This is clearly a Good Thing, and could never cause any kind of security concerns.
After all, the one thing I always wanted in my company's proprietary and highly confidential corporate budgeting spreadsheets was the ability to stream random data from the Internet.
Also, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell, the biggest and most amazing bridge ever. Call today!
Kids these days don't even know what it means to brick a device.
Here's a hint: A bricked device might as well be a brick. It is unusable for its original purpose, forever.
This incident is nothing more than a fubared update patch. The device (computer) can easily be made useful again by reinstalling the OS, or even waiting for Microsoft to issue a fix. It is certainly not bricked in any sense. Although you might be tempted to throw a brick at it.
"Used responsibly, age-based targeting for employment purposes is an accepted industry practice and for good reason: it helps employers recruit and people of all ages find work," said Rob Douche-Nozzle, Facebook VP.
No, Mr. Douche-Nozzle. The way to recruit people of all ages is to target job ads at all age groups, or more accurately, target them at no specific age group. Nor at any demographic metric that falls mostly in a limited number of age groups, e.g. comic book readers.
Yes, but a jet boat is not powered by a jet engine, that is the difference. A jet boat has a gas engine that powers the water jet.
This doofus specifically said the "car" had many jet engines. It actually has many electrically powered ducted fans. Which are not jets except in the most pedantic sense, and even then, they are not powered by engines, but by motors.
This is the only Trump policy that I actually agree with. So I'm on the horns of a dilemma. Is this actually the only policy of his that is not actively harmful? Or am I on the wrong side of the issue?
The use of H1B visas can only serve to short-circuit one of the foundational principal of capitalism, which is supply and demand. When demand exceeds existing supply, prices must rise in order to stimulate the generation of more supply. When supply exceeds demand, prices must go down to discourage excess production. If this mechanism is undercut, then supply and demand get out of whack and the relevant market becomes distorted. This happens any time that price controls are imposed on a market, or when there is a sudden unanticipated spike in demand for a product, or when supply is artificially inflated. This is true of any market, including the labor market.
The use of H1B visas is actively depressing demand for more American STEM graduates, which is the exact opposite of what President Obama said he wanted. Who wants to go into a field where their jobs can be easily outsourced to cheap imported labor? Into a job market where the government is actively working against its own citizens? Nobody who has any sense, that's who.
So I do feel that Trump is actually correct on this issue. Let's see how long it is before he flip-flops on this one, too.
... All you systemd haters. Flock to your precious *BSD variant, whichever you think will get more than a smidgen of server market share.
Wake me up when you can run Docker or rkt containers on any BSD. Or when there is any major outage that is attributable to systemd. Or when you can find a job at any hosting provider or IaaS vendor that doesn't require strong Linux credentials.
Just a bunch of whiny babies who spam any forum anywhere with their anti-systemd vitriol when any mention of systemd is made, no matter how tangential it may be to the discussion at hand.
Make peace or make tracks, just please shut the hell up already!
Houston was pretty well screwed over by the Obama administration. The orbiters went everywhere BUT Houston, and almost all SLS money is going to Michoud, KSC, and MSFC. Houston will still be Mission Control, but the first manned SLS mission is currently planned for 2021. JSC has been managing the Orion project, but that's small potatoes compared to everything else.
"Houston pork payouts" is BS, because as things stand now, there aren't any.
P.S. Congress allocates money to the various NASA divisions, generally following Presidential Budget Requests. The "flyboys" have no possible way to steal money from planetary missions. If you want to point fingers at a poorly managed program, look at JWST, not SLS.
"No one, absolutely no one, is complaining about you using [AOO source]."
And yet here you are, trolling on Slashdot, badmouthing LO and its supporters at every turn.
LO gives credit where credit is due, on their site and in their documentation, and I have yet to see any LO contributor or TDF member badmouth AOO in any public forum.
And AOO is not "upstream" of LO. LO is an independent project and makes its own decisions regarding the incorporation of contributions from other projects. It is a true fork of the original source code, and does not simply repackage whatever AOO ships.
You did good work with the OOXML standardization coverage a few years ago, but these LO/AOO diatribes are doing a disservice to your reputation.
Maybe because people who say "twice as cold" do not use the Kelvin scale, they use Fahrenheit (typically). So if it's 40 degrees F outside, and someone says 'it'll be twice as cold overnight", they might mean 20 degrees F (278K), but almost certainly do not mean 139 degrees K ( which == -210F).
