However, you can also log in as a user with local admin rights and when prompted, after selecting Workgroup mode, enter a crap ID and password when prompted for domain credentials.
In practice all you need to do is enter anything, including a single space, into the username box.
Basing policy on singular/low percentage/hearsay events to prevent public participation is the wrong way to go.
Even if it does actually do something to mitigate a very rare risk it can still be pointless. Anti-terrorism being a classic example of huge resources being applied in a most likely futile attempt to stop something which is extremely unlikely to happen in the first place.
Yes, consider safety, but don't enforce a ban for broader use, inform people. I will be spreading flyers to educate old ladies about the dangers of walking around designated parking areas.
The risks associated with anywhere pedestrians and vehicles are in close proximity are several orders of magnitide than anything related to aviation.
Large birds crunch up quite well when hit with a sharp blade. Bird strikes are quite common and there's a few good videos on youtube showing bird ingestion tests on turbines with partially frozen birds, so something quite a bit harder than a typical pigeon. Throwing a piece of aluminium with a few weighted magnets into an engine on the other hand is quite a different problem to deal with.
The size of the "bird" is not always the important factor in how much damage can be done to a jet engine. Trying to run with an unbalanced fan and ingesting broken pieces of fan blades can often be what actually destroys the engine. Note that minced bird is just as incompressable as metal fragments if gets into the compressor stage. Even birds much smaller than pigeons can be a serious problem. Especially since birds, especially small ones, tend to occur in flocks. A flock bigger than aircraft means the potential loss of all engines.
Secondly you seem to be under the assumption that bird strikes are just shrugged off, the reality is airports employ a lot of resources to do wildlife control in like training predators (dogs, cats, falcons etc), or using sirens, or knocking down nests, etc to reduce the number of potential bird-strikes around airports
They can't do much outside the airport though. Also predators need to be trained/handled not to become a problem themselves. (Even some humans appear to have problems with "Don't stand in front of a jet engine when big flashing lights are on,)
and it really only is a problem close to the ground as birds don't fly at 30000ft.
The highest recorded bird strike was at FL379. Migrating birds have also been found at quite high altitudes. The rule is that bird strikes can happen at any altitude.
Thirdly "catastrophic" does not mean loss of plane. An emergency landing and a passenger jet out of action due to a downed engine is considered "catastrophic" failure. It doesn't need to kill someone.
Most recent would be N828AW this Friday. Even N106US, same airline, same departure airport, similar aircraft, disn't kill anyone.
In this particular case, the actual object has not been identified.
In which case it might better be described as a "UFO". But then many people, who don't know what the term actually means, would jump wrong, and silly, conclusions.
After all that you end up near Nome AK and Google says, "We could not calculate directions between Nome, AK and Edmonton, AB, Canada."
I'm sure Airbus or Boeing FMS can manage PAOM to CYEG better than Google. But if you were air freighting anything to Edmonton from China the starting point would probably be something more like ZBAA:)
It seems like building the railroad to the Berring Straight, and then using a ferry to cross would be the more practical approach.
Unless the ferry can carry trains there is going to be the time and expense of transfering cargo between ships and trains twice. Possibly going to make more sense to use a ship between Port of Shanghai and Port of Los Angeles. If it's needed faster then PVG to LAX on a plane is always an option.
That's like Russia's backyard anyway, you kids stay off that lawn or you're going to get annexed.
The Asian side of the Bering Strait is in Russia. The map in the article is rather poor and dosn't show any international borders. In order to build this China would need treaties with both the Russian Federation and The USA. Maybe if they wanted to build a tunnel to Japan they could annex North Korea...
We're on our 2nd LTS upgrade where I work. It took us three weeks. No one noticed fuck all nothing.
Which is the way things actually should be:)
The last Windows upgrade I was a part of took six months. Why? We had to fight an uphill battle because of legacy shit wouldn't work on the new Windows thanks to MS deprecating features it relied on.
IME changes in such functionality between Windows (and Office) versions tend to poorly documented. This may be part of the reason it took you so long.
I have yet to work at or talk to folks that work IN a Windows environment where they haven't dealt with the same shit.
How often are these the people making the decisions (or waving around TCO numbers)? Another issue is that there appear to be a fairly large number of "Windows only" sysadmins. Who don't have anything to compare it with.
That's a really good point because that a huge part of the XP problem, is that people were scared shitless into not upgrading, so the fixation on XP was much stronger than it otherwise would have been. And now the upgrades to Windows 7 and Windows 8 are even more challenging for those XP users because it's such a huge change.
XP to 7/8 isn't really an "upgrade". There is no easy way in which you can take a working XP machine and convert it to 7/8 with a fair chance of having all the applications still work as they did before. Even if you could there would still be UI differences to trip up end users. Such a move is far better described as a "migration".
You don't often need to fix things yourself. Reporting the bug is often sufficient to get a fix.
