This is to distract you peasants from the upcoming water shortage.
Water shortage? Where I live we get almost all our water from man-made surface lakes. Usually they are reaching their yearly lows as we approach late fall, but right now they are ALL above the conservation pool, some well into 50% of the flood pools. Not to mention it's actually going to rain, hard, for the next two or three days. Usually we don't fill the lakes until spring after the wet winter/spring season.
It may be temporary, but our problem around here right now is an excess of surface water, the likes of which we've not seen since the beginning of the 20th century.
If the FCC has no authority to impose net neutrality regulations on telecommunication services, then it equally has no authority to prevent states from imposing their own net neutrality regulations, because their is no federal authority that they are usurping. This means that the fundamental premise behind the suit filed by the telecom companies to invalidate California's net neutrality legislation has no footing, since it requires the FCC to have the authority Mr. Pai just disclaimed it possessing.
Um... I get your argument and support the state's right to do this, but your logic is flawed.
The FCC may not have the legal mandate to enforce NN, but that's not the same thing as not having the legal standing to prevent states from doing the regulation themselves. The contention that because the FCC claims they don't have the authority to enforce NN they cannot prevent the states from enacting the same regulation is not logically related.
The Federal government may not be able to restrict your free speech rights, but that doesn't mean they have no power over the states attempts to do the same thing.
So I don't think the argument you are using here is logically correct.
A phone and a pen are no match for making actual laws using the prescribed method. Remember, HOW you make the rule, is how you remove the rule, so if you cannot do it the hard way, it will be easy to undo later.
No solid evidence, but a number of anecdotal incidents that could be construed as such.
Anytime a popular website removes accounts and content and doesn't have clearly objective criteria for doing it, they are going to be accused of censorship by one side or the other. They will be accused of being subjective in their judgments and partisan in their actions regardless.
Facebook's problem is they have been subjective in their judgments in the past and have a sordid history of political activity that is not clearly bipartisan. For instance they had a internal dust up over one of their executives appearing behind Brett Kavanaugh during the now infamous and partisan Ford hearing. The guy had to apologize to his coworkers for this, even though he didn't represent Facebook but was there on his own time. Fair or not, Stories like these call into question Facebook's bias as they clearly show the bias of their employees and corporate culture.
Facebook needs to step back a bit here and start making clearly objective judgments in each individual case and saying what they are. They need to also have an objective process which allows the individual users to appeal Facebook's decisions. But that would be expensive and take time, so I'm guessing that won't happen any time soon.
At the very least, Facebook needs to have clearly objective criteria for taking action on any of its users. They also must clearly communicate to the community exactly what rules are being violated and what actions they are taking and how that is consistent with the objective policy. They will still be accused of being subjective by some, but at that point one could actually review Facebook's policy and decisions and actually decide if the rules are objective and if Facebook is actually following them.
I wasn't specifically targeting politically motivated adjustments to query results, but ALL filtering of results.
I'm suggesting that any filtering be clearly explained by the site returning results OR that they allow users to "opt out" of the filters if they choose.
So, if some search engine wishes to be "family friendly" and strictly filter out any pages they deem to be "adult" content, that's fine, they simply have to advertise themselves as doing this. IF they don't advertise as "family friendly" they can still return "safe" results, but they have to provide unaltered search results at a user's request.
Again, if someone wants to provide a politically motivated set of search results, Say if they want to market themselves as "politically correct" but don't specify their filtering criteria, they can do that, but they have to provide an "opt out of filtering" set of results. If they put their filtering criteria out saying we remove any links that point at or are found on a list of websites but don't provide a bypass, they can do that too.
So I'm saying you must disclose your filtering techniques, or allow them to be bypassed. I don't care how or what you filter, you just have to either tell me what rules you use or allow me to see unmodified results if I want.
Sorry Oracle but you are almost as bad for open source projects as M$.
Yea, just look at what they did for Solaris.....
Look, Oracle is out to make money, no more, no less. If FOSS helps, they will support it, if FOSS isn't helping them make money, they are going to ignore it. I'm guessing Open Office falls in the latter category, while Java in the former (not that Java is Free Open Source Software, just traditionally free).
Just consult the "Ministry of Truth" to decide if the search result should be returned to the user or not. This is dangerous!
