You are so wrong it's utterly pathetic. My point isn't that they should have added a cleaning system, my point is that they never should have been in the position of choosing between a 90-day mission lifetime at a cost of $820,000,000, or reengineering the rovers. If they didn't look at a possible dust problem in advance, they were negligent (we've known about Mars dust storms for over a century). If they did, and pressed ahead anyway, they were stupid. Either way, somewhere along the line they got the 90-day number, and it was STILL WRONG.
It's just another symptom of NASA's criminally negligent management. What I favor is the dismantling of NASA and the exile of everyone to have ever worked in management there from the entire aerospace industry (or, really, any job above flipping burgers, though I'm sure they'd screw that up, too). A few of them I want prosecuted for manslaughter, if not murder. It is a broken organization and so long as it exists, it is going to keep wasting ridiculous amounts of money while getting people killed.
Every NASA project is money constrained, so managers and boosters have all manner of strategems to make the most out of the system. Funding ground operations for 90 days is easier than funding ground observations for several years. Having a scientific package that meets it's goals in 90 days (and then goes ever onward) is much better than coming up with a 5 year plan and have some critical widget fail in three.
Funding my ass, they spent $820 million on the hardware, launch/transit, and 90-day operations (this during their era of chanting "smaller better cheaper"), and less than $125 million on continued operations since. On a budget that was already almost a billion dollars, you're going to tell me their primary motivation for pulling 90 days out of their ass was to save a few million on ground operations? No. Just no.
You either completely missed the point, or didn't pay much attention to the ridiculous statements that came out of NASA when the rovers were being prepped (and thus missed the point anyway, oh well).
It was quite clear at the time that NASA was creating a very expensive self-fulfilling prophecy (panels will last three months without cleaning system, so we'll make the mission three months long, oh hey, the panels will last for the duration of the mission, so we don't need a cleaning system! yay! oh, and we're going to spend over 2x the cost of Pioneer 10 while chanting "smaller cheaper better"), and it is now equally clear that they couldn't even get that right.
I applaud the hardware engineering skills that went into the construction of what's there. I curse and ridicule the absurd thought processes that led to such an insane disconnect between the stated goals and the final results. As I said in the first place, even when NASA gets it right, it's wrong.
It's not that they are wrong on their predictions of how long a device should last. Look at it this way: When you send something out into space (like a rover to mars) you won't have the possibility of fixing it if it breaks. When the rovers where designed and constructed NASA said they wanted them to last six months so they had to have a probability of failing at six months that was extremely tiny (1% or whatever the number came out of my ass). Also the way that warrenties are designed (and I'm assuming they did math like this before) is that the probability of failure is assigned for different times. The designers didn't say the rovers would break at six months. They merely made (almost) absolutely certain that they would last at least six months.
Except they never said six months. They said three months, insisted the solar panels would be too covered by dust to get enough power after that, and refused to consider any sort of cleaning system. Even when NASA gets something right, they get it completely wrong.
You can if that contract is between you and a lawyer.
An exception (and a much more narrow one than most people think) proving the rule. Attorneys must be able to maintain confidentiality in certain matters for our present legal system to function, and they require a special exception to do so -- one no other profession has such an exception (and no, not even medical doctors in most jurisdictions, despite widely-held misconceptions). Furthermore, there are no criminal penalties for an attorney violating confidentiality, whereas attempting to conceal a crime in any other context is itself a crime.
The cases are lost in the US for one of two reasons. Either because the smoker should have known the danger (it's been printed on every pack for decades), or because the issues presented have been foreclosed by a combination of past judgements (e.g. the massive every-attorney-general-in-the-country vs every-major-tobacco-company case) and federal legislation.
The cases are not being lost on the merits, but on gating issues.
Tabs came about because nobody would fix the "proper layer". You understand it was over TEN YEARS before the first tabbed browsers started becoming popular, right?
What bothered me is Chrome's removal of the bookmars bar. Now it is hidden under the settings menu. I should not have to do this each time I want to go to a bookmark.
WTF? Just click on "Always Show Bookmarks Bar". You don't have to do anything else. Ever. Your bookmarks bar will be there permanently.
Any particular reason for this "strong" suspicion? Java and JavaScript both eventually end up as native code. The dynamic nature poses interesting challenges, but shouldn't constitute a fundamental barrier to development of an JavaScript engine that's competitive with top JVMs.