WRONG on many levels. Yes, we had to get past the 4GB memory limitation, but there had been, and still were at the time, several other true 64-bit microprocessors around when AMD introduced the Opteron: Alpha, UltraSPARC, MIPS, PowerPC, and yes even IA-64. (not to mention IBM POWER and zSeries.) But they all had the fatal flaw of NOT being compatible with the Intel 32-bit x86 processors and off-the-shelf Windows software. Only Opteron had that, and that compatibility was so critical that Intel was grudgingly forced to adopt the x86-64 instruction set.
So, you may say, why didn't AMD take the IT world by storm? Because of 1) AMD was not Intel, and never could/would be; 2) Intel was paying manufacturers NOT to offer ANY AMD based systems with marketing kickback agreements; 3) Intel would punish any manufacturer who did offer AMD systems with exorbitant price hikes on the Intel parts they did sell; 4) All this was taking place during the Bush years of federal laissez-faire non-enforcement policy, giving Intel free rein on those practices; 5) Prejudice against AMD in the IT industry was widespread, and still is; 6) few people saw or acknowledged the need for a flat 64-bit address space; 7) those that did have the need for 64-bit software were forced to spend exorbitant amounts of money for RISC workstations, which motivated them to look down their nose at commodity PCs, even if they were 64-bit; 7) Chicken-and-Egg syndrome (no volume 64-bit hardware, thus no volume 64-bit software, thus no need for volume 64-bit hardware).
So AMD did not "short themselves on implementation". Their architecture was state of the art, and kicked both 32-bit Pentium and non-compatible IA-64 in the nuts. They had all of today's advanced hardware features years before Intel: x86-64 architecture; Hyper-transport to replace the front-side bus bottleneck and enable point-to-point CPU links; and on-board memory controllers. AMD was not able to block Intel from poaching their features because of the pre-existing patent cross-licensing agreements. And anti-monopoly enforcement was practically non-existent at the time (and not much better today).
Of course, not of this is meant to imply that AMD was not partially or even mostly responsible for their troubles. They were (and still are) horrible at executing their own roadmaps. They were (and still are) horrible at marketing to consumers. They were (and still are) horrible at manufacturer relations. They were (and still are) unable to make a sane strategic decision if their life depended on it. They were (and still are) perceived as the el-cheapo Intel-knockoff copycat instead of pioneering leaders in their field.
So yeah, AMD is a hot mess, but there is plenty of blame to go around.
Oh come on sheeple! That is clearly a photo of the remains of an ancient Mayan gold quarry built on the site of a sinkhole that was caused by a giant meteor strike. Why else would the government be ordering all the geologists to cover this up? They want to take out all the Mayan space gold and replace it with rusty barrels of highly contaminated nuclear waste!
It doesn't matter. Once the vehicle (allegedly) achieves the same speed as the wind, there is no wind pushing on anything any more. And if the vehicle were to somehow exceed wind speed (in the same direction as the wind, of course), then the wind will exert opposite force on the propeller, causing the whole contraption to slow down, not speed up.
The blades of a wind turbine can certainly move faster than wind speed, just as a sailboat tacking into the wind can. But that is completely different than what is claimed. What is claimed is that the device will continuously exceed wind speed while traveling down wind on a level surface with no other energy input other than the wind that it is outrunning. BUT, if you are moving at the exact same speed as the wind, exactly downwind, then by definition the wind does not exist for you, you are surrounded by still air. Somebody please explain how to extract energy from still air with a sail, propeller, turbine, kite, balloon, or any other wind-driven device.
The other poster above who tried to use the hypothetical example of a balloon with a mono filament line attached also fails, because the line would exert force on the balloon, thus causing it to move slower than the surrounding air. The balloon would no longer be traveling at the same speed as the surrounding air, and certainly not moving faster than the surrounding air.
How anyone at Google got hornswoggled into sponsoring this is beyond me.
For any device to extract energy from the wind, the wind must be passing over or through the device. In other words, the air must be moving relative to the device, otherwise there is NO wind. As the wind-powered device comes closer and closer to approaching wind speed, the relative wind speed decreases. At exactly wind speed, there is no wind, thus there can be no energy extraction. And for a device that travels faster than the wind, the air in fact becomes a headwind, working against the device, adding air resistance to rolling resistance.
