Your local government has picked Charter to be the local monopolist. The solution isn't to get Verizon to lay lines, it's to allow alternative cable providers to operate. If it comes down to it, require Charter to sell access to their lines. If Charter throws a fit, see how they like running cable without government granted right-of-ways.
Also, the Federal Government fscking LOVES XML. Like, a lot. The things I saw in the new "protocols" they're deploying for internatl air-traffic control data stuff... Wow...
Having said that, I don't really have much sympathy for someone who's trying to help students and employees circumvent network policy. They can watch their porn or check facebook on their own time.
Actually at my last job I'd regularly have to "circumvent network policy" to just do my goddamn job. That policy was quite literally set by Congress, by the way, so good luck getting it fixed.
Maybe we shouldn't apply technical solutions to these sort of non-technical problems. Maybe we should just discipline/fire people who waste time at work, or trash school computers.
I really appreciate the assurances of random anonymous giggling internet tough guys.
They really help me sleep at night.
Linux Desktop Development has Gotten Much Better
on
KDevelop 4.5 Released
·
· Score: 2
Eclipse tries really hard to have good C++ support. I'm using Indigo still (I think), on my workstation. It does a few things well, but some of the automatic warning/error detection is bad bad bad...
As far as GUI editing, Qt's Creator is actually pretty great. Curious how it will integrate QtQuick going forward. As someone else pointed out, Eclipse actually has really good GUI editing capabilities for Java now, thanks to Google.
So, yeah. I think Eclipse + Plugins (and Qt Creator) is plenty sufficient for development on Linux. Is it as good as Visual Studio on Windows? No. But I'd MUCH rather develop a GUI-based desktop application for Linux using Qt 4.x than ever having to deal with Swing... and GridBag...
Congress gave them some extra money to put it off for a while, but they still are planning furloughs for civilian employees. So, yeah, GP was full of shit...
The summary is wrong. All workers are furloughed 10% of their time, which is 1 day per 2-week pay period, ie: ~2 days a month.
Also, the FAA doesn't pay overtime. Pretty much all their employees are exempt, and/or salaried.
Did you read the bill, by the way? Every program, every account was cut by 10%. There was no way to "absorb the cuts with less impact". The budget for labor hours was cut by 10%. That means you can pay 10% less labor hours.
Source: I'm a contractor who works for the FAA in R&D.
ALL controllers are having their hours reduced by 10%. This comes out to 1 day per 2 week pay period, or the approximately two days per month in the summary. It's not 10% of controllers being affected, it's all controllers being affected by 10%.
And for those of you saying "Why didn't they cut other, less important budgets?"
Well, it doesn't work that way. Every account was cut 10% across the entire FAA. This is incredibly stupid, by the way, since the much of the FAA's labor is paid for via levies on airline tickets, and so it shouldn't be affected by these general fund shenanigans (as an aside, this is why we got furloughed two years ago, because Congress wouldn't renew the airline ticket levies for political reasons). But, hey, Congress... You get what you pay for.
Well, that's Congress for you. It's not like it affects them in any meaningful way. And it's not like we're going to not re-elect them, or that if we elected new representatives they'd be any better.
Just like Susan B. Anthony, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., etc., etc., etc. "deserved" prosecution.
Did you ever stop to consider, even for a moment, that the reason Aaron Swartz was going to continue this pattern of behavior might just possibly be that he was right?
Fair disclosure, I may be a bit biased here: I work with unmanned aircraft systems on a day-to-day basis. That being said, all of what I'm about to share with you is all publicly available knowledge via wikipedia or shows on the various Discovery Networks...
"Remotely piloted" UASes are ALREADY semi-autonomous. Many of them already don't allow any sort of direct control input from the operator, only taking directives such as "Fly to this point", "orbit this location", or "engage this target" via a point-and-click interface. There are already WORKING systems that make use of autonomous cooperation between multiple units to ensure target coverage for surveillance, or decide which unit will deploy its ordinance for a selected target. UASes have already engaged moving ground targets from beyond visual range via guided missiles, as well.
With all that in mind, yes, I'd say the tech is already there. We don't have (to my knowledge) any UASes currently carrying AIM-9s or AIM-120s and attempting to engage airborne targets, but I think that's more a result of the Fighter Mafia being in charge of the USAF than a lack of technical capability.
As others have said, air-to-air combat has been reduced to push button, beyond-visual-range engagements already. Heck, with newer aircraft they can engage targets not even visible on their own sensors, with the missiles being guided by satellite or AWACS or what have you. When the missile is being fired by a button push from a controller sitting at a RADAR screen somewhere, what does it matter if a manned or unmanned aircraft is carrying it?
You're assuming for some reason that there would be a 1-to-1 ratio between manned and unmanned aircraft. Your example really falls apart when that manned aircraft is facing an order of magnitude more hostile, semi-autonomous aircraft...
Slashdot Mirror
Your local government has picked Charter to be the local monopolist. The solution isn't to get Verizon to lay lines, it's to allow alternative cable providers to operate. If it comes down to it, require Charter to sell access to their lines. If Charter throws a fit, see how they like running cable without government granted right-of-ways.
Also, the Federal Government fscking LOVES XML. Like, a lot. The things I saw in the new "protocols" they're deploying for internatl air-traffic control data stuff... Wow...
Actually at my last job I'd regularly have to "circumvent network policy" to just do my goddamn job. That policy was quite literally set by Congress, by the way, so good luck getting it fixed.