You've proven the point. The tools you mentioned are poorly designed pieces of overpriced shit. The jobs pay well because non-technical management decides on the technology based on what slimy salesmen and bribed outside consultants tell them, then goes looking for people qualified to deal with it, and finds them in extremely short supply, because everyone else had the brains to avoid it like the plague.
You can't just "dump" Java for Python (or any other language). There are actual features _written in Java_. Those have to be re-written in another language.
That said, for the end-user, OOo hasn't had a mandatory dependency on Java in a long time, you can use it just fine without a JRE. There are a handful of features still dependent on Java, but most people would use them rarely, if at all. The build process is a different matter and depends heavily on Java.
LibreOffice is working on further reducing the dependencies, but it will take time.
Also, once you launch the thing, there's no way to go fix something if it stops working. So you have to build a device that's capable of running for years with absolutely no maintainence.
Sure there is, it just costs a bundle right now (see Hubble). There's a possible middle ground where if you can design relatively inexpensive robotic units to perform generic repair tasks, and design the expensive satellites with reparability in mind, you might be able to sacrifice some reliability to reduce overall costs in the knowledge that anything likely to break can be swapped out later.
I believe you:) There's a subset of coders who don't see anything wrong with "Select *" all over the place and I have a feeling this construct might chew up available memory real quick if a table has anywhere near this number of columns...
What's table?
(Seriously, Cassandra doesn't have tables. It's not an RDBMS, and doesn't use SQL.)
Only a completely de-normalized flat-file database would need anything like that number of columns. That would mean many duplicate pieces of information, and a complete maintenance nightmare. The only purpose I can see is to have views of existing normalized data for fast searching, but that would be read-only data.
This is a feature in need of an application and I can see very few applications.
Um, a very common answer to Cassandra questions is "denormalize". This is not an RDBMS, stop treating it like one.
Cassandra doesn't have "tables", and Cassandra's rows and columns have nothing to do with the rows and columns you're used to in SQL databases. Until you understand this, you will continue to be confused.
The "name" of a column is an arbitrary key -- you could have a row with a bunch of columns named things like "Country", or "Username", but you could also have columns named "jsmith", "jdoe", "12345", "USA", "Canada", etc., and you don't have to pre-define the column names.
You appear to be laboring under the assumption that the absurd ways US copyright, licensing, and contract law has been twisted apply to the rest of the world.
That's not the way things are run, he's just an uninformed twit. In most, if not all states, you agree to surrender to breath testing at the discretion of law enforcement as part of getting your license. Courts tend to interpret the power a little more narrowly than cops would like, but if they have even the slightest reasonable suspicion, you're not going to get anywhere.
An on-the-spot judge is new, though, and is going to be problematic. We take separation of powers pretty seriously here. A judge is not a police officer, and shouldn't be acting like one. The commingling is going totrigger a massive legal fight.
I dont think I've ever seen such happen in any such case brought on by the BSA, ESA, RIAA or MPAA before. Sure, there've been ones where the judge used common sense and was stern... but this judge truly went all out to put the ESA and the prosecutors in their places.
Makes one wonder if they've pulled other shenanigans in his court before or on the cynical side, if they didn't contribute to his last reelection campaign.
Why are you speculating on something you are clearly completely ignorant of? Federal judges do not have reelection campaigns. They do not have election campaigns. They are nominated by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate exactly once, after which they are in until they die, resign voluntarily, or are impeached and removed from office (the latter being incredibly rare, in over 200 years 14 judges have been impeached, and only about half were removed from office).
WTF? He's talking about USB. As in physical interconnection between the phone and the PC. If someone has tapped into a USB link, they already have the physical access necessary to get at your data regardless.
By your absurd logic, the USB mass-storage protocols should be encrypted because you might transfer personal information to/from a USB disk.
What we know today as GTK (actually GTK+) has little resemblance to what was originally written for GIMP, and never would have become anything remotely like what it is except the FSF decided they just _had_ to do something about Qt once KDE became popular. It's a "growth" of the GIMP toolkit in much the same way as a brain tumor is a "growth" of your own cells.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to be favoring B.
You are so wrong it's utterly pathetic. My point isn't that they should have added a cleaning system, my point is that they never should have been in the position of choosing between a 90-day mission lifetime at a cost of $820,000,000, or reengineering the rovers. If they didn't look at a possible dust problem in advance, they were negligent (we've known about Mars dust storms for over a century). If they did, and pressed ahead anyway, they were stupid. Either way, somewhere along the line they got the 90-day number, and it was STILL WRONG.
