Um, not exactly. Turbojet and Turbofan engines (and piston engines) all are devices that accelerate air toward the back to get forward thrust. The mass of the fuel does get included, but it's not the primary source of mass being pushed towards the rear. A rocket, accelerates the mass of the fuel and nothing else as the post you are replying to implies..
So, if you read carefully, the post you responded is indeed correct, even if (s)he didn't make the distinction of not including air.
Oh for crying out loud.... Pilot Error? Schmucks in Virgin's PR department latched onto that pretty quick.
Pilot error MAY have caused this accident, but everybody step back and look at why somebody may have leaked this "pilot error" theory.... If this WAS pilot error, the fault is not in the craft, so the design is safe, it was just not operated correctly. This means they just need to build another, train the pilots to not do whatever it is that caused the crash and not go though a lengthy and costly redesign. It's *ALWAYS* pilot error in some way, Virgin just needs a scapegoat that is not too expensive to fix.
This "leak" is all about PR and MONEY. They need to stop as many people as possible from asking for their money back or Sir Richard might have to cough up another few hundred million to make a go of this. He doesn't want to spend any more on this risky investment so they turn the PR department loose on the pilots. Shameful if you ask me.
Personally, I'm betting that the NTSB and the FAA will have some other perspective on this which may include pilot error, but there will be more to it. We all need to just wait for the experts to finish their analysis and pretty much ignore any of the press releases over cause until the final report is issued.
Ah, but you shouldn't. Everything is 100% safe until AFTER they start doing this, then it's a hacker's paradise of cracking open hotel rooms and ransacking the contents. (I know it's true, I saw it on SlashDot).
Maybe our TVs just need an "incognito mode" on the remote?
A button on the remote isn't necessary, a paper bag with eye holes will do the trick... If you don't have a black mustache and wear glasses, a set of Grouch-o Mark's glasses might work too.
As stated in TFS, it is legal in an awful lot of states, and just because it's not "common" doesn't mean it's worth ignoring or accepting.
WHICH states? I live in Texas and it is most decidedly NOT legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation here. So I've got to ask, given Texas is about as conservative as it comes, where does this legally happen if it doesn't here? California?
As I understand this, the EEOC ruled in 2011 that such discrimination is illegal under the Civil Rights act of 1964 (and following) so as a matter of LAW what you suggest is happening legally in some states is actually illegal EVERYWHERE in the USA. So.. If you see it happening, I suggest you get a lawyer and contact the EEOC and the DOJ to report it.
Got a picture of your wife on your desk? Ever mention her in offhand conversation? Sure would be nice if gay people were free to do that too without being fired, which isn't true in a lot of places.
...Everyplace I've worked in the last 15 years, firing for the things you suggest would be grounds for a lawsuit, not to mention run afoul of company policy in which we where usually trained annually...
you obviously don't work on Duck Dynasty
Right, and you obviously didn't actually read what Phil said in the context of the questions being asked him, you just read the news reports about what his detractors said about it. Phil may be a bit abrupt and not very delicate about how he worded things, but he was asked for his opinion.
As I understand it, a number of the crew working to film the DD shows profess to be homosexuals and not one of them has complained about how the Duck guys treat them. But that doesn't fit the picture so nobody reads that in an investigative news story.
In some places you'd be fired for your "lifestyle".
Where? The only places that can do this legally are Religious organizations, and even then only under specific circumstances. Given the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I don't see how you are going to get around the religious exemption. But apart from that, I dare say this kind of thing doesn't happen all that often these days. When and where it does, the courts should be invoked to make sure it doesn't happen to the next person.
Got a picture of your wife on your desk? Ever mention her in offhand conversation? Sure would be nice if gay people were free to do that too without being fired, which isn't true in a lot of places.
Where? These days, what you suggest is pretty much illegal (in the USA) so I suggest that when you see such things take place, make a point to take such cases to COURT.
Everyplace I've worked in the last 15 years, firing for the things you suggest would be grounds for a lawsuit, not to mention run afoul of company policy in which we where usually trained annually. There are complaint processes and a whole department of Human Resources people who's job it is to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen.
Where I'd not say it never happens today, I don't think it is as common as you might seem to think.
Who _didn't_ already know he was gay? Show of hands...
(hand up) ME!
But I'd like to add, I wasn't asking about his sexual orientation either. Despite what people say about right wing fundamental evangelical conservative Christians, most of us really don't pay attention to this kind of thing right up to the point where it gets shoved in our faces with a demand that we accept the behavior. Sorry, no acceptance of such behavior will come from me, but you don't need my blessing anyway, you are free to do what YOU think is right and I'm not going to attempt to stop you. I really just don't want to be involved so there is no reason to bring it up.
