So somebody is looking at the logs of the root servers? I'd like to know more about these logs. Do the root servers really keep such logs? I'd think they would chew up most of their CPU producing them, and run out of storage space rather quickly.
Also, pretty much every ISP (and many private entities) run their own caching DNS server. Such a server will query the root server once and not again until the domain record TTL elapses. All of this is intended to reduce the load on the root servers and the net backbone.
I guess this whole story was a troll. I don't see how it ever got accepted.
How the fuck did these guys get between the Trump server and the DNS server making the queries? (Yes, I RTFA.)
Did these guys have a MITM between Trump's server and the bank? Have they compromised Trump's server? Have they breached the NSA's Internet archive?
Consider the possibility that Trump, as a billionaire, might have business and/or accounts somewhere other than within the USA.
The scariest thing about this post is the innuendo and the assumptions made, and the lack of an explanation of how this data was collected.
Here's my take on it: The lander's radar got a reflection from the plasma from the decent engine and indicated close proximity to the ground. The software then did exactly what it was programmed to do -- it shut down the thrusters. Once that event occurred, the software entered a new state and possibly even shut down the ground radar. Thus it was doomed from that point forward. No amount of pre-mission testing could have detected this scenario.
The above is complete speculation, but I believe that there's a good chance I am correct.
AFAIK, the FBI is still waiting to obtain and decrypt all of the shooters electronic devices. Comey's announcement comes after Obama confidently saying the same thing only this morning. I would not normally expect such a proclamation THE FIRST WORKDAY AFTER THE EVENT. Normally an exhaustive forensic effort would result in some bureaucratic report being generated about a year from now.
I love the fact that the last four digits of the above (3741) post happen to match an IBM system from 1974 that used the same diskettes described in TFA. The floppy was formatted to the standard described in the 3740 format. This format was later used on the first CP/M computer systems. My first real computer (a Ferguson Big Board II) used Shugart 850 8" floppy drives that used this same disk format. My second computer (an IMSAI 8080) used 851 drives that supported double sided floppy diskettes.
The standard 3740 diskette held 241kiB of data and was very slow. We've come a long way since then.
Ed Snowden himself has demonstrated the problem with government secrets. (Unfortunately) All that it takes is one determined individual to unravel the whole deal.
The main issue with Ariane 5 was the in-band error code being sent from the accelerometer when the force during liftoff exceeded its specification. The in-band error code was interpreted by the flight control system as a valid data value. Things went very wrong from then on.
I know nothing about the specifics of this mission, but I do know something about spacecraft.
The summary says the star tracker didn't work in "an area of low magnetic flux" (the South Atlantic Anomaly). The true issue is that the SAA is a high radiation area and the radiation caused an SEU in the star tracker. The Scientific American article was a bit mixed up about dumping the momentum stored in the reaction wheels. The text is a bit jumbled, but I believe the article was referring to magnetic torque rods which produce a force vs. Earth's magnetic field, but they only work if the spacecraft is stable. The spacecraft was never stable because the IRU (gyroscopes) provided erroneous information. In the end, the ACS issue (probably a sign error) is what killed the spacecraft.
"Otherwise it has no training that places value on a pedestrian."/p
It's been years since I played Death Race 2000 (the video game, not the movie). How many points is a pedestrian worth these days?
This story is nonsense. Anyone can voluntarily pay more taxes than owed. Most of these people pay less than others because most of their income is taxed at the lower (capital gains) rates. It's interesting that they don't seem to be lobbying for a change in THOSE rates.
Well, I can understand why the above would be modded troll (-1). I did not cite any source for my affirmation that the records are being modified. I guess it's too much to expect people to check it out for themselves.
Nobody is denying that the records are being modified. The only contested issue is whether or not the modifications are correct or justified.
Here is a timely article explaining the fallacy of modifying scientific source data.
The historical temperature records have been undergoing continuous revision. Isn't this more a case of the revised records creating a new record, rather than in fact being the warmest or coldest anything?
