- The Me262 was a jet fighter/bomber. WWII plane. As cited in a post above, some claim it broke the sound barrier in levelled flight.
No. No one (who knows anything) claims the Me 262 broke the sound barrier in level flight. It was a jet, but not a very fast one; it's not even remotely possible it could achieve that speed in level flight. One German pilot claimed to have done it in a 90 degree nosedive, but he was doubtless fooled by erroneous elevated readings from his pitot-based airspeed indicator that can often occur at high speeds. If he'd actually made it to trans-sonic speeds in an Me 262 airframe, he'd have ripped the wings off.
If the entire planet was made of solid gold, it would make it an economic disaster to go there.
News flash: gold is just a commodity. If the price of gold goes down, the major economic effect of this is... it gets cheaper to make things out of gold. It has no more serious economic effect than the discovery of an abundances of any other useful mineral.
They didn't have any significant problems. They had an anomaly, but to call it a problem (much less a significant one) is to engage in exaggeration. The system dealt with the anomaly perfectly fine, as it was designed to do all along. If it had failed to do so, then it would be fair to say there was a problem.
Helicopters are usually extremely loud and, most importantly, simply unable to fly faster than 300mph or so: any faster and the supersonic shockwaves from the rotors tips (keep in mind those are traveling at helicopter speed + rotational velocity) destroys it's ability to fly.
Only the rotors on the side of the helicopter moving in the direction of travel are going aircraft speed + rotational velocity. An equally serious problem is the rotors on the other side are going aircraft speed - rotational velocity. The faster the chopper flies, the more imbalanced it becomes as the lift from one side increases while on the other side it decreases. If the chopper reached the speed of its own blades, it would lose all lift on one side as the blades would be essentially motionless on one side.
Seriously, why the fuck does all of their plans involve using SOMEONE ELSES BANDWIDTH?
Because the FCC told them they can't use their own. If you're going to deny them the use of the spectrum they own and paid a couple billion for, I would think it would be reasonable to help them with obtaining an alternative.
Public opinion is the only thing that usually stops wars...
The closer that statement is to true, the closer to a democracy a government is. In a true democracy, it would be the one and only thing that ever could start or stop a war.
Personnel evaluations are still going to be a manual process...
Oh yes, definitely. That's why in Star Trek, higher rank officers are often shown doing them (or at least saying they're be busy doing them at some time), and lower rank officers occasionally shown having them.
Indeed. The notable thing about EVE is that you're literally plugged into your spaceship. You aren't seeing things with your eyes, you're seeing with extremely sensitive robotic camera drones. You don't "hear" anything at all in a literal sense, you have information pumped into your auditory sensors from the ship's computer, and so on. While you're plugged into your capsule, and your capsule is plugged into your ship, your entire sensory experience is the ship's sensors, and your entire sense of self is the ship.
Lets say that China looses it's[sic] marbles and decides to go after the US...
Looses its marbles? Doesn't really require that to bring US and Chinese military forces into conflict. It's ultimately a question of just how much force we're willing to use to protect Taiwan when China is finally confident enough to risk asserting their claim with force. Which is just one of many potential flash-points the US has a stake in in the region.
Mormonism any more bat shit crazy than other mainstream flavors of Christianity (or other religions for that matter)?
Yes.
Is it just because they say crazy things happened recently rather than 2000 years ago?
Nope, that has nothing to do with it. Ignoring the rest of your post as you seem to be rebutting an argument no one is making.
Believing God can perform miracles and cause crazy shit to happen is one thing. Believing you can perform miracles and cause crazy shit to happen (ala Pentecostals and such) is, in many people's opinions, an order of magnitude more crazy. Believing you can become a God is, in the opinions of many, another order of magnitude of craziness beyond that. Welcome to Mormon territory...
And why pick on Mormons, who've never, as far as I can tell, been known to blow up people they disagree with?
Not having a propensity to blow themselves and other people up with them is a nice attribute, and Mormons are, on average, among the nicest people I've ever known. That doesn't alter the fact that a lot of what they believe is batshit-crazy, above and beyond the usual batshit-craziness of religions in general. Full disclosure: I am an ex-Mormon...