So can we move on now? I really don't think your sexual orientation matters, and I know it doesn't matter to me.
You don't have to subscribe to watch stuff on Hulu... At least last time I checked you didn't. Now if you want to stream it to a non-computer device, you must subscribe, but so far I've not seen the need. Amazon and Netflix have enough material to keep me happy...
Please no... There are two choices in my area, TWC and Verizon FIOS. Verizon needs some price competition, so I'd prefer to keep TWC around. It gives me a hammer to beat Verizon down on price when I can reasonably say, "But TWC will do it for $20 less a month with no 2 year commitment".
It's not like over the air broadcast news or the BBC is unbiased either.
I personally don't care what you watch as long as you are aware of the bias in the source and try to correct for it when you watch. You also need to be careful you understand the difference between "reporting" and "commentary" and recognize what you are watching. Fox has reasonable news (and I like the commentary usually), CNN usually has reasonable news too (although the commentators usually are off base for me)... MSNBC I'd stay away from, but I get the impression looking at their viewership numbers that I don't need to tell anybody that..
NT for Alpha actually worked very well, it was considerably faster and more stable than the x86 version.
My experience didn't match that, but I think mine was a bit unique. We where a DEC shop and where going to switch to NT. DEC and Microsoft engineers descended on us after somebody in management agreed to go that route, but they took weeks trying to get the software installed and working. I still remember the two engineers in the next cube claiming the other's company was at fault. They had a heck of a time getting all the hardware (video and network) to match the drivers and actually function and neither really knew why what they had didn't work. Of course this was all going on during what we call "beta" test time. I think we tossed them out the door after two weeks of flailing. But that's what I remember it to be like.
Glad to hear they got it working for somebody though it never did for us.
Are bound to repeat it. (And those who do know history are doomed to watch helplessly while others repeat it).
Didn't Microsoft try this with NT? I recall that it had a DEC workstation Variant (Not that it worked all that well.)
My guess is that all the people who understood why this effort failed so completely are now gone and few are left who remember the lesson learned for Microsoft in that boondoggle. So the young bucks are now in the process of repeating the history they don't know. They will get *some* market share, but for the price sensitive user, Linux will be a better option for ARM because going to ARM only makes sense for large sized installs. Large installs have huge license costs and start to look cheaper on Linux, even with the management costs being more.
My guess is that this won't go well for Microsoft, but if they want to shoot themselves in the foot again, so be it. Personally, I'd not want to poke the Intel bear too much if I was Microsoft.
Seems to me that the stuff I work on keeps getting bigger and bigger, as does my collection of digital pictures and videos. Where I attempt to pare down what I keep, some of it stays around...
I expect that most users do the same things and thus data keeps piling up. I don't think it matters how well you are at deleting stuff you don't need anymore.
How does a major vendor like Cisco take 3+ years to fix a known security hole?
Work around existed, nobody ever fielded in a configuration that was subject to the problem, so this was LOW risk. If you are working more important issues, LOW risk stuff gets to wait.
Then too, it may be that Cisco's development lab is really just there to run test software loads. I imagine that they are using TFTP and TELNET for this purpose. Oh the horror! (sarcasm off)
Where I don't disagree with you, I'm not ready to dump on somebody who chooses to use TELNET for what ever reason. IF they understand the risks and knowingly choose to do it anyway, it's their equipment and their call. You and I might never choose to do it this way, but neither of us are involved so it's not our choice.
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not advocating TELNET. I'm just not ready to condemn someone for using it for legacy reasons in situations where security is not a huge concern.
Security is really "risk management". This means that you must weigh the implementation costs and consider the risks. Remember that the ONLY secure system is one that's powered off and not plugged in. And then, it's only as secure as the physical security makes it.
In a closed network, like in a development lab, I can imagine that there isn't much risk and running SSH may not be worth bucking the legacy. Who really cares? They are likely using TFTP to load test software images and test configurations anyway, TELNET is the least of their worries if they have a network security concern.
Of course YOUR situation is likely different, as is your assessment of risks and mitigation. Where I would recommend using SSH under almost all situations too, I'm not gong to dump on somebody who chooses to take the risk of using TELNET, especially if they really understand the risks as I'm SURE Cisco does. They decided that TELNET fits their costs/risks assessments, and it's their call.
Slashdot Mirror
I vote guillotine, but I'm a traditionalist.
Leave it to the French to make sure somebody looses their head....
Um, not exactly. Turbojet and Turbofan engines (and piston engines) all are devices that accelerate air toward the back to get forward thrust. The mass of the fuel does get included, but it's not the primary source of mass being pushed towards the rear. A rocket, accelerates the mass of the fuel and nothing else as the post you are replying to implies..