Why does any search engine need to modify it's results for other than ad money?
I get the filtering of "adult" subjects as a matter of convenience, but why does Bing or Google care what their key word searches return? I would think that starting down this road is obviously a bad idea, or do we figure that Google and Bing are somehow tasked with controlling speech? Cause that's where this logically goes... Personally, I think search engines should CLEARLY tell us what filtering they are doing and how they rank results, or provide a way to bypass their filtering and ranking adjustments and return the unmodified results on demand.
Well, you are entitled to your opinion. However, I think the new observatory has a better ROI in the PR world than Hubble would going forward. Hubble was great while it lasted but I think the time is fast approaching when it will make sense to retire it and not try to revive it.
I do feel bad about it, but my feelings of nostalgia about a 20 year old epic achievement aside, it may be time to accept that Hubble is getting VERY old for something in orbit and we can now capture similar resolution images from the ground and soon will have another advancement in orbit. That billion dollars might be better spent on other things at this point. Just let Hubble continue to do what it can.
Of course, if you want to spend the money, I get why, I just don't agree it's the right thing to do.
This rarely happens in the USA. A bigger transmitter doesn't really help, and jamming the signal, while trivial, is a cat and mouse game.
It's only cat and mouse when the service being disrupted isn't something like the military, police or emergency. THEN they do have a history of being rather quick about dealing with the issue and show up with the US Marshals to deal with the problem and confiscate the equipment. It's rather rare, but it has happened a couple of times in my lifetime. They can and do find folks and if they ignore the warnings and fines, can and do take equipment. But usually it's a couple of years before they get to that point.
The FCC's enforcement actions drag on for decades, in one instance for almost 30 years, with the issue finally ending when the guy actually died and couldn't keep thumbing his nose or refusing to pay the fines after that.
Seems to me that turning it on at the sound of the gun shot might be a bit too late to get the complete picture of if the use of force was justified or not.
How about they are always recording a 2 min buffer and the sound of a gunshot triggers it to write the buffer and start the recording at a point 2 min in the past..
Doing another maintenance run on the Hubble is probably beyond the spec/capabilities of the first manned SpaceX launch, currently planned for mid 2019.
I fear you are correct. Hubble was/is at the extreme limits of the shuttle system's ability and the last trip was risky enough that they almost didn't do it. Now we have no shuttle.
I don't doubt Space X could engineer some solution to service Hubble, but the timeframe it would take to develop the capability is likely to be longer than the scheduled replacement's arrival. To do this Hubble service thing, you need to first catch it in orbit (the shuttle used an astronaut on the robot arm for this) so you can work on it, then open it up and move around some large chunks of delicate gear from some kind of cargo area.
Given the age of Hubble, the cost of such a rescue mission and the projected replacement of the system already scheduled, I'm guessing they use Hubble as best they can with what's left that is still working. It's been a great achievement, but I don't think it's worth it at this point to try and fix the thing. Besides, we all knew the day would come when Hubble would work no more. It's sad, but the time may be closer than we would like to admit.
Is the speed of light in space a constant? Does it get affected by gravity? If i try jumping upwards my velocity decreases to zero and then instsrt falling. Does a black hole affect light velocity?
Yes and no...Light goes the same speed everywhere, it's time that changes.... OR maybe it's the other way around?
Oh I get that, and we tried to meet their required dates, though within a month we had already slipped almost a month. You see the problem was, it will take as long as it takes. No amount of hurrying will fix that working longer each day only helps for a week or two and nothing good happens when the team is tired. It was during that project that I started managing risks aggressively though and I started publishing the probability we could meet the various milestones based on a list of risks. Management didn't care all that much and did their usual "throw resources at the problem" thing. However, when all was said and done, I expected to get fired for missing the dates, but what happened is my manager got canned for not listening to me in the first place. Why? Because, I had documented EVERY conversation, saved EVERY E-mail, and could prove that from the agreed to conditions for my schedule where not true and that the slippages where not due to my team not being ready. My PHB would have gladly tossed me under the bus, as I had directly opposed his decision to accept an unreasonable delivery schedule, but could prove I did my level best to meet it, knowing it would fail.