And to say that the wheels are turning the propeller, instead of vice versa, is ridiculous. The device shown is very streamlined, I didn't see any kind of sail or other mechanism to capture wind energy other than the propeller. What mechanism is used to propel the vehicle forward against rolling resistance AND turn the propeller? Nothing that I can see.
Actually that was the old paradigm. Since the Space Shuttle Challenger's last ill-fated flight, all government payloads, except manned missions, are required by law to procure launch services from commercial providers.
This new approach proposed by President Obama would remove NASA even from the manned launch business, and outsource all vehicle design, development, and operations to the private sector.
I'm a child of the sixties and grew up with Apollo, and have followed the Space Shuttle program avidly since 4/12/1981. I don't know how all of this is going to turn out, right now I feel like I've been sucker-punched by my best friend.
One thing's for sure, it's the end of an era. After the last Space Shuttle is launched, we will never see another American space launch. We might see a Boeing space launch, or a Lockheed-Martin space launch, or even a SpaceX launch. But those will be for the enrichment of the their stockholders, not the advancement of American technology and interests.
Say goodbye to American advancement in space, say Hello to our new space-faring corporate overlords.
Out of every $10 that the federal government spends, they spend a nickel on NASA. You heard me right, NASA gets barely 0.5% of the federal budget. Stick that in your pie chart and see what a ginormous expense NASA is.
Whereas we are spending over $400 billion per year on interest on the debt. Like that's productive.
President Obama should commit to funding the Space Shuttle to 2015, and the ISS until 2020, under a separate budget line from the NASA R&D budget. Then peg the NASA R&D budget at 1% of the federal budget for the foreseeable future. At least, until such time as NASA needs to be massively expanded to deflect an asteroid or something.
Slashdot Mirror
#3706? Pfft. Someone else has some lawn-getting-off-of to do.
This is clearly a Good Thing, and could never cause any kind of security concerns.
After all, the one thing I always wanted in my company's proprietary and highly confidential corporate budgeting spreadsheets was the ability to stream random data from the Internet.
Also, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell, the biggest and most amazing bridge ever. Call today!
What am I even reading here? It's a computer language, not a car.
If a language needs its own marketing department, from a multi-billion-dollar company, then maybe it's not that great in the first place.
Kids these days don't even know what it means to brick a device.
Here's a hint: A bricked device might as well be a brick. It is unusable for its original purpose, forever.
This incident is nothing more than a fubared update patch. The device (computer) can easily be made useful again by reinstalling the OS, or even waiting for Microsoft to issue a fix. It is certainly not bricked in any sense. Although you might be tempted to throw a brick at it.
"Used responsibly, age-based targeting for employment purposes is an accepted industry practice and for good reason: it helps employers recruit and people of all ages find work," said Rob Douche-Nozzle, Facebook VP.
No, Mr. Douche-Nozzle. The way to recruit people of all ages is to target job ads at all age groups, or more accurately, target them at no specific age group. Nor at any demographic metric that falls mostly in a limited number of age groups, e.g. comic book readers.
What you are doing is illegal and harmful.
Republicans: Challenge accepted.
Bruce Perens .... Slashdot Newbie. /now get off my lawn.
When COBOL programmers start retiring, they will train their H1B replacements. What, did you think the banks would hire American programmers? LOL.
Yes, but a jet boat is not powered by a jet engine, that is the difference. A jet boat has a gas engine that powers the water jet.
This doofus specifically said the "car" had many jet engines. It actually has many electrically powered ducted fans. Which are not jets except in the most pedantic sense, and even then, they are not powered by engines, but by motors.
Can't be both, unless it's a hybrid. I guess that's possible.
/DNRTFA
LOL.
This is the only Trump policy that I actually agree with. So I'm on the horns of a dilemma. Is this actually the only policy of his that is not actively harmful? Or am I on the wrong side of the issue?
The use of H1B visas can only serve to short-circuit one of the foundational principal of capitalism, which is supply and demand. When demand exceeds existing supply, prices must rise in order to stimulate the generation of more supply. When supply exceeds demand, prices must go down to discourage excess production. If this mechanism is undercut, then supply and demand get out of whack and the relevant market becomes distorted. This happens any time that price controls are imposed on a market, or when there is a sudden unanticipated spike in demand for a product, or when supply is artificially inflated. This is true of any market, including the labor market.