So, if you read carefully, the post you responded is indeed correct, even if (s)he didn't make the distinction of not including air.
Oh for crying out loud.... Pilot Error? Schmucks in Virgin's PR department latched onto that pretty quick.
Pilot error MAY have caused this accident, but everybody step back and look at why somebody may have leaked this "pilot error" theory.... If this WAS pilot error, the fault is not in the craft, so the design is safe, it was just not operated correctly. This means they just need to build another, train the pilots to not do whatever it is that caused the crash and not go though a lengthy and costly redesign. It's *ALWAYS* pilot error in some way, Virgin just needs a scapegoat that is not too expensive to fix.
This "leak" is all about PR and MONEY. They need to stop as many people as possible from asking for their money back or Sir Richard might have to cough up another few hundred million to make a go of this. He doesn't want to spend any more on this risky investment so they turn the PR department loose on the pilots. Shameful if you ask me.
Personally, I'm betting that the NTSB and the FAA will have some other perspective on this which may include pilot error, but there will be more to it. We all need to just wait for the experts to finish their analysis and pretty much ignore any of the press releases over cause until the final report is issued.
Was it because he drove like his brother?
Thanks Tom for the good times. My condolences to the family. Tom shall be missed and we share part of your loss.
Wow, you still have your first mobile phone from 25 years ago? That thing simply won't work anymore you know. Dude (or lady) you need some help.
Nothing will end well... Entropy always increases as energy runs down hill, eventually, there will be nothing left.
Your point was?
I feel robbed.
Ah, but you shouldn't. Everything is 100% safe until AFTER they start doing this, then it's a hacker's paradise of cracking open hotel rooms and ransacking the contents. (I know it's true, I saw it on SlashDot).
Some suck more, some suck less, but they all suck, including Apple. Business is business and all...
Maybe our TVs just need an "incognito mode" on the remote?
A button on the remote isn't necessary, a paper bag with eye holes will do the trick... If you don't have a black mustache and wear glasses, a set of Grouch-o Mark's glasses might work too.
Apple? You like Apple and how they protect your privacy? Seriously?
Take this pointy hat over there put it on and sit in the corner..... No, talking, just go.
So I've been told by .... Hmmm.. What's that guy's name who thinks he is in charge of everything?
As stated in TFS, it is legal in an awful lot of states, and just because it's not "common" doesn't mean it's worth ignoring or accepting.
WHICH states? I live in Texas and it is most decidedly NOT legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation here. So I've got to ask, given Texas is about as conservative as it comes, where does this legally happen if it doesn't here? California?
As I understand this, the EEOC ruled in 2011 that such discrimination is illegal under the Civil Rights act of 1964 (and following) so as a matter of LAW what you suggest is happening legally in some states is actually illegal EVERYWHERE in the USA. So.. If you see it happening, I suggest you get a lawyer and contact the EEOC and the DOJ to report it.
Got a picture of your wife on your desk? Ever mention her in offhand conversation? Sure would be nice if gay people were free to do that too without being fired, which isn't true in a lot of places.
...Everyplace I've worked in the last 15 years, firing for the things you suggest would be grounds for a lawsuit, not to mention run afoul of company policy in which we where usually trained annually...
you obviously don't work on Duck Dynasty
Right, and you obviously didn't actually read what Phil said in the context of the questions being asked him, you just read the news reports about what his detractors said about it. Phil may be a bit abrupt and not very delicate about how he worded things, but he was asked for his opinion.
As I understand it, a number of the crew working to film the DD shows profess to be homosexuals and not one of them has complained about how the Duck guys treat them. But that doesn't fit the picture so nobody reads that in an investigative news story.
In some places you'd be fired for your "lifestyle".
Where? The only places that can do this legally are Religious organizations, and even then only under specific circumstances. Given the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I don't see how you are going to get around the religious exemption. But apart from that, I dare say this kind of thing doesn't happen all that often these days. When and where it does, the courts should be invoked to make sure it doesn't happen to the next person.
Got a picture of your wife on your desk? Ever mention her in offhand conversation? Sure would be nice if gay people were free to do that too without being fired, which isn't true in a lot of places.
Where? These days, what you suggest is pretty much illegal (in the USA) so I suggest that when you see such things take place, make a point to take such cases to COURT.
Everyplace I've worked in the last 15 years, firing for the things you suggest would be grounds for a lawsuit, not to mention run afoul of company policy in which we where usually trained annually. There are complaint processes and a whole department of Human Resources people who's job it is to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen.
Where I'd not say it never happens today, I don't think it is as common as you might seem to think.
Who _didn't_ already know he was gay? Show of hands...
(hand up) ME!
