add anything to the total time spent in the airport, especially when you have to queue up for a "visa check" anyway at heathrow.
I did once have a situation recently where I waited for 20 seconds for one person to finish up, rather than walk a little further to an empty counter.
The idea is to further move the burden of travel on to the passenger.
Which is something I am gladly burdened with. You may have a rose coloured view of how things used to be but in peak hour I am eternally grateful that I can check myself in, print my own boarding pass, and until recently had to spend time weighing and tagging my bags with printed pieces of paper.
QANTAS already have this system. When I book online it is literally 2 clicks from an email to check-in. When I get to the terminal a scanner checks the barcode on my phone, I get a ticket, the bag goes on a conveyor with no further interaction required, and I walk to my gate.
I am interested in how you think that saving 2 minutes will do nothing if you're already not happy with how long the process takes? Improvements aren't good enough? We need to make it perfect in one go?
Rose tinted? It's been a long time since I saw a queue at check in. For economy of course, even once for business, but not for F checkin. Perhaps this will appeal to the occasional flyer that doesn't make oneworld emerald, but more the majority of us check in isn't an issue. Immigration in the states (over 2 hours last time I flew to IAD)
Now the lack of decent fast track on boarding, or at security, is something where time can be saved. In fact my last flight there was no fast track at all!
Saving 2 minutes won't actually happen in reality, as I'll still have to queue up (all flights from heathrow requirie a visit to get a "visa check".
I usuallyplan my arrival at the airport to get there within a few minutes of bag drop closing so this isnt going to help.
At best it means 2 more minutes in a crappy airport lounge. I won't be able to arrive at the airport any later than I do now, and it won't help deliver my bag any quicker. In fact it may well cause my bag to get lost.
Let's face it- the Taliban got knobbled for less than that...
A more apt description would be Iraq, who had change the currency they used to trade oil, and got wiped back to the stone age in "Shock and Awe" tactics.
The idea is to further move the burden of travel on to the passenger.
I fly BA a bit, 56 flights with them this year. I check a bag on almost all of them. There's rarely a queue. The current baggage tags work wonders, there's a secondary sticker in case the main one gets ripped off, and it has your name on it which is handy when checking you've got the right one at the carrousel.
I arrive at the airport, walk to the desk, drop my bag off, shove my passport over and smile. They give me a nice boarding card (which is often for a seat some rows in front of where I'd selected), put a label on my bag and send it off into the depths of the airport, issue me with a lounge invite (at some airports), and it gives me an opportunity to ask where the lounge is, as many airports I only visit once every couple of years.
It's simple, quick and cheap. If my bag does for some reason arrive at Baku airport instead of Changi, I'm confident they'll be able to read the tag and return it whence it came.
The company is hoping that upgrading to a high-tech version will shave a few minutes off the check-in process and get people to their flights faster.
No, they want to reduce the number of staff since their disastrous merger with Iberia.
Saving 2 minutes will make diddly squat when you've still got conformance at t-35, and close of bag drop at t-40.
Rationalize all you want - we beat you. As for those religious fanatics, you should have known better than to go up against them]
So a bad idea to go against religious fanatics?
Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it
You'd have to somehow get the car in front of the embassy door: inside the building, in a corridor, you'd need a tiny, tiny car that car climb stairs or fit in elevators.
Something like a Peel P50?
If it's not specifically authorized in the Constitution, it's not legitimate authority. Generalized surveillance is prohibited by the 4th amendment, no matter how many representatives or judges have oversight. Congressional oversight of an unconstitutional law does not make that law legitimate, it makes those congress people traitors to their oath to defend the Constitution. The only way to make this legal is to amend the Constitution.
Your vaunted piece of paper hasn't been relevant for years..Apart from the 3rd amendment, you don't have to give up your spare room to home a squaddie. However the way that Americans fawn over people in uniform makes me think the social pressure would be too much to resist anyway.
Why not try a holiday in Sweden this year?
See the lovely lakes, the wonderful telephone system, and many interesting furry animals, including the majestic moose.
Was it driving?
Instead we've got international relations breakdowns, furious Internet rage that might actually result in demonstrations (for what that's worth).
Those demonstrations last until the next episode of American Idol.
In countries where the demonstrations resume, you get Syria. Or at best Egypt.
49% of America will be glad to see the army depose Obama. 49% would have been glad to see the army depose Bush.
Cities in Motion 2 is probably one of the best tycoon games available. Highly recommended.
Well I've got a 14 hour day time flight next week, so I'm tempted to buy a game for the first time in years.
Looks like I can buy it online at http://store.steampowered.com/app/225420, rather than find a store here in whatever city I'm in today.
This concerns me though:
Other Requirements: Broadband Internet connection
Obviously I don't have a Broadband Internet connection when I'm 40,000 foot above the indian ocean somewhere south-west of Australia.