The option to fix things yourself (including hiring someone to do the job) always exists for OSS. Even if you get the response "it's a feature not a bug". There also tend to be fewer "middlemen" between users/systadmins and developers. There's a very good chance that "support" with OSS is an actual developer. It's not uncommon when dealing with "support" for proprietary software for people to come away with an impression of "I know more about how this thing works than he/she does".
IME OSS support tends to be more amenable to email, web froums and other forms of communication which allow for an "asynchronous dialoge".
Where as proprietary support tends to prefer telephone (possibly "web chat") often including being put "on hold" or "transfered". (Rarely with any option to put them "on hold" though.)
You could have replaced the ignition cylinder and then pretty much stopped there. You would have to have two keys then, one for the door and one for the ignition,
It's actually a fairly modern idea to have the same key fit both the ignition switch and the car doors.
One of the challenges for renewables like wind/solar is being able to generate power when the grid doesn't need it.
With the other challenge for these white elephants being to generate power when the grid does need it.
Maybe instead of stopping the windmills they should keep them spinning but use desal plants as a power sink for the "excess" power.
Or you could use such excess from nuclear plants sized to be able to meet peak demand. This would keep the lights on and have a lower "carbon footprint" than the so called "renewables". Especially once you factored in construction, maintanance and the requirement for some kind of backup. Alternativly take the wind/solar rubbish of the power grid and have them just run water pumping, desalination, air to fuel or something else where power availability isn't time critical.
And did you bother to find how much CO2 gets pumped into those (enclosed) greenhouses and what level of global greenhouse effect the same kind of CO2 increase would cause in the atmosphere at large?
Note that the so called "greenhouse effect" isn't the way greenhouses actually "work" in the first places. Greenhouses actually raise their temperature by blocking convention...
A passenger jet is a relatively finite system compared to a climate model which purports to accurately predict what will happen in 100 years based on (let's assume) reliable measurements over the last 200 years
An engine block casting being a few orders of magnitude less complex than a passengers jet too. You certainly can't rely on 200 years of accurate measurements someone could have written down "plausible numbers" for reasons far less serious than not wanting to be eaten by a polar bear. There's also issues of accuracy. You'd be hard pressed to measure temperature to 1/10 of a degree even now. It simply isn't credible to assume than this was possible in 1814. Yet it's not uncommon for highly processed temperature data to be treated as accurate to 1/100 of a degree. Which is nonsensical.
Good science requires discipline, and there are scientists out there that have the right discipline, and those who don't. There is good science happening, and there are flags that tell you who is practicing it and who isn't
Most obvious of these would be that the good scientists arn't going to come out with nonsense like "settled science" or argumentum ad populum logical fallacies
The best way to know if a model is working is to leave it untouched and see if it predicts accurately.
The fundermental problem with all of these models is the sucess rate for accurate prediction of these kind of models is ZERO. But all of the errors are in the direction of "too warm". Random number outputs might well be more accurate at this point in time. At best the whiole exercise is poor science.
Evolution is a slow process - it takes millions of years for it to work.
If it took that long most domestic species of plants and animals wouldn't exist. Even evolution where humans were not part of the selection process has been observed to happen over much shorter periods.
But in 200 odd years, we've basically changed the atmosphere enough that historical records show it points to a natural ELE (extinction-level event) that has occurred a few times in Earth's past.
There are no ELEs in historical record. What history (and archeology) does show is that human societies tend to do better in warm periods than cool periods.
Yes, the dinosaurs were wiped out by a meteor. But prior to that, there were other events of climatic disruption that killed almost all life on Earth. And 400ppm of CO2 is one of them.
It's very difficult to see much relationship between CO2 and temperature over the whole of the Earth's history. http://www.biocab.org/Geologic... Plants also have trouble with concentrations below 200ppm but thrive at levels of 1,000+ppm. More to the point if there was any validity in these doomsday senarios we wouldn't be around to discuss them in the first place.
Far more general data protection laws are commonplace. The USA is unusal in not having such laws. How does Hulu manage in Canada? Or Netflix in Canada and the EU?
U2's have been flying for 50 years. I smell rotten fish. How does collision avoidance software not understand altitude?
If the U2 had an operating transponder the LAX SSR would know it's altitude. If it didn't it would only show up on primary radar, possibly not very well given it's altitude, speed and low RCS. Maybe some sort of rounding error gave a bogus much lower altitude. I though LAX were ment to have sorted out all issue with possible conflicts between military and civil traffic after Hughes Airwest 706.
The problem with a non-profit group developing software in this fashion is the tragedy of the commons situation, where many people (and companies) who would be paying the $50k without blinking an eye towards the commercial solution all of a sudden go nuts and have their board of directors breathing down their throat because they made the donation for nearly the same amount.
Or even would have no issues with multiple $50k per annum proprietary "support" contracts, but $5k one off for OSS is somehow a problem.
And I'll let you in on a little secret: some teams writing proprietary software are also understaffed.