The use of H1B visas is actively depressing demand for more American STEM graduates, which is the exact opposite of what President Obama said he wanted. Who wants to go into a field where their jobs can be easily outsourced to cheap imported labor? Into a job market where the government is actively working against its own citizens? Nobody who has any sense, that's who.
So I do feel that Trump is actually correct on this issue. Let's see how long it is before he flip-flops on this one, too.
I would ask you to please don't let it get out of the lab.
You will probably reply: Bwahahahaha!
... All you systemd haters. Flock to your precious *BSD variant, whichever you think will get more than a smidgen of server market share.
Wake me up when you can run Docker or rkt containers on any BSD. Or when there is any major outage that is attributable to systemd. Or when you can find a job at any hosting provider or IaaS vendor that doesn't require strong Linux credentials.
Just a bunch of whiny babies who spam any forum anywhere with their anti-systemd vitriol when any mention of systemd is made, no matter how tangential it may be to the discussion at hand.
Make peace or make tracks, just please shut the hell up already!
Wouldn't an interactive map be much more useful?
Houston was pretty well screwed over by the Obama administration. The orbiters went everywhere BUT Houston, and almost all SLS money is going to Michoud, KSC, and MSFC. Houston will still be Mission Control, but the first manned SLS mission is currently planned for 2021. JSC has been managing the Orion project, but that's small potatoes compared to everything else.
"Houston pork payouts" is BS, because as things stand now, there aren't any.
P.S. Congress allocates money to the various NASA divisions, generally following Presidential Budget Requests. The "flyboys" have no possible way to steal money from planetary missions. If you want to point fingers at a poorly managed program, look at JWST, not SLS.
"No one, absolutely no one, is complaining about you using [AOO source]."
And yet here you are, trolling on Slashdot, badmouthing LO and its supporters at every turn.
LO gives credit where credit is due, on their site and in their documentation, and I have yet to see any LO contributor or TDF member badmouth AOO in any public forum.
And AOO is not "upstream" of LO. LO is an independent project and makes its own decisions regarding the incorporation of contributions from other projects. It is a true fork of the original source code, and does not simply repackage whatever AOO ships.
You did good work with the OOXML standardization coverage a few years ago, but these LO/AOO diatribes are doing a disservice to your reputation.
Hey Soulskill, you're an idiot. Or maybe just 12 years old.
Either way, your wall-o-spewage doesn't belong on Slashdot.
Way to fail, mods.
Maybe because people who say "twice as cold" do not use the Kelvin scale, they use Fahrenheit (typically). So if it's 40 degrees F outside, and someone says 'it'll be twice as cold overnight", they might mean 20 degrees F (278K), but almost certainly do not mean 139 degrees K ( which == -210F).
WRONG on many levels. Yes, we had to get past the 4GB memory limitation, but there had been, and still were at the time, several other true 64-bit microprocessors around when AMD introduced the Opteron: Alpha, UltraSPARC, MIPS, PowerPC, and yes even IA-64. (not to mention IBM POWER and zSeries.) But they all had the fatal flaw of NOT being compatible with the Intel 32-bit x86 processors and off-the-shelf Windows software. Only Opteron had that, and that compatibility was so critical that Intel was grudgingly forced to adopt the x86-64 instruction set.
So, you may say, why didn't AMD take the IT world by storm? Because of 1) AMD was not Intel, and never could/would be; 2) Intel was paying manufacturers NOT to offer ANY AMD based systems with marketing kickback agreements; 3) Intel would punish any manufacturer who did offer AMD systems with exorbitant price hikes on the Intel parts they did sell; 4) All this was taking place during the Bush years of federal laissez-faire non-enforcement policy, giving Intel free rein on those practices; 5) Prejudice against AMD in the IT industry was widespread, and still is; 6) few people saw or acknowledged the need for a flat 64-bit address space; 7) those that did have the need for 64-bit software were forced to spend exorbitant amounts of money for RISC workstations, which motivated them to look down their nose at commodity PCs, even if they were 64-bit; 7) Chicken-and-Egg syndrome (no volume 64-bit hardware, thus no volume 64-bit software, thus no need for volume 64-bit hardware).
So AMD did not "short themselves on implementation". Their architecture was state of the art, and kicked both 32-bit Pentium and non-compatible IA-64 in the nuts. They had all of today's advanced hardware features years before Intel: x86-64 architecture; Hyper-transport to replace the front-side bus bottleneck and enable point-to-point CPU links; and on-board memory controllers. AMD was not able to block Intel from poaching their features because of the pre-existing patent cross-licensing agreements. And anti-monopoly enforcement was practically non-existent at the time (and not much better today).
