Maybe on your planet ever increasing numbers of people and virtually all businesses don't depend on ISP's for communication and business transactions. Here on the Planet Earth however, they do. Maybe one day your planet will mature, after all phones and power on Earth weren't originally considered vital public infrastructure.
"The most important tool at ISPs' disposal during a serious pandemic, panelists agreed, was that of network and bandwidth management controls"
WTF? During a pandemic I should think most employees of an ISP will have far more important things to worry about (you know, trivial stuff like their families etc) than whether the network bandwidth is ok.
These people live on the planet Earth - where it is generally accepted that in the event of an emergency, certain categories of wokrers (fire, police, hospitals, power, (natural) gas, water, sewer, telco, and now ISP) will have to spend less time than they might like with their own families and more time serving the public good.
Will it be possible to dock a remote controlled craft to it? If yes, wouldn't it make sense to design one that can move the HST to an orbit with a different inclination so it can be serviced again in a couple of years? There was talk about de-orbiting Hubble safely at the end of its life, so why not "de-orbit" it to an orbit that's close to the ISS?
That would take an enormous amount of fuel, about ten Shuttle flights worth.
A craft to Shuttle between ISS and Hubble that can support a serving mission doesn't exist anyhow.
But do those submarines have relatively obvious unfixed failure modes the way the Shuttle does? It's one thing to have no protection from unknown problems and rather different to know that there's a problem with a significant chance of killing you but taking no precautions against it.
Since the Shuttle has no known problems with a significant chance of killing the crew... What's your point?
With the Shuttle failure rate being what it is, having a second one on standby IMO isn't responding to hysteria, it's prudent.
With the failure rate so low, it's responding to hysteria.
Also, it's not as if they're wasting resources. The standby shuttle will simply become the next mission.
The standby Shuttle has been rolled out weeks before it would have been rolled out for it's next mission - which means it will be exposed to the elements for weeks longer than it would otherwise have been. Before it can become it's next mission, it will have to be rolled back to the VAB to have it's payload installed, and then rolled to pad 39A (it's currently on 39B) for launch - which means all the connections between the mobile and fixed pads have to be broken at 39B, attached in the VAB, broken in the VAB, and finally reattached at 39A for launch. This being a (theoretically) technical audience, I shouldn't have to recap the risks involved in all that extra handling and mating/demating.
until now, astronauts who stranded in space were SOL. NASA said in the past that should this happen, they'd take the next available shuttle and reassemble it as quickly as possible, but they recognized that this would probably be too late.
And the odds are non trivial that even with a rescue shuttle standing by - they still stand a good chance of being too late. Even with the new, streamlined, procedures in place, it will take 2-4 weeks to get Endeavor off the ground. But the maximum life span of Atlantis on orbit (assuming a failure that is recognized early on, and a subsequent drastic power down) is around 3 weeks. With every day Atlantis is on orbit, fully powered up, the odds of a sucessful rescue drop dramatically.
I think that this might be a sign of increasing maturity in the process for making decisions about the space program. It seems, at least a little, a bit more reasonable to prepare a rescue option for missions like this rather than simply strapping on the cowboy boots and riding some crazy contraption out of the atmosphere with no viable hope of coming back, should something go wrong.
More accurately, it's a sign of the hype and hysteria surround space flight and astronauts that such expensive precautions must be taken - when there are thousands of USN submariners at sea right now with no viable hope should something go seriously wrong. Not to mention the hundreds of people who winter over in Antarctica each year. Not to mention the hundred of scientists and crew at sea on USNS research vessels. (A friend of mine is in the middle of the Pacific right now - hundreds of miles from land and well off the shipping lanes. It would take over a day for a search aircraft to reach them - and most of a week for a rescue ship to do so.)
The submariners have rescue vessels standing by, sorta - we were told to expect to wait a week or more back in the 1980's, and our capabilities have declined sharply since then. None of the others have dedicated rescue capability standing by.
If you want a REAL challenge, forgot cobol. Try programming an Atari 2600 gaming console. You have just 128 bytes of RAM to create a playable video game. (No that was not a typo... 128 bytes.)
I tried it once. I gave up. It gave me new respect for the original Atari geniuses who created playable versions of Space Invaders, Missile Command, Cosmic Ark, and Jr. Pacman, and turned a cheap console into the #1 system of its day (1977-to-1984).
That sure sounds impressive.
But when you tell the whole story... not so much.
They had 128 bytes for the runtime stack - I.E. variables. They had 4(or 8 depending on the version)Kbytes of ROM to hold the actual game.