Well, let's be real, then. The Chinese Communist Party is "communist" in the same way the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) is "democratic".
I should clarify, in both cases, it's a word they use for propaganda purposes, not a reflection of their actual ideology.
Let's be real - China is a Communist dictatorship, period.
Well, let's be real, then. The Chinese Communist Party is "communist" in the same way the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) is "democratic".
The problem you're having is binary thinking. It does not follow from a belief that someone is too nationalistic that you must eschew nationalism entirely. Upgrade from a bit-brain to something capable of more nuanced thought, and you'll have no trouble understanding that there's nothing contradictory in such opinions. You'll also understand that "too much salt is bad for you" diesn't mean "salt is bad for you" and other common problems that trip-up people with poor reasoning skills, and probably realize most of the "hypocrites" you've labeled as such in the past were not even the slightest bit hypocritical...
Any site worth their salt (pun intended) will lock an account after a number of failed logins anyway.
The majority of compromised accounts come from successful phishing and social engineering, not from randomly guessing passwords.
That second fact is the reason why your first sentence is incorrect. Locking an account after a certain number of failed login attempts introduces a kind of denial of service attack on the site (at least, denying that particular user access) while not actually stopping any feasible attack vector. It's the kind of security flaw you see implemented by coders that don't really understand security. Preventing too many attempts in too short a time is a security feature. Locking an account after too many attempts is a security flaw. You might as well just give hackers an input field where they can type in the name of any legitimate user they want to lock out of a system illegitimately.
'cept it's not like one member bought the company, it is a group. A better comparison might be the Roman patricians of the Senate. Of course, whether this a pre- or post-Augustus Senate is an open question...
The fundamental problem is that, no matter what you do, your testing environment is never a perfect replication of the live, end-customer environment. It cannot be, since it's required by virtue of being a testing environment to differ so that you can test things before they go live. What happened here is, the testing environment's method of distributing updates to test differed from live (which it must if it is to be able to test definitions that aren't live yet), and the problem didn't affect the testing environment's updater. Could this have been avoiding in this particular case? Certainly. Can you invent a system that prevents this from ever happening in any case? No, that's literally impossible to do. No testing environment that fulfills the requirement of being a testing environment can exactly replicate live, and thus it cannot possibly avoid all possible cases of behaving differently than live (since it must do so), and that could include cases where something goes wrong.
What's impressive is that this got out of Sophos' testing lab and into production. I guess they must not test signatures in house at all. Congratulations, Sophos customers, you've been promoted to alpha testers.
They obviously test the signatures. What this indicates is that, in-house, they use an internal method for distributing signature updates that differs from the end-users method by more than simply pulling updates from an internal source that includes untested signatures.
That said, I think "data" counts as a "non-count" noun in its typical modern usage. Like "information", or "water", or "peanut butter", it may be composed of many individual bits, but it's talked about as a blob, not as a large number of individual bits.
Somehow I fail to see how my losing ~$15,000 funding Goldman Sachs and Solyndra with free cash is benefiicial for me, but millions of other people think it is.
Millions of other people aren't gullible enough to believe either of these were given any free cash, or that they've lost $15,000 in loans to Goldman Sachs and Solyndra. Goldman Sachs has long since paid back the money it was loaned, costing citizens absolutely nothing, in fact earning them a bit of interest, and the total cost of Solyndra will come to less than $2 per citizen at worst (which was already spent before the loan was given -- Congress knew when it loaned money to several dozen companies speculating on new technologies that not all would be successful, and set aside money to cover the losses -- Solyndra's failure sucked up a mere 5% of that, a mere fraction of what Congress was expecting the program to cost).
Slashdot Mirror
- The Me262 was a jet fighter/bomber. WWII plane. As cited in a post above, some claim it broke the sound barrier in levelled flight.