It actually DOES work in some cases. Many spacecraft presently use triple junction GaAs photovoltaics with ~30% efficiency. Typical single junction Si cells top out at around 12% efficiency. Quad junction cells exist (~43% efficiency), but I'm not aware of any that have flown yet (which doesn't mean they haven't).
All Canonical needs to do is to is to distribute the ZFS module as source-only, and have their install scripts build and install the binary module during the OS installation process. Doing this should get around the Oracle licensing restrictions and allow distribution with the GPLv2 kernel (and GPLv3 GNU utilities).
I'm not a troll, I'm just confused by all of these global warming claims.
All politics aside, I've reached the point where I'm not sure who to believe anymore. On one hand I see stories such as TFA describing compelling AGW evidence that seems convincing, but on the other hand I see anti-AGW information that seems even more convincing. Could some objective person please take a look here and tell me who is actually lying?
When I read stories about data manipulation I get concerned. There appears to be clear evidence that the surface temperature records have been undergoing continuous retroactive modification. I understand that there may be some scientific rationale for making such modifications, but I don't have enough details to form a rational judgement. Were the error bars in the original data wrong? If not, then why do the adjustments exceed them by more than a factor of three (in many cases)? Why doesn't anyone point out that the unmodified data shows a completely different trend? Is the satellite temperature data wrong? If so, why, and why does it agree so well with the unmodified surface record? Why is it that none of the existing climate models produce accurate predictions based on historical data? Why should we trust those models to predict future trends when they can't reconcile historical data?
I know I'll probably get flamed for posting this, but I've decided to not post it anonymously anyway. Please leave the personal attacks out of your responses.
(I Started this comment over an hour ago so I hope this is still relevant.)
I'm betting they rolled out this software update in an attempt to correct for the problems described elsewhere regarding heaters staying on too long causing overheated rooms (and increased risk of fires). Apparently some Nest engineer(s) thought it would be a good idea to harvest power from two-wire thermostat systems but did not account for the fact that by harvesting power, they might lower the impedance of the load sufficiently for the heater to turn on. This fix should reduce the (significant) risk of fires associated with using the Nest thermostats, but now users will need to deal with dead batteries because of the reduced power harvesting.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps your opinion may now have been changed after this story was thoroughly debunked.
Also, pretty much every ISP (and many private entities) run their own caching DNS server. Such a server will query the root server once and not again until the domain record TTL elapses. All of this is intended to reduce the load on the root servers and the net backbone.
I guess this whole story was a troll. I don't see how it ever got accepted.
How the fuck did these guys get between the Trump server and the DNS server making the queries? (Yes, I RTFA.) Did these guys have a MITM between Trump's server and the bank? Have they compromised Trump's server? Have they breached the NSA's Internet archive? Consider the possibility that Trump, as a billionaire, might have business and/or accounts somewhere other than within the USA. The scariest thing about this post is the innuendo and the assumptions made, and the lack of an explanation of how this data was collected.
The above is complete speculation, but I believe that there's a good chance I am correct.
In the eyes of the law (courts), spoliation of evidence is equivalent to guilt, but perhaps to a lessor degree.
Try this.
It's more likely that Microsoft's two billion dollar investment in Dell has something to do with this.
(It's also available via AM SW broadcast on 2.5, 5, 10, 15, and 20 megahertz.)
AFAIK, the FBI is still waiting to obtain and decrypt all of the shooters electronic devices. Comey's announcement comes after Obama confidently saying the same thing only this morning. I would not normally expect such a proclamation THE FIRST WORKDAY AFTER THE EVENT. Normally an exhaustive forensic effort would result in some bureaucratic report being generated about a year from now.
The standard 3740 diskette held 241kiB of data and was very slow. We've come a long way since then.
Ed Snowden himself has demonstrated the problem with government secrets. (Unfortunately) All that it takes is one determined individual to unravel the whole deal.