But I'd like to add, I wasn't asking about his sexual orientation either. Despite what people say about right wing fundamental evangelical conservative Christians, most of us really don't pay attention to this kind of thing right up to the point where it gets shoved in our faces with a demand that we accept the behavior. Sorry, no acceptance of such behavior will come from me, but you don't need my blessing anyway, you are free to do what YOU think is right and I'm not going to attempt to stop you. I really just don't want to be involved so there is no reason to bring it up.
So can we move on now? I really don't think your sexual orientation matters, and I know it doesn't matter to me.
You don't have to subscribe to watch stuff on Hulu... At least last time I checked you didn't. Now if you want to stream it to a non-computer device, you must subscribe, but so far I've not seen the need. Amazon and Netflix have enough material to keep me happy...
Please no... There are two choices in my area, TWC and Verizon FIOS. Verizon needs some price competition, so I'd prefer to keep TWC around. It gives me a hammer to beat Verizon down on price when I can reasonably say, "But TWC will do it for $20 less a month with no 2 year commitment".
It's not like over the air broadcast news or the BBC is unbiased either.
I personally don't care what you watch as long as you are aware of the bias in the source and try to correct for it when you watch. You also need to be careful you understand the difference between "reporting" and "commentary" and recognize what you are watching. Fox has reasonable news (and I like the commentary usually), CNN usually has reasonable news too (although the commentators usually are off base for me)... MSNBC I'd stay away from, but I get the impression looking at their viewership numbers that I don't need to tell anybody that..
NT for Alpha actually worked very well, it was considerably faster and more stable than the x86 version.
My experience didn't match that, but I think mine was a bit unique. We where a DEC shop and where going to switch to NT. DEC and Microsoft engineers descended on us after somebody in management agreed to go that route, but they took weeks trying to get the software installed and working. I still remember the two engineers in the next cube claiming the other's company was at fault. They had a heck of a time getting all the hardware (video and network) to match the drivers and actually function and neither really knew why what they had didn't work. Of course this was all going on during what we call "beta" test time. I think we tossed them out the door after two weeks of flailing. But that's what I remember it to be like.
Glad to hear they got it working for somebody though it never did for us.
Are bound to repeat it. (And those who do know history are doomed to watch helplessly while others repeat it).
Didn't Microsoft try this with NT? I recall that it had a DEC workstation Variant (Not that it worked all that well.)
My guess is that all the people who understood why this effort failed so completely are now gone and few are left who remember the lesson learned for Microsoft in that boondoggle. So the young bucks are now in the process of repeating the history they don't know. They will get *some* market share, but for the price sensitive user, Linux will be a better option for ARM because going to ARM only makes sense for large sized installs. Large installs have huge license costs and start to look cheaper on Linux, even with the management costs being more.
My guess is that this won't go well for Microsoft, but if they want to shoot themselves in the foot again, so be it. Personally, I'd not want to poke the Intel bear too much if I was Microsoft.
I'll bet that's not true...
Seems to me that the stuff I work on keeps getting bigger and bigger, as does my collection of digital pictures and videos. Where I attempt to pare down what I keep, some of it stays around...
I expect that most users do the same things and thus data keeps piling up. I don't think it matters how well you are at deleting stuff you don't need anymore.
How does a major vendor like Cisco take 3+ years to fix a known security hole?
Work around existed, nobody ever fielded in a configuration that was subject to the problem, so this was LOW risk. If you are working more important issues, LOW risk stuff gets to wait.
That's how.
Then too, it may be that Cisco's development lab is really just there to run test software loads. I imagine that they are using TFTP and TELNET for this purpose. Oh the horror! (sarcasm off)
Where I don't disagree with you, I'm not ready to dump on somebody who chooses to use TELNET for what ever reason. IF they understand the risks and knowingly choose to do it anyway, it's their equipment and their call. You and I might never choose to do it this way, but neither of us are involved so it's not our choice.
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not advocating TELNET. I'm just not ready to condemn someone for using it for legacy reasons in situations where security is not a huge concern.
Security is really "risk management". This means that you must weigh the implementation costs and consider the risks. Remember that the ONLY secure system is one that's powered off and not plugged in. And then, it's only as secure as the physical security makes it.
In a closed network, like in a development lab, I can imagine that there isn't much risk and running SSH may not be worth bucking the legacy. Who really cares? They are likely using TFTP to load test software images and test configurations anyway, TELNET is the least of their worries if they have a network security concern.
Of course YOUR situation is likely different, as is your assessment of risks and mitigation. Where I would recommend using SSH under almost all situations too, I'm not gong to dump on somebody who chooses to take the risk of using TELNET, especially if they really understand the risks as I'm SURE Cisco does. They decided that TELNET fits their costs/risks assessments, and it's their call.