Maybe we shouldn't apply technical solutions to these sort of non-technical problems. Maybe we should just discipline/fire people who waste time at work, or trash school computers.
So you read the handy transcript right below the video, right?
I fail to see what job would be eliminated by my purchase of a driverless car.
So that the Java Calendar objects provide consistent(ly bad) behavior across all platforms.
Not really a dumb question, just have to understand that's a design goal for Java: to abstract away anything platform specific.
There are limited run craft brews that get up to the $100-200 range per bottle.
I several times a year buy $10-15 bottles of beer.
I think you haven't done your market research very well.
I really appreciate the assurances of random anonymous giggling internet tough guys.
They really help me sleep at night.
Eclipse tries really hard to have good C++ support. I'm using Indigo still (I think), on my workstation. It does a few things well, but some of the automatic warning/error detection is bad bad bad...
As far as GUI editing, Qt's Creator is actually pretty great. Curious how it will integrate QtQuick going forward. As someone else pointed out, Eclipse actually has really good GUI editing capabilities for Java now, thanks to Google.
So, yeah. I think Eclipse + Plugins (and Qt Creator) is plenty sufficient for development on Linux. Is it as good as Visual Studio on Windows? No. But I'd MUCH rather develop a GUI-based desktop application for Linux using Qt 4.x than ever having to deal with Swing... and GridBag...
Congress gave them some extra money to put it off for a while, but they still are planning furloughs for civilian employees. So, yeah, GP was full of shit...
It also included the President in 2004, 2008, and 2012, in case you haven't noticed.
That's not how sequestration works. Every program was cut 10%. The DoD is avoiding furloughs by laying people off, most likely.
The summary is wrong. All workers are furloughed 10% of their time, which is 1 day per 2-week pay period, ie: ~2 days a month.
Also, the FAA doesn't pay overtime. Pretty much all their employees are exempt, and/or salaried.
Did you read the bill, by the way? Every program, every account was cut by 10%. There was no way to "absorb the cuts with less impact". The budget for labor hours was cut by 10%. That means you can pay 10% less labor hours.
Source: I'm a contractor who works for the FAA in R&D.
If you think the GOP is the only problem here, then you're also part of the problem.
Hi. I'm a contractor working for the FAA.
ALL controllers are having their hours reduced by 10%. This comes out to 1 day per 2 week pay period, or the approximately two days per month in the summary. It's not 10% of controllers being affected, it's all controllers being affected by 10%.
And for those of you saying "Why didn't they cut other, less important budgets?"
Well, it doesn't work that way. Every account was cut 10% across the entire FAA. This is incredibly stupid, by the way, since the much of the FAA's labor is paid for via levies on airline tickets, and so it shouldn't be affected by these general fund shenanigans (as an aside, this is why we got furloughed two years ago, because Congress wouldn't renew the airline ticket levies for political reasons). But, hey, Congress... You get what you pay for.
The FAA doesn't have a war budget.
Well, that's Congress for you. It's not like it affects them in any meaningful way. And it's not like we're going to not re-elect them, or that if we elected new representatives they'd be any better.
What reality do you live in? I'd really like to move there if that's true, because it sure isn't in mine...
If you don't want people talking on cell phones in your restaurant, then post a sign saying no cell phones and kick people out who disobey.
Don't frickin pollute the already crowded electromagnetic spectrum with a white noise generator, grow a damn spine.
I am teh dumb. Misread what grandparent was saying.
We're running a couple hundred CentOS 6, Fedora 13/16/18 machines. Do we count?
Just like Susan B. Anthony, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., etc., etc., etc. "deserved" prosecution.
Did you ever stop to consider, even for a moment, that the reason Aaron Swartz was going to continue this pattern of behavior might just possibly be that he was right?
Fair disclosure, I may be a bit biased here: I work with unmanned aircraft systems on a day-to-day basis. That being said, all of what I'm about to share with you is all publicly available knowledge via wikipedia or shows on the various Discovery Networks...
"Remotely piloted" UASes are ALREADY semi-autonomous. Many of them already don't allow any sort of direct control input from the operator, only taking directives such as "Fly to this point", "orbit this location", or "engage this target" via a point-and-click interface. There are already WORKING systems that make use of autonomous cooperation between multiple units to ensure target coverage for surveillance, or decide which unit will deploy its ordinance for a selected target. UASes have already engaged moving ground targets from beyond visual range via guided missiles, as well.
With all that in mind, yes, I'd say the tech is already there. We don't have (to my knowledge) any UASes currently carrying AIM-9s or AIM-120s and attempting to engage airborne targets, but I think that's more a result of the Fighter Mafia being in charge of the USAF than a lack of technical capability.
As others have said, air-to-air combat has been reduced to push button, beyond-visual-range engagements already. Heck, with newer aircraft they can engage targets not even visible on their own sensors, with the missiles being guided by satellite or AWACS or what have you. When the missile is being fired by a button push from a controller sitting at a RADAR screen somewhere, what does it matter if a manned or unmanned aircraft is carrying it?
You're assuming for some reason that there would be a 1-to-1 ratio between manned and unmanned aircraft. Your example really falls apart when that manned aircraft is facing an order of magnitude more hostile, semi-autonomous aircraft...
Everything you just listed as "bad" about this supposed VR is just as true about daydreams.
Maybe we should heavily regulate them, as well.
P.S. I find it funny you claim not to be a fascist, when in fact the policies you are advocating are surprisingly close to Italian fascism pre-WW2.