I would suggest that management that doesn't listen to their engineering staff, but just imposes a schedule based on the company's financial reporting schedule is acting stupidly. In my case, the delivery date was driven by the company's fiscal year, not engineering reality. This was the height of stupidity in my view and they should have accepted my 18 month schedule. We would have not had to miss revenue targets while working OT and doing system integration in front of the customer in country. It was a death march project.
Curious, I found a book afterwards called "Death March Projects" which I suggest engineers read.
The Dragon capsule is no where near being man-rated, so the changes of actually flying with a human is ZERO right now.
Come on... Musk has his Gnatt chart that clearly shows he can hit that deadline... Never mind there is zero slack for mistakes or schedule slippages and zero tolerance for the unknown unknowns that always popup in complex engineering projects..
Business folks do this kind of projecting all the time. They sit down, assume nothing goes wrong, takes longer than estimated, or unforeseen problems pop up on the critical path and declare the end date certain when their engineers have a list of major risks a mile long and give them a zero chance of meeting that date. But the date is what the shareholders get to hear.
I've been involved in such project planning with business folks who where obsessed with stock price and performance. One time I gave them my gut estimate on the date and they beat me up for being uncooperative, demanding I shave 6 months off the 18 that I quoted. "What if nothing goes wrong, when can you deliver?" was the question. I made the mistake of agreeing to the year based on "nothing going wrong". Of course, stuff went wrong. We finished within a week of my original estimate.
IF, in the unlikely event Kavanaugh is proven to be a rapist, then arrest him and impeach him.
Who is going to impeach him? The Republican majority has made it quite clear that they don't give a shit about his sexual assault charges; as with mall-stalker Roy Moore, they're on his side until the very end.
I'll tell you what.. IF you find your actual evidence that BK did commit a serious crime I'll be with you calling for impeachment. Until then, your claim that republicans would let him off is as provable as Ford's claims, being nothing more than your opinion without any independent evidence. .
Hmm...I wonder why they didn't subpoena the only witness...an admitted alcoholic? Is it fair to say that the percentage of alcoholics who haven't blacked out is close to 0%? He can't hide behind such obvious lies, which would then lead to greater suspicion of BK's testimony.
You mean the one that testified under oath to the committee or the one purported witness that made a statement, under oath, the he doesn't remember the events in question, doesn't remember the accuser and was supposed to be in the very room at the time?
An accusation with no supporting evidence, is just an accusation. One that has no eyewitnesses or physical evidence is still just an accusation. It could be true, it could be false. One where the supposed eyewitnesses don't remember anything of the reported events starts to smell like it's not true. This is where we are on this set of events...
By the way, BK didn't claim to be pristine here, he clearly says he drank too much beer at times. He also claims he never drank enough to not remember. I find this credible.
I too have drank too much at times (twice in my case) but in each of these instances I KNOW I didn't black out as I fully remembered the evening's events and that I was a bit tipsy. In fact, in both cases I was with folks who did forget what happened those two evenings, a fact that I exploited as a joke at their expense the following weeks. I accused one girl of having done something every embarrassing and another of having said something she needed to apologize for. In both cases I would just shake my head when they asked "What did I do?" One girl got frantic so I had to tell her I was just teasing her... I remember all this clear as day, though I was drunk.
How would you feel if you gave a lifetime appointment to someone that later turns out to be a rapist.
Sorry for the sake of democracy its better to put someone else in that position, even if it costs one person a "job of a lifetime."
The constitution allows for impeachment of justices for lacking good behavior. IF, in the unlikely event Kavanaugh is proven to be a rapist, then arrest him and impeach him. All you have to do is come up with the evidence to convict him, which if the various accusations are true, shouldn't be a problem. (except that it IS a problem finding evidence if somebody is making stuff up..)
Slashdot Mirror
In fact, There are Giant Clouds of Alcohol Floating in Space.
I hear that stuff in space is more like Vodka than beer.. Vodka pored over ice cubes made of mud.
This is to distract you peasants from the upcoming water shortage.
Water shortage? Where I live we get almost all our water from man-made surface lakes. Usually they are reaching their yearly lows as we approach late fall, but right now they are ALL above the conservation pool, some well into 50% of the flood pools. Not to mention it's actually going to rain, hard, for the next two or three days. Usually we don't fill the lakes until spring after the wet winter/spring season.