There's also a possibility that the team will be disbanded before (or soon after) the product "ships". Thus some completly different team (or none at all) has the "snag list". (Possibly filtered through several layers of "it's a feature not a bug" levels of "support".)
A. Hire someone to maintain and work on that software.
B. Whine about someone not giving you their time for free.
C. Buy a commercial solution which costs you 50 k USD a year and has at most same level of support as OpenSSL (though better packaged and you get to chat with the smooth sales rep)
There's also option D: Support which looks good on paper and ticks all the right "boxes". But turns out to be worst than useles in practice. (Typically with the person who has to use the "support" having had little to no input into the original purchasing decision. Because "smooth sales reps" tend to want avoid "BofHs".)
The best part is that not even two weeks after heartbleed was disclosed, Fire eye announced a vulnerability in IE that affects everything from 6 to the latest release 11. In response to the wide range of the vulnerability several agencies declared IE persona non grata till it is fixed. So much for commercial software being more secure.
IE would be better described as Gratis and Proprietary. AFAIK it's never been sold...
If they need money and programmers, why are they wasting time and effort implementing OpenSSL extensions people don't actually need?
"Feature creep" is common in software.
Why are they wasting their time writing their own memory manager?
Possibly one of the platforms has (or had) a buggy memory manager. A better approach to these situations is use a separate library with malloc (or whatever replacements). Which enables the standard functions to be used where the original issue isn't present.
Slashdot Mirror
However, you can also log in as a user with local admin rights and when prompted, after selecting Workgroup mode, enter a crap ID and password when prompted for domain credentials.
In practice all you need to do is enter anything, including a single space, into the username box.
Basing policy on singular/low percentage/hearsay events to prevent public participation is the wrong way to go.
Even if it does actually do something to mitigate a very rare risk it can still be pointless. Anti-terrorism being a classic example of huge resources being applied in a most likely futile attempt to stop something which is extremely unlikely to happen in the first place.
Yes, consider safety, but don't enforce a ban for broader use, inform people. I will be spreading flyers to educate old ladies about the dangers of walking around designated parking areas.
The risks associated with anywhere pedestrians and vehicles are in close proximity are several orders of magnitide than anything related to aviation.
Large birds crunch up quite well when hit with a sharp blade. Bird strikes are quite common and there's a few good videos on youtube showing bird ingestion tests on turbines with partially frozen birds, so something quite a bit harder than a typical pigeon. Throwing a piece of aluminium with a few weighted magnets into an engine on the other hand is quite a different problem to deal with.
The size of the "bird" is not always the important factor in how much damage can be done to a jet engine. Trying to run with an unbalanced fan and ingesting broken pieces of fan blades can often be what actually destroys the engine. Note that minced bird is just as incompressable as metal fragments if gets into the compressor stage.
Even birds much smaller than pigeons can be a serious problem. Especially since birds, especially small ones, tend to occur in flocks. A flock bigger than aircraft means the potential loss of all engines.
Secondly you seem to be under the assumption that bird strikes are just shrugged off, the reality is airports employ a lot of resources to do wildlife control in like training predators (dogs, cats, falcons etc), or using sirens, or knocking down nests, etc to reduce the number of potential bird-strikes around airports
They can't do much outside the airport though. Also predators need to be trained/handled not to become a problem themselves. (Even some humans appear to have problems with "Don't stand in front of a jet engine when big flashing lights are on,)
and it really only is a problem close to the ground as birds don't fly at 30000ft.
The highest recorded bird strike was at FL379. Migrating birds have also been found at quite high altitudes. The rule is that bird strikes can happen at any altitude.
Thirdly "catastrophic" does not mean loss of plane. An emergency landing and a passenger jet out of action due to a downed engine is considered "catastrophic" failure. It doesn't need to kill someone.
Most recent would be N828AW this Friday. Even N106US, same airline, same departure airport, similar aircraft, disn't kill anyone.
In this particular case, the actual object has not been identified.
In which case it might better be described as a "UFO". But then many people, who don't know what the term actually means, would jump wrong, and silly, conclusions.
Why does the media insist in calling everything from model airplanes to 747's "drones". I think they're the real (mental) drones...
Probably the same reason they insist of refering to "The pilot" when any airliner has at least two pilots. (QF32 actually had five pilots...)
After all that you end up near Nome AK and Google says, "We could not calculate directions between Nome, AK and Edmonton, AB, Canada."
:)
I'm sure Airbus or Boeing FMS can manage PAOM to CYEG better than Google. But if you were air freighting anything to Edmonton from China the starting point would probably be something more like ZBAA
It seems like building the railroad to the Berring Straight, and then using a ferry to cross would be the more practical approach.
Unless the ferry can carry trains there is going to be the time and expense of transfering cargo between ships and trains twice.
Possibly going to make more sense to use a ship between Port of Shanghai and Port of Los Angeles.
If it's needed faster then PVG to LAX on a plane is always an option.
That's like Russia's backyard anyway, you kids stay off that lawn or