No. No one (who knows anything) claims the Me 262 broke the sound barrier in level flight. It was a jet, but not a very fast one; it's not even remotely possible it could achieve that speed in level flight. One German pilot claimed to have done it in a 90 degree nosedive, but he was doubtless fooled by erroneous elevated readings from his pitot-based airspeed indicator that can often occur at high speeds. If he'd actually made it to trans-sonic speeds in an Me 262 airframe, he'd have ripped the wings off.
They do if they're that good. Granted, it's not the best plane in the sky today, but it's still one of the best.
I suspect a lot of programmers don't want to "move up" to project management and beyond. Coding is fun. Management sucks...
If the entire planet was made of solid gold, it would make it an economic disaster to go there.
News flash: gold is just a commodity. If the price of gold goes down, the major economic effect of this is... it gets cheaper to make things out of gold. It has no more serious economic effect than the discovery of an abundances of any other useful mineral.
They didn't have any significant problems. They had an anomaly, but to call it a problem (much less a significant one) is to engage in exaggeration. The system dealt with the anomaly perfectly fine, as it was designed to do all along. If it had failed to do so, then it would be fair to say there was a problem.
Helicopters are usually extremely loud and, most importantly, simply unable to fly faster than 300mph or so: any faster and the supersonic shockwaves from the rotors tips (keep in mind those are traveling at helicopter speed + rotational velocity) destroys it's ability to fly.
Only the rotors on the side of the helicopter moving in the direction of travel are going aircraft speed + rotational velocity. An equally serious problem is the rotors on the other side are going aircraft speed - rotational velocity. The faster the chopper flies, the more imbalanced it becomes as the lift from one side increases while on the other side it decreases. If the chopper reached the speed of its own blades, it would lose all lift on one side as the blades would be essentially motionless on one side.
Seriously, why the fuck does all of their plans involve using SOMEONE ELSES BANDWIDTH?
Because the FCC told them they can't use their own. If you're going to deny them the use of the spectrum they own and paid a couple billion for, I would think it would be reasonable to help them with obtaining an alternative.
This gives you effective stealth against an army of one. Against an enemy force larger than that, and you're back to no effective stealth.
Public opinion is the only thing that usually stops wars...
The closer that statement is to true, the closer to a democracy a government is. In a true democracy, it would be the one and only thing that ever could start or stop a war.
Personnel evaluations are still going to be a manual process...
Oh yes, definitely. That's why in Star Trek, higher rank officers are often shown doing them (or at least saying they're be busy doing them at some time), and lower rank officers occasionally shown having them.
Indeed. The notable thing about EVE is that you're literally plugged into your spaceship. You aren't seeing things with your eyes, you're seeing with extremely sensitive robotic camera drones. You don't "hear" anything at all in a literal sense, you have information pumped into your auditory sensors from the ship's computer, and so on. While you're plugged into your capsule, and your capsule is plugged into your ship, your entire sensory experience is the ship's sensors, and your entire sense of self is the ship.
Lets say that China looses it's[sic] marbles and decides to go after the US...
Looses its marbles? Doesn't really require that to bring US and Chinese military forces into conflict. It's ultimately a question of just how much force we're willing to use to protect Taiwan when China is finally confident enough to risk asserting their claim with force. Which is just one of many potential flash-points the US has a stake in in the region.
The last time anything in history had a single inventor... well, is unknown. If it ever happened, it happened during prehistoric times.
Mormonism any more bat shit crazy than other mainstream flavors of Christianity (or other religions for that matter)?
Yes.
Is it just because they say crazy things happened recently rather than 2000 years ago?
Nope, that has nothing to do with it. Ignoring the rest of your post as you seem to be rebutting an argument no one is making.
Believing God can perform miracles and cause crazy shit to happen is one thing. Believing you can perform miracles and cause crazy shit to happen (ala Pentecostals and such) is, in many people's opinions, an order of magnitude more crazy. Believing you can become a God is, in the opinions of many, another order of magnitude of craziness beyond that. Welcome to Mormon territory...
And why pick on Mormons, who've never, as far as I can tell, been known to blow up people they disagree with?