It may be temporary, but our problem around here right now is an excess of surface water, the likes of which we've not seen since the beginning of the 20th century.
If the FCC has no authority to impose net neutrality regulations on telecommunication services, then it equally has no authority to prevent states from imposing their own net neutrality regulations, because their is no federal authority that they are usurping. This means that the fundamental premise behind the suit filed by the telecom companies to invalidate California's net neutrality legislation has no footing, since it requires the FCC to have the authority Mr. Pai just disclaimed it possessing.
Um... I get your argument and support the state's right to do this, but your logic is flawed.
The FCC may not have the legal mandate to enforce NN, but that's not the same thing as not having the legal standing to prevent states from doing the regulation themselves. The contention that because the FCC claims they don't have the authority to enforce NN they cannot prevent the states from enacting the same regulation is not logically related.
The Federal government may not be able to restrict your free speech rights, but that doesn't mean they have no power over the states attempts to do the same thing.
So I don't think the argument you are using here is logically correct.
This is true.
A phone and a pen are no match for making actual laws using the prescribed method. Remember, HOW you make the rule, is how you remove the rule, so if you cannot do it the hard way, it will be easy to undo later.
No solid evidence, but a number of anecdotal incidents that could be construed as such.
Anytime a popular website removes accounts and content and doesn't have clearly objective criteria for doing it, they are going to be accused of censorship by one side or the other. They will be accused of being subjective in their judgments and partisan in their actions regardless.
Facebook's problem is they have been subjective in their judgments in the past and have a sordid history of political activity that is not clearly bipartisan. For instance they had a internal dust up over one of their executives appearing behind Brett Kavanaugh during the now infamous and partisan Ford hearing. The guy had to apologize to his coworkers for this, even though he didn't represent Facebook but was there on his own time. Fair or not, Stories like these call into question Facebook's bias as they clearly show the bias of their employees and corporate culture.
Facebook needs to step back a bit here and start making clearly objective judgments in each individual case and saying what they are. They need to also have an objective process which allows the individual users to appeal Facebook's decisions. But that would be expensive and take time, so I'm guessing that won't happen any time soon.
At the very least, Facebook needs to have clearly objective criteria for taking action on any of its users. They also must clearly communicate to the community exactly what rules are being violated and what actions they are taking and how that is consistent with the objective policy. They will still be accused of being subjective by some, but at that point one could actually review Facebook's policy and decisions and actually decide if the rules are objective and if Facebook is actually following them.
I wasn't specifically targeting politically motivated adjustments to query results, but ALL filtering of results.
I'm suggesting that any filtering be clearly explained by the site returning results OR that they allow users to "opt out" of the filters if they choose.
So, if some search engine wishes to be "family friendly" and strictly filter out any pages they deem to be "adult" content, that's fine, they simply have to advertise themselves as doing this. IF they don't advertise as "family friendly" they can still return "safe" results, but they have to provide unaltered search results at a user's request.
Again, if someone wants to provide a politically motivated set of search results, Say if they want to market themselves as "politically correct" but don't specify their filtering criteria, they can do that, but they have to provide an "opt out of filtering" set of results. If they put their filtering criteria out saying we remove any links that point at or are found on a list of websites but don't provide a bypass, they can do that too.
So I'm saying you must disclose your filtering techniques, or allow them to be bypassed. I don't care how or what you filter, you just have to either tell me what rules you use or allow me to see unmodified results if I want.
Sorry Oracle but you are almost as bad for open source projects as M$.
Yea, just look at what they did for Solaris.....
Look, Oracle is out to make money, no more, no less. If FOSS helps, they will support it, if FOSS isn't helping them make money, they are going to ignore it. I'm guessing Open Office falls in the latter category, while Java in the former (not that Java is Free Open Source Software, just traditionally free).
Just consult the "Ministry of Truth" to decide if the search result should be returned to the user or not. This is dangerous!
Why does any search engine need to modify it's results for other than ad money?
I get the filtering of "adult" subjects as a matter of convenience, but why does Bing or Google care what their key word searches return? I would think that starting down this road is obviously a bad idea, or do we figure that Google and Bing are somehow tasked with controlling speech? Cause that's where this logically goes... Personally, I think search engines should CLEARLY tell us what filtering they are doing and how they rank results, or provide a way to bypass their filtering and ranking adjustments and return the unmodified results on demand.