The main issue with Ariane 5 was the in-band error code being sent from the accelerometer when the force during liftoff exceeded its specification. The in-band error code was interpreted by the flight control system as a valid data value. Things went very wrong from then on.
The summary says the star tracker didn't work in "an area of low magnetic flux" (the South Atlantic Anomaly). The true issue is that the SAA is a high radiation area and the radiation caused an SEU in the star tracker. The Scientific American article was a bit mixed up about dumping the momentum stored in the reaction wheels. The text is a bit jumbled, but I believe the article was referring to magnetic torque rods which produce a force vs. Earth's magnetic field, but they only work if the spacecraft is stable. The spacecraft was never stable because the IRU (gyroscopes) provided erroneous information. In the end, the ACS issue (probably a sign error) is what killed the spacecraft.
"Otherwise it has no training that places value on a pedestrian." /p
It's been years since I played Death Race 2000 (the video game, not the movie). How many points is a pedestrian worth these days?
This story is nonsense. Anyone can voluntarily pay more taxes than owed. Most of these people pay less than others because most of their income is taxed at the lower (capital gains) rates. It's interesting that they don't seem to be lobbying for a change in THOSE rates.
Nobody is denying that the records are being modified. The only contested issue is whether or not the modifications are correct or justified.
Here is a timely article explaining the fallacy of modifying scientific source data.
The historical temperature records have been undergoing continuous revision. Isn't this more a case of the revised records creating a new record, rather than in fact being the warmest or coldest anything?
It actually DOES work in some cases. Many spacecraft presently use triple junction GaAs photovoltaics with ~30% efficiency. Typical single junction Si cells top out at around 12% efficiency. Quad junction cells exist (~43% efficiency), but I'm not aware of any that have flown yet (which doesn't mean they haven't).
How do such lightweight cells dissipate the heat created while they are operating? It seems to me that they would self-destruct in a very short time.
All Canonical needs to do is to is to distribute the ZFS module as source-only, and have their install scripts build and install the binary module during the OS installation process. Doing this should get around the Oracle licensing restrictions and allow distribution with the GPLv2 kernel (and GPLv3 GNU utilities).
In case you missed it, Rush Limbaugh discussed this on his program today. Perhaps you should read what he said and maybe revise your position?
The Telecrapper 2000 is my favorite example of how to torture telemarketers.
If it were truly 99-to-1 then there wouldn't really be any sensible reason to continue the debate. The actual numbers are more like this.
All politics aside, I've reached the point where I'm not sure who to believe anymore. On one hand I see stories such as TFA describing compelling AGW evidence that seems convincing, but on the other hand I see anti-AGW information that seems even more convincing. Could some objective person please take a look here and tell me who is actually lying?
When I read stories about data manipulation I get concerned. There appears to be clear evidence that the surface temperature records have been undergoing continuous retroactive modification. I understand that there may be some scientific rationale for making such modifications, but I don't have enough details to form a rational judgement. Were the error bars in the original data wrong? If not, then why do the adjustments exceed them by more than a factor of three (in many cases)? Why doesn't anyone point out that the unmodified data shows a completely different trend? Is the satellite temperature data wrong? If so, why, and why does it agree so well with the unmodified surface record? Why is it that none of the existing climate models produce accurate predictions based on historical data? Why should we trust those models to predict future trends when they can't reconcile historical data?
I know I'll probably get flamed for posting this, but I've decided to not post it anonymously anyway. Please leave the personal attacks out of your responses.
Thank you.
I'm betting they rolled out this software update in an attempt to correct for the problems described elsewhere regarding heaters staying on too long causing overheated rooms (and increased risk of fires). Apparently some Nest engineer(s) thought it would be a good idea to harvest power from two-wire thermostat systems but did not account for the fact that by harvesting power, they might lower the impedance of the load sufficiently for the heater to turn on. This fix should reduce the (significant) risk of fires associated with using the Nest thermostats, but now users will need to deal with dead batteries because of the reduced power harvesting.