It's just another symptom of NASA's criminally negligent management. What I favor is the dismantling of NASA and the exile of everyone to have ever worked in management there from the entire aerospace industry (or, really, any job above flipping burgers, though I'm sure they'd screw that up, too). A few of them I want prosecuted for manslaughter, if not murder. It is a broken organization and so long as it exists, it is going to keep wasting ridiculous amounts of money while getting people killed.
Every NASA project is money constrained, so managers and boosters have all manner of strategems to make the most out of the system. Funding ground operations for 90 days is easier than funding ground observations for several years. Having a scientific package that meets it's goals in 90 days (and then goes ever onward) is much better than coming up with a 5 year plan and have some critical widget fail in three.
Funding my ass, they spent $820 million on the hardware, launch/transit, and 90-day operations (this during their era of chanting "smaller better cheaper"), and less than $125 million on continued operations since. On a budget that was already almost a billion dollars, you're going to tell me their primary motivation for pulling 90 days out of their ass was to save a few million on ground operations? No. Just no.
You either completely missed the point, or didn't pay much attention to the ridiculous statements that came out of NASA when the rovers were being prepped (and thus missed the point anyway, oh well).
It was quite clear at the time that NASA was creating a very expensive self-fulfilling prophecy (panels will last three months without cleaning system, so we'll make the mission three months long, oh hey, the panels will last for the duration of the mission, so we don't need a cleaning system! yay! oh, and we're going to spend over 2x the cost of Pioneer 10 while chanting "smaller cheaper better"), and it is now equally clear that they couldn't even get that right.
I applaud the hardware engineering skills that went into the construction of what's there. I curse and ridicule the absurd thought processes that led to such an insane disconnect between the stated goals and the final results. As I said in the first place, even when NASA gets it right, it's wrong.
It's not that they are wrong on their predictions of how long a device should last. Look at it this way: When you send something out into space (like a rover to mars) you won't have the possibility of fixing it if it breaks. When the rovers where designed and constructed NASA said they wanted them to last six months so they had to have a probability of failing at six months that was extremely tiny (1% or whatever the number came out of my ass). Also the way that warrenties are designed (and I'm assuming they did math like this before) is that the probability of failure is assigned for different times. The designers didn't say the rovers would break at six months. They merely made (almost) absolutely certain that they would last at least six months.
Except they never said six months. They said three months, insisted the solar panels would be too covered by dust to get enough power after that, and refused to consider any sort of cleaning system. Even when NASA gets something right, they get it completely wrong.
You can if that contract is between you and a lawyer.
An exception (and a much more narrow one than most people think) proving the rule. Attorneys must be able to maintain confidentiality in certain matters for our present legal system to function, and they require a special exception to do so -- one no other profession has such an exception (and no, not even medical doctors in most jurisdictions, despite widely-held misconceptions). Furthermore, there are no criminal penalties for an attorney violating confidentiality, whereas attempting to conceal a crime in any other context is itself a crime.
Whether he keeps his mouth shut about how the algos work or other dodgy goings-on is irrelevant. Non-disclosure is non-disclosure.
Not in the US. You cannot contractually forbid someone from reporting illegal activity.
The cases are lost in the US for one of two reasons. Either because the smoker should have known the danger (it's been printed on every pack for decades), or because the issues presented have been foreclosed by a combination of past judgements (e.g. the massive every-attorney-general-in-the-country vs every-major-tobacco-company case) and federal legislation.
The cases are not being lost on the merits, but on gating issues.
Tabs came about because nobody would fix the "proper layer". You understand it was over TEN YEARS before the first tabbed browsers started becoming popular, right?
What bothered me is Chrome's removal of the bookmars bar. Now it is hidden under the settings menu. I should not have to do this each time I want to go to a bookmark.
WTF? Just click on "Always Show Bookmarks Bar". You don't have to do anything else. Ever. Your bookmarks bar will be there permanently.
Any particular reason for this "strong" suspicion? Java and JavaScript both eventually end up as native code. The dynamic nature poses interesting challenges, but shouldn't constitute a fundamental barrier to development of an JavaScript engine that's competitive with top JVMs.
You've proven the point. The tools you mentioned are poorly designed pieces of overpriced shit. The jobs pay well because non-technical management decides on the technology based on what slimy salesmen and bribed outside consultants tell them, then goes looking for people qualified to deal with it, and finds them in extremely short supply, because everyone else had the brains to avoid it like the plague.