Shotgunning makes you a domain squatter when you do so merely to grab and hold as much 'acreage' as possible. For a national website, organized by state, logical organization is in the from $STATE.$ORGANIZATION.$TLD, not multiple domains. (Not to mention being the reason that format was invented.)
The differentiation for me is the CONTENT. If the site has useful content that is relevant to its URL then it's not domain squatting.
Then by your definition, there's not a single not a single domain on the web being squatted upon - as ads and links represent content, and 'useful' is a null descriptor of subjective interpretation.
Listing without significant third party references live on the edge - period, as they come too close to original research. And while scientific exemptions are sometimes allowed, software isn't science.
Frankly, I have no problem with excluding 'just about all the open source software out there', as pretty much all the excluded software will also fail the notability test.
I do not see where you get that he is a domain squatter? As has already been stated here, he registered the domain two years before they even announced the bid
As has also been stated here, he did so with a large collection of $CITY_NAME+$DATE combinations. Shotgunning makes him a domain squatter.
he also seems to be legitimately using the site as a forum to discuss the pros and cons of the Olympics
Ad farms and link farms related to the topic name on the link are equally legitimate, and universally condemned here.
So really, your two face comment makes no sense. This is a case of Slashdotters actually reading the article and looking at the evidence before them instead of automatically crying foul one way or the other.
Actually, there is no evidence that Slashdot judged the evidence (as I show above) - but ample evidence that they decided that, even though this is a hated domain squatter, it is a little guy seemingly under attack by a the big guy... And so long as the little guy isn't a pedophile Slashdot supports the little guy automatically and without regards to any of the actual merits of the case.
a spokesman for Chicago 2016, a moniker protected by trademark
Awww, isn't it too bad that trademarks don't give you retroactive ownership of whatever you like?
Actually, to some extent, trademarks do give you some forms of retroactive ownership.
Next time, check BEFORE you secure the trademark to see if it's already available. In fact, I bet they did
I bet they did too... and found the trademark 'Chicago2016' to be available. But they probably know what you don't seem to - domain names aren't trademarks.
Slashdot shows it's two faced attitude once again - normally the received wisdom on Slashdot is that Domain Squatters Are Evil Vermin. But here, somehow, the domain squatter is an Enlightened Entrepreneur.
"A 30-ton transformer in the Large Hadron Collider malfunctioned, requiring complete replacement on the day the LHC came online."
This news must have traveled in time - because the LHC doesn't come online until sometime next summer. Right now, its in the middle stages of a months long startup and calibration sequence.
Not to mention that stuff breaks during the startup of complex machinery, doubly so for one of a kind complex machinery.
Stable on/in the ice is a long solved problem. The problem is power - because storms will shut down your generators due to overspeed trip (and ice will potentially accumulate on the stopped blades), not to mention the lack of power on calm days. The real problem is getting the data to and from the datacenter. (Not to mentions the logistics and personnel support problems...)
Very true. But their solution smacks of one of the poorer ideas regarding social justice: Cut down the information on pokemon and Star Trek.
That has to be one of the most nonsensical and confused statements I've ever read - which is really saying something.
Not that those articles should be sacrosanct or anything, but if more than one person is editing something, then it probably has more than enough "notability" to warrant occupying 1.7e-5 cents worth of space in somebody's datacenter.
Sure, if you hold to the mistaken notion that issue is the cost of storage space. The real problem is that the growth of fancruft and trivia makes it more difficult for follow-on editors to keep the articles and the encyclopedia itself pruned and focused.
This argument is pretty stupid, given the nigh-unlimited space in their database (Wikipedia themselves have said not to worry about performance).
Agreed. Because the problem is space in the database or performance of the servers. It's the editors - because when the guy maintaining the entry on "$NERDISH_DETAILS in $GEEKY_TOPIC" goes away for what ever reason, the articles become targets of vandalism and minor meddling edits that slowly transform the article in digital compost.
Somoene's going to come in here and say that the problem isn't the topic, it's that the articles are either original research, aren't verifiable, or aren't "notable" (the latter is the worst argument I've heard), but IMNSHO there is a definite bias, especially among admins, against these types of articles.
Wikipedia has been fighting the war against fancruft virtually from the day it went live.
As the TV Tropes Wiki so eloquently puts it:
As a consequence of Wikipedia's fame and scale, it's where people put knowledge when they don't know where it should go. This perception is actually at odds with the project's goals: to create a tertiary reference for information and viewpoints published elsewhere. Problem is, they've ended up with more information on Pokemon or Star Trek than, say, Civil Rights or the Second World War -- and that's not how they wanted it.