Of course, not of this is meant to imply that AMD was not partially or even mostly responsible for their troubles. They were (and still are) horrible at executing their own roadmaps. They were (and still are) horrible at marketing to consumers. They were (and still are) horrible at manufacturer relations. They were (and still are) unable to make a sane strategic decision if their life depended on it. They were (and still are) perceived as the el-cheapo Intel-knockoff copycat instead of pioneering leaders in their field.
So yeah, AMD is a hot mess, but there is plenty of blame to go around.
Oh come on sheeple! That is clearly a photo of the remains of an ancient Mayan gold quarry built on the site of a sinkhole that was caused by a giant meteor strike. Why else would the government be ordering all the geologists to cover this up? They want to take out all the Mayan space gold and replace it with rusty barrels of highly contaminated nuclear waste!
It's a conspiracy, man.
It doesn't matter. Once the vehicle (allegedly) achieves the same speed as the wind, there is no wind pushing on anything any more. And if the vehicle were to somehow exceed wind speed (in the same direction as the wind, of course), then the wind will exert opposite force on the propeller, causing the whole contraption to slow down, not speed up.
The blades of a wind turbine can certainly move faster than wind speed, just as a sailboat tacking into the wind can. But that is completely different than what is claimed. What is claimed is that the device will continuously exceed wind speed while traveling down wind on a level surface with no other energy input other than the wind that it is outrunning. BUT, if you are moving at the exact same speed as the wind, exactly downwind, then by definition the wind does not exist for you, you are surrounded by still air. Somebody please explain how to extract energy from still air with a sail, propeller, turbine, kite, balloon, or any other wind-driven device.
The other poster above who tried to use the hypothetical example of a balloon with a mono filament line attached also fails, because the line would exert force on the balloon, thus causing it to move slower than the surrounding air. The balloon would no longer be traveling at the same speed as the surrounding air, and certainly not moving faster than the surrounding air.
How anyone at Google got hornswoggled into sponsoring this is beyond me.
For any device to extract energy from the wind, the wind must be passing over or through the device. In other words, the air must be moving relative to the device, otherwise there is NO wind. As the wind-powered device comes closer and closer to approaching wind speed, the relative wind speed decreases. At exactly wind speed, there is no wind, thus there can be no energy extraction. And for a device that travels faster than the wind, the air in fact becomes a headwind, working against the device, adding air resistance to rolling resistance.
And to say that the wheels are turning the propeller, instead of vice versa, is ridiculous. The device shown is very streamlined, I didn't see any kind of sail or other mechanism to capture wind energy other than the propeller. What mechanism is used to propel the vehicle forward against rolling resistance AND turn the propeller? Nothing that I can see.
These guys are pulling a fast one.
Actually that was the old paradigm. Since the Space Shuttle Challenger's last ill-fated flight, all government payloads, except manned missions, are required by law to procure launch services from commercial providers.
This new approach proposed by President Obama would remove NASA even from the manned launch business, and outsource all vehicle design, development, and operations to the private sector.
I'm a child of the sixties and grew up with Apollo, and have followed the Space Shuttle program avidly since 4/12/1981. I don't know how all of this is going to turn out, right now I feel like I've been sucker-punched by my best friend.
One thing's for sure, it's the end of an era. After the last Space Shuttle is launched, we will never see another American space launch. We might see a Boeing space launch, or a Lockheed-Martin space launch, or even a SpaceX launch. But those will be for the enrichment of the their stockholders, not the advancement of American technology and interests.
Say goodbye to American advancement in space, say Hello to our new space-faring corporate overlords.
Mark S.
Out of every $10 that the federal government spends, they spend a nickel on NASA. You heard me right, NASA gets barely 0.5% of the federal budget. Stick that in your pie chart and see what a ginormous expense NASA is.
Whereas we are spending over $400 billion per year on interest on the debt. Like that's productive.
President Obama should commit to funding the Space Shuttle to 2015, and the ISS until 2020, under a separate budget line from the NASA R&D budget. Then peg the NASA R&D budget at 1% of the federal budget for the foreseeable future. At least, until such time as NASA needs to be massively expanded to deflect an asteroid or something.