Well, you are entitled to your opinion. However, I think the new observatory has a better ROI in the PR world than Hubble would going forward. Hubble was great while it lasted but I think the time is fast approaching when it will make sense to retire it and not try to revive it.
I do feel bad about it, but my feelings of nostalgia about a 20 year old epic achievement aside, it may be time to accept that Hubble is getting VERY old for something in orbit and we can now capture similar resolution images from the ground and soon will have another advancement in orbit. That billion dollars might be better spent on other things at this point. Just let Hubble continue to do what it can.
Of course, if you want to spend the money, I get why, I just don't agree it's the right thing to do.
This rarely happens in the USA. A bigger transmitter doesn't really help, and jamming the signal, while trivial, is a cat and mouse game.
It's only cat and mouse when the service being disrupted isn't something like the military, police or emergency. THEN they do have a history of being rather quick about dealing with the issue and show up with the US Marshals to deal with the problem and confiscate the equipment. It's rather rare, but it has happened a couple of times in my lifetime. They can and do find folks and if they ignore the warnings and fines, can and do take equipment. But usually it's a couple of years before they get to that point.
The FCC's enforcement actions drag on for decades, in one instance for almost 30 years, with the issue finally ending when the guy actually died and couldn't keep thumbing his nose or refusing to pay the fines after that.
Seems to me that turning it on at the sound of the gun shot might be a bit too late to get the complete picture of if the use of force was justified or not.
How about they are always recording a 2 min buffer and the sound of a gunshot triggers it to write the buffer and start the recording at a point 2 min in the past..
pirate pirate pirate
You keep using that word... I don't think that word means what you think it means....
Or a good guy with a radio triangular and a gun.
You mean the FCC with the US Marshals in tow?
Doing another maintenance run on the Hubble is probably beyond the spec/capabilities of the first manned SpaceX launch, currently planned for mid 2019.
I fear you are correct. Hubble was/is at the extreme limits of the shuttle system's ability and the last trip was risky enough that they almost didn't do it. Now we have no shuttle.
I don't doubt Space X could engineer some solution to service Hubble, but the timeframe it would take to develop the capability is likely to be longer than the scheduled replacement's arrival. To do this Hubble service thing, you need to first catch it in orbit (the shuttle used an astronaut on the robot arm for this) so you can work on it, then open it up and move around some large chunks of delicate gear from some kind of cargo area.
Given the age of Hubble, the cost of such a rescue mission and the projected replacement of the system already scheduled, I'm guessing they use Hubble as best they can with what's left that is still working. It's been a great achievement, but I don't think it's worth it at this point to try and fix the thing. Besides, we all knew the day would come when Hubble would work no more. It's sad, but the time may be closer than we would like to admit.
Is the speed of light in space a constant? Does it get affected by gravity? If i try jumping upwards my velocity decreases to zero and then instsrt falling. Does a black hole affect light velocity?
Yes and no...Light goes the same speed everywhere, it's time that changes.... OR maybe it's the other way around?
PHB alert..
Oh I get that, and we tried to meet their required dates, though within a month we had already slipped almost a month. You see the problem was, it will take as long as it takes. No amount of hurrying will fix that working longer each day only helps for a week or two and nothing good happens when the team is tired. It was during that project that I started managing risks aggressively though and I started publishing the probability we could meet the various milestones based on a list of risks. Management didn't care all that much and did their usual "throw resources at the problem" thing. However, when all was said and done, I expected to get fired for missing the dates, but what happened is my manager got canned for not listening to me in the first place. Why? Because, I had documented EVERY conversation, saved EVERY E-mail, and could prove that from the agreed to conditions for my schedule where not true and that the slippages where not due to my team not being ready. My PHB would have gladly tossed me under the bus, as I had directly opposed his decision to accept an unreasonable delivery schedule, but could prove I did my level best to meet it, knowing it would fail.
I would suggest that management that doesn't listen to their engineering staff, but just imposes a schedule based on the company's financial reporting schedule is acting stupidly. In my case, the delivery date was driven by the company's fiscal year, not engineering reality. This was the height of stupidity in my view and they should have accepted my 18 month schedule. We would have not had to miss revenue targets while working OT and doing system integration in front of the customer in country. It was a death march project.