The deletion policies have really saved wikipedia from becoming a horrible testament to nerd memorization skills and boredom.
The TV Tropes Wiki puts it the best way I have seen to date: As a consequence of Wikipedia's fame and scale, it's where people put knowledge when they don't know where it should go. This perception is actually at odds with the project's goals: to create a tertiary reference for information and viewpoints published elsewhere. Problem is, they've ended up with more information on Pokemon or Star Trek than, say, Civil Rights or the Second World War -- and that's not how they wanted it.
Anytime you have physical assets, you have value. Especially if those physical assets are in continuing demand. (Which data centers are in particular, because the Technology sector is doing quite well right now.)
I seriously doubt the data centers are worth, as hardware or real estate, anything approaching even close to 1.5 billion dollars. Even with the devalued dollar and assuming the real estate is in midtown Manhattan... That's a huge data center, especially considering that IT equipment depreciates (financially as well as technologically) rapidly.
In addition it would take a lot of business to justify such a steep price for low latency link as proposed elsethread.
And both of those go triply so considering the purchaser almost certainly has large and well located data centers with fat low latency pipes in the first place. (If they didn't they wouldn't be in the business to start with.)
Which leads one to consider the source of the value - the things left unaccounted for above... Which is the data contained in the data center... Or the algorithms in the operating software... Or the brains of the analysts and programmers...
I deal with a lot of distressed older commercial debt, so I see a lot of the backlog.
There's a ton of paper out there in places like Iron Mountain and such which does nothing but store paper because the bank can't afford to digitize the stuff.
That's backlog - not current data as you try to imply in your original post. Two entirely different things.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe on your planet ever increasing numbers of people and virtually all businesses don't depend on ISP's for communication and business transactions. Here on the Planet Earth however, they do. Maybe one day your planet will mature, after all phones and power on Earth weren't originally considered vital public infrastructure.
These people live on the planet Earth - where it is generally accepted that in the event of an emergency, certain categories of wokrers (fire, police, hospitals, power, (natural) gas, water, sewer, telco, and now ISP) will have to spend less time than they might like with their own families and more time serving the public good.
Since the Shuttle has no known problems with a significant chance of killing the crew... What's your point?
With the failure rate so low, it's responding to hysteria.
The standby Shuttle has been rolled out weeks before it would have been rolled out for it's next mission - which means it will be exposed to the elements for weeks longer than it would otherwise have been. Before it can become it's next mission, it will have to be rolled back to the VAB to have it's payload installed, and then rolled to pad 39A (it's currently on 39B) for launch - which means all the connections between the mobile and fixed pads have to be broken at 39B, attached in the VAB, broken in the VAB, and finally reattached at 39A for launch. This being a (theoretically) technical audience, I shouldn't have to recap the risks involved in all that extra handling and mating/demating.
And the odds are non trivial that even with a rescue shuttle standing by - they still stand a good chance of being too late. Even with the new, streamlined, procedures in place, it will take 2-4 weeks to get Endeavor off the ground. But the maximum life span of Atlantis on orbit (assuming a failure that is recognized early on, and a subsequent drastic power down) is around 3 weeks. With every day Atlantis is on orbit, fully powered up, the odds of a sucessful rescue drop dramatically.
More accurately, it's a sign of the hype and hysteria surround space flight and astronauts that such expensive precautions must be taken - when there are thousands of USN submariners at sea right now with no viable hope should something go seriously wrong. Not to mention the hundreds of people who winter over in Antarctica each year. Not to mention the hundred of scientists and crew at sea on USNS research vessels. (A friend of mine is in the middle of the Pacific right now - hundreds of miles from land and well off the shipping lanes. It would take over a day for a search aircraft to reach them - and most of a week for a rescue ship to do so.)
The submariners have rescue vessels standing by, sorta - we were told to expect to wait a week or more back in the 1980's, and our capabilities have declined sharply since then. None of the others have dedicated rescue capability standing by.
And that's just the government jobs...
Yeah, 1 or 2 failing is a big deal because there is no redundancy. All of the magnets are required to guide the beam.
That sure sounds impressive.
But when you tell the whole story... not so much.
They had 128 bytes for the runtime stack - I.E. variables. They had 4(or 8 depending on the version)Kbytes of ROM to hold the actual game.
It's irrational to make such a claim when we are currently operating *multiple* Mars missions. (Two rovers, one stationary lander, and two orbiters.)
Shotgunning makes you a domain squatter when you do so merely to grab and hold as much 'acreage' as possible. For a national website, organized by state, logical organization is in the from $STATE.$ORGANIZATION.$TLD, not multiple domains. (Not to mention being the reason that format was invented.)