Not having a propensity to blow themselves and other people up with them is a nice attribute, and Mormons are, on average, among the nicest people I've ever known. That doesn't alter the fact that a lot of what they believe is batshit-crazy, above and beyond the usual batshit-craziness of religions in general. Full disclosure: I am an ex-Mormon...
Well, let's be real, then. The Chinese Communist Party is "communist" in the same way the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) is "democratic".
I should clarify, in both cases, it's a word they use for propaganda purposes, not a reflection of their actual ideology.
Let's be real - China is a Communist dictatorship, period.
Well, let's be real, then. The Chinese Communist Party is "communist" in the same way the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) is "democratic".
The problem you're having is binary thinking. It does not follow from a belief that someone is too nationalistic that you must eschew nationalism entirely. Upgrade from a bit-brain to something capable of more nuanced thought, and you'll have no trouble understanding that there's nothing contradictory in such opinions. You'll also understand that "too much salt is bad for you" diesn't mean "salt is bad for you" and other common problems that trip-up people with poor reasoning skills, and probably realize most of the "hypocrites" you've labeled as such in the past were not even the slightest bit hypocritical...
Any site worth their salt (pun intended) will lock an account after a number of failed logins anyway. The majority of compromised accounts come from successful phishing and social engineering, not from randomly guessing passwords.
That second fact is the reason why your first sentence is incorrect. Locking an account after a certain number of failed login attempts introduces a kind of denial of service attack on the site (at least, denying that particular user access) while not actually stopping any feasible attack vector. It's the kind of security flaw you see implemented by coders that don't really understand security. Preventing too many attempts in too short a time is a security feature. Locking an account after too many attempts is a security flaw. You might as well just give hackers an input field where they can type in the name of any legitimate user they want to lock out of a system illegitimately.
'cept it's not like one member bought the company, it is a group. A better comparison might be the Roman patricians of the Senate. Of course, whether this a pre- or post-Augustus Senate is an open question...
The fundamental problem is that, no matter what you do, your testing environment is never a perfect replication of the live, end-customer environment. It cannot be, since it's required by virtue of being a testing environment to differ so that you can test things before they go live. What happened here is, the testing environment's method of distributing updates to test differed from live (which it must if it is to be able to test definitions that aren't live yet), and the problem didn't affect the testing environment's updater. Could this have been avoiding in this particular case? Certainly. Can you invent a system that prevents this from ever happening in any case? No, that's literally impossible to do. No testing environment that fulfills the requirement of being a testing environment can exactly replicate live, and thus it cannot possibly avoid all possible cases of behaving differently than live (since it must do so), and that could include cases where something goes wrong.
What's impressive is that this got out of Sophos' testing lab and into production. I guess they must not test signatures in house at all. Congratulations, Sophos customers, you've been promoted to alpha testers.
They obviously test the signatures. What this indicates is that, in-house, they use an internal method for distributing signature updates that differs from the end-users method by more than simply pulling updates from an internal source that includes untested signatures.
That makes no sense. Or are you attempting to imply only lesbians are wise?
Non-oblig. comic ref.
That said, I think "data" counts as a "non-count" noun in its typical modern usage. Like "information", or "water", or "peanut butter", it may be composed of many individual bits, but it's talked about as a blob, not as a large number of individual bits.
Somehow I fail to see how my losing ~$15,000 funding Goldman Sachs and Solyndra with free cash is benefiicial for me, but millions of other people think it is.
Millions of other people aren't gullible enough to believe either of these were given any free cash, or that they've lost $15,000 in loans to Goldman Sachs and Solyndra. Goldman Sachs has long since paid back the money it was loaned, costing citizens absolutely nothing, in fact earning them a bit of interest, and the total cost of Solyndra will come to less than $2 per citizen at worst (which was already spent before the loan was given -- Congress knew when it loaned money to several dozen companies speculating on new technologies that not all would be successful, and set aside money to cover the losses -- Solyndra's failure sucked up a mere 5% of that, a mere fraction of what Congress was expecting the program to cost).