Indeed. The extremely thin skin that people have developed over the past few decades is very frustrating, as is the reliance on a media ecosystem dedicated to sensationalizing to make money.
Land of the wimp, home of the scared
Well, sorta. If you do enough technobabble and you're willing to count close enough as a hit, then getting it right isn't that hard.
Point in case, in ST's case the Navigational Deflector (emitted by the deflector dish) was actually supposed to protect against space debris, micro-meteorites, etc. (Still a good idea, mind you, because when you're moving even close enough to the speed of light, a single grain of sand packs more energy than a broadside from a 20'th century battleship.)
Dealing with particles via magnetic field was actually the job of the Bussard Collectors (you know, those red glowing things at the front of the nacelles), a.k.a., ramscoops. Which actually didn't deflect it, but collected all that mostly hydrogen in the ship's path.
So, yeah, if you make a complete hash of which did what, and how, and still call it a ST deflector shield, yeah, you can count it as a hit.
But then by the same lax standard I can claim that Jesus endorsed binary code. Matthew 5:37: "But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." :p
(And yes, I'm a huge ST and SW nerd. I know, I know, I'll go not get laid now.;)
Yes, the Enterprise had several deflector dishes (main deflector for one) for moving things out of the way
Yes it had ramscoops for collecting things
It (at least the D, the greatest of all Enterprises) also specifically had low power navigational shields
Lasers can't even penetrate our navigation shields. Don't they know that?
border control mostly cares about plants, animals, insects, large amounts of precious metals, illegal drugs, kiddie porn
no one cares about you carrying around ripped music and movies
i've traveled around the world and from all the nonsense you read about US law enforcement i've had less trouble at US Customs than almost anywhere in the world. including Europe.
I've just taken flight 57 of the year. I last saw a customs agent at heathrow 18 months ago. I went through the red channel and had to phone them up to get them to come out and stamp a carnet.
Right now it doesn't matter if it were 1.5 light seconds away. We can't get there. It may as well be in another universe. By the time we can conveniently travel that far, the whole concept of distance will be meaningless. For the sake of argument, yes, 22 light years is closer than 13 billion, but for now, in practical terms, the distance is infinite. If you already bought your ticket, I would suggest you ask for a refund.
22 years means you can send a message and get a response in your lifetime.
So narrow that not even a serving military officer selling US made weapons to a group that had killed over a hundred US marines less than a year previously (Hezbolla), via a declared enemy of the United States (Iran), doesn't count as treason.
Ahh yes
Stan: In the 80s there was Cold War drama.
We fought the Commies inside Nicaragua.
Our friends were the Contras. Freedom was their mantra.
So we sent them lots of money for guns and landmines.
But Congress stopped the Contra money flow
Just 'cause they moved a teeny bit of blow.
But then a hero came forth.
His name was Oliver North.
He and Reagan went around the sissy Congress.
OLLIE NORTH! OLLIE NORTH!
Stan (speaking): You see, North secretly sold missiles to a harmless country called Iran who would always be a grateful ally. Then he gave the profits to the Contras. Genius!
Stan: But the sales were uncovered by the press.
Contras: Awwww.
Press: He he.
Stan: Reagan and North began to stress.
Reagan: Well...
North: Nyaay!
Stan: 'Cause what they did was technically high treason! (But it was totally justified.)
Stan: North volunteered to take the blame,
to save Reagan from prison rape shame.
The truth he did bury with his hot secretary.
Thanks to her shredder, he got off totally scot-free!
OLLIE NORTH! OLLIE NORTH!
He's a soldier!
And a hero!
And a novelist!
And now he's on Fox News!
The BBC and the New York Times also have articles reporting the Edward Snowden has left Hong Kong on a flight to Moscow.
You realise all news organisations use the same sources? Certainly the Bbc didn't have anyone on the plane (not enough notice I guess, even if they had someone that could transit in Russia without a visa).
It's like the old tale, channel A report a rumour, channel b repeat it, channel a report that it's confirmed based on channel b's report.
A Beowulf cluster of these!
Running a raytrace of Natille Portman, Naked and Petrified!
Oooh it's enough to put hot grits down your pants (pants are optional, but recommended for you)
Sending someone to Mars is a complete waste of money in the short term. As is finding water or even signs of life on that planet.
And before you jump down my throat about bullshit such as Space R&D leads to beneficial offshoot technology, realize that we do not need to spend $100 Billion dollars to send someone to Mars with the offshoot of having a better memory foam for our mattresses, new flavor of Tang, or a more grippy version of Velcro.
$100 billion is about 12 hours of earth's output, It's peanuts.
If money could solve the energy crisis, it would be solved.