Curious, I found a book afterwards called "Death March Projects" which I suggest engineers read.
The Dragon capsule is no where near being man-rated, so the changes of actually flying with a human is ZERO right now.
Come on... Musk has his Gnatt chart that clearly shows he can hit that deadline... Never mind there is zero slack for mistakes or schedule slippages and zero tolerance for the unknown unknowns that always popup in complex engineering projects..
Business folks do this kind of projecting all the time. They sit down, assume nothing goes wrong, takes longer than estimated, or unforeseen problems pop up on the critical path and declare the end date certain when their engineers have a list of major risks a mile long and give them a zero chance of meeting that date. But the date is what the shareholders get to hear.
I've been involved in such project planning with business folks who where obsessed with stock price and performance. One time I gave them my gut estimate on the date and they beat me up for being uncooperative, demanding I shave 6 months off the 18 that I quoted. "What if nothing goes wrong, when can you deliver?" was the question. I made the mistake of agreeing to the year based on "nothing going wrong". Of course, stuff went wrong. We finished within a week of my original estimate.
All he need do is build cars and meet production goals, that will fix the stock price.
IF, in the unlikely event Kavanaugh is proven to be a rapist, then arrest him and impeach him.
Who is going to impeach him? The Republican majority has made it quite clear that they don't give a shit about his sexual assault charges; as with mall-stalker Roy Moore, they're on his side until the very end.
I'll tell you what.. IF you find your actual evidence that BK did commit a serious crime I'll be with you calling for impeachment. Until then, your claim that republicans would let him off is as provable as Ford's claims, being nothing more than your opinion without any independent evidence. .
Double standards are so comfortable are they not?
All you have to do is come up with the evidence to convict him, which if the various accusations are true, shouldn't be a problem.
What evidence are you talking about that's so easy to find? You're talking nonsense.
You fail to quote the following:
(except that it IS a problem finding evidence if somebody is making stuff up..)
I'm either missing your sarcasm, or you are missing mine.
Yea, so the FBI simply didn't do their job here?
Personally, I think a lot of people are being hyper partisan about this question and leaving the facts in the dumpster on fire.
Hmm...I wonder why they didn't subpoena the only witness...an admitted alcoholic? Is it fair to say that the percentage of alcoholics who haven't blacked out is close to 0%? He can't hide behind such obvious lies, which would then lead to greater suspicion of BK's testimony.
You mean the one that testified under oath to the committee or the one purported witness that made a statement, under oath, the he doesn't remember the events in question, doesn't remember the accuser and was supposed to be in the very room at the time?
An accusation with no supporting evidence, is just an accusation. One that has no eyewitnesses or physical evidence is still just an accusation. It could be true, it could be false. One where the supposed eyewitnesses don't remember anything of the reported events starts to smell like it's not true. This is where we are on this set of events...
By the way, BK didn't claim to be pristine here, he clearly says he drank too much beer at times. He also claims he never drank enough to not remember. I find this credible.
I too have drank too much at times (twice in my case) but in each of these instances I KNOW I didn't black out as I fully remembered the evening's events and that I was a bit tipsy. In fact, in both cases I was with folks who did forget what happened those two evenings, a fact that I exploited as a joke at their expense the following weeks. I accused one girl of having done something every embarrassing and another of having said something she needed to apologize for. In both cases I would just shake my head when they asked "What did I do?" One girl got frantic so I had to tell her I was just teasing her... I remember all this clear as day, though I was drunk.
How would you feel if you gave a lifetime appointment to someone that later turns out to be a rapist.
Sorry for the sake of democracy its better to put someone else in that position, even if it costs one person a "job of a lifetime."
The constitution allows for impeachment of justices for lacking good behavior. IF, in the unlikely event Kavanaugh is proven to be a rapist, then arrest him and impeach him. All you have to do is come up with the evidence to convict him, which if the various accusations are true, shouldn't be a problem. (except that it IS a problem finding evidence if somebody is making stuff up..)
Free shipping
Sure, but the cost of a Prime membership just went up by two orders of magnitude to make up for the shipping costs.