Then by your definition, there's not a single not a single domain on the web being squatted upon - as ads and links represent content, and 'useful' is a null descriptor of subjective interpretation.
Listing without significant third party references live on the edge - period, as they come too close to original research. And while scientific exemptions are sometimes allowed, software isn't science.
Frankly, I have no problem with excluding 'just about all the open source software out there', as pretty much all the excluded software will also fail the notability test.
Um, that's been the intent all along. Though it got derailed a bit when it got popular, it is now getting back on track.
That's not overzealous practices - that's one of the most basic rules of writing for Wikipedia.
As has also been stated here, he did so with a large collection of $CITY_NAME+$DATE combinations. Shotgunning makes him a domain squatter.
Ad farms and link farms related to the topic name on the link are equally legitimate, and universally condemned here.
Actually, there is no evidence that Slashdot judged the evidence (as I show above) - but ample evidence that they decided that, even though this is a hated domain squatter, it is a little guy seemingly under attack by a the big guy... And so long as the little guy isn't a pedophile Slashdot supports the little guy automatically and without regards to any of the actual merits of the case.
Actually, to some extent, trademarks do give you some forms of retroactive ownership.
I bet they did too... and found the trademark 'Chicago2016' to be available. But they probably know what you don't seem to - domain names aren't trademarks.
Slashdot shows it's two faced attitude once again - normally the received wisdom on Slashdot is that Domain Squatters Are Evil Vermin. But here, somehow, the domain squatter is an Enlightened Entrepreneur.
"A 30-ton transformer in the Large Hadron Collider malfunctioned, requiring complete replacement on the day the LHC came online."
This news must have traveled in time - because the LHC doesn't come online until sometime next summer. Right now, its in the middle stages of a months long startup and calibration sequence.
Not to mention that stuff breaks during the startup of complex machinery, doubly so for one of a kind complex machinery.
Stable on/in the ice is a long solved problem. The problem is power - because storms will shut down your generators due to overspeed trip (and ice will potentially accumulate on the stopped blades), not to mention the lack of power on calm days. The real problem is getting the data to and from the datacenter. (Not to mentions the logistics and personnel support problems...)
You're reasoning boils down to "it's OK to violate her privacy because I don't like her". That's frightening as hell frankly.
That has to be one of the most nonsensical and confused statements I've ever read - which is really saying something.
Sure, if you hold to the mistaken notion that issue is the cost of storage space. The real problem is that the growth of fancruft and trivia makes it more difficult for follow-on editors to keep the articles and the encyclopedia itself pruned and focused.
Agreed. Because the problem is space in the database or performance of the servers. It's the editors - because when the guy maintaining the entry on "$NERDISH_DETAILS in $GEEKY_TOPIC" goes away for what ever reason, the articles become targets of vandalism and minor meddling edits that slowly transform the article in digital compost.
Wikipedia has been fighting the war against fancruft virtually from the day it went live.
As the TV Tropes Wiki so eloquently puts it:
As a consequence of Wikipedia's fame and scale, it's where people put knowledge when they don't know where it should go. This perception is actually at odds with the project's goals: to create a tertiary reference for information and viewpoints published elsewhere. Problem is, they've ended up with more information on Pokemon or Star Trek than, say, Civil Rights or the Second World War -- and that's not how they wanted it.
The TV Tropes Wiki puts it the best way I have seen to date: As a consequence of Wikipedia's fame and scale, it's where people put knowledge when they don't know where it should go. This perception is actually at odds with the project's goals: to create a tertiary reference for information and viewpoints published elsewhere. Problem is, they've ended up with more information on Pokemon or Star Trek than, say, Civil Rights or the Second World War -- and that's not how they wanted it.
I seriously doubt the data centers are worth, as hardware or real estate, anything approaching even close to 1.5 billion dollars. Even with the devalued dollar and assuming the real estate is in midtown Manhattan... That's a huge data center, especially considering that IT equipment depreciates (financially as well as technologically) rapidly.
In addition it would take a lot of business to justify such a steep price for low latency link as proposed elsethread.
And both of those go triply so considering the purchaser almost certainly has large and well located data centers with fat low latency pipes in the first place. (If they didn't they wouldn't be in the business to start with.)
Which leads one to consider the source of the value - the things left unaccounted for above... Which is the data contained in the data center... Or the algorithms in the operating software... Or the brains of the analysts and programmers...
That's backlog - not current data as you try to imply in your original post. Two entirely different things.
Does the tinfoil go shiny side in or shiny side out? You sound like an expert and I can never remember...