You can't just "dump" Java for Python (or any other language). There are actual features _written in Java_. Those have to be re-written in another language.
That said, for the end-user, OOo hasn't had a mandatory dependency on Java in a long time, you can use it just fine without a JRE. There are a handful of features still dependent on Java, but most people would use them rarely, if at all. The build process is a different matter and depends heavily on Java.
LibreOffice is working on further reducing the dependencies, but it will take time.
uh, you thought wrong.
The split was over longstanding governance issues. Java really had no particular role.
Also, once you launch the thing, there's no way to go fix something if it stops working. So you have to build a device that's capable of running for years with absolutely no maintainence.
Sure there is, it just costs a bundle right now (see Hubble). There's a possible middle ground where if you can design relatively inexpensive robotic units to perform generic repair tasks, and design the expensive satellites with reparability in mind, you might be able to sacrifice some reliability to reduce overall costs in the knowledge that anything likely to break can be swapped out later.
If you think NAT and DHCP solve the myriad problems associated with IPv4, you're not qualified to be speaking on the subject.
People are still paying for music?!?!?
As long as artists aren't playing for free then there will be people will be paying for music.
That would be a relevant statement if artists made any money off music sales.
I believe you :) There's a subset of coders who don't see anything wrong with "Select *" all over the place and I have a feeling this construct might chew up available memory real quick if a table has anywhere near this number of columns...
What's table?
(Seriously, Cassandra doesn't have tables. It's not an RDBMS, and doesn't use SQL.)
Only a completely de-normalized flat-file database would need anything like that number of columns. That would mean many duplicate pieces of information, and a complete maintenance nightmare. The only purpose I can see is to have views of existing normalized data for fast searching, but that would be read-only data.
This is a feature in need of an application and I can see very few applications.
Um, a very common answer to Cassandra questions is "denormalize". This is not an RDBMS, stop treating it like one.
Cassandra doesn't have "tables", and Cassandra's rows and columns have nothing to do with the rows and columns you're used to in SQL databases. Until you understand this, you will continue to be confused.
The "name" of a column is an arbitrary key -- you could have a row with a bunch of columns named things like "Country", or "Username", but you could also have columns named "jsmith", "jdoe", "12345", "USA", "Canada", etc., and you don't have to pre-define the column names.
You appear to be laboring under the assumption that the absurd ways US copyright, licensing, and contract law has been twisted apply to the rest of the world.
They do not.
That's not the way things are run, he's just an uninformed twit. In most, if not all states, you agree to surrender to breath testing at the discretion of law enforcement as part of getting your license. Courts tend to interpret the power a little more narrowly than cops would like, but if they have even the slightest reasonable suspicion, you're not going to get anywhere.
An on-the-spot judge is new, though, and is going to be problematic. We take separation of powers pretty seriously here. A judge is not a police officer, and shouldn't be acting like one. The commingling is going totrigger a massive legal fight.
I dont think I've ever seen such happen in any such case brought on by the BSA, ESA, RIAA or MPAA before. Sure, there've been ones where the judge used common sense and was stern... but this judge truly went all out to put the ESA and the prosecutors in their places.
Makes one wonder if they've pulled other shenanigans in his court before or on the cynical side, if they didn't contribute to his last reelection campaign.
Why are you speculating on something you are clearly completely ignorant of? Federal judges do not have reelection campaigns. They do not have election campaigns. They are nominated by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate exactly once, after which they are in until they die, resign voluntarily, or are impeached and removed from office (the latter being incredibly rare, in over 200 years 14 judges have been impeached, and only about half were removed from office).
1 guy with a Master's degree in Java UML frameworks from each country that has a population over 1B
You couldn't just write "China and India"? Nowhere else is even close.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population
WTF? He's talking about USB. As in physical interconnection between the phone and the PC. If someone has tapped into a USB link, they already have the physical access necessary to get at your data regardless.
By your absurd logic, the USB mass-storage protocols should be encrypted because you might transfer personal information to/from a USB disk.
I thought GTK was simply an outgrowth of GIMP?
What we know today as GTK (actually GTK+) has little resemblance to what was originally written for GIMP, and never would have become anything remotely like what it is except the FSF decided they just _had_ to do something about Qt once KDE became popular. It's a "growth" of the GIMP toolkit in much the same way as a brain tumor is a "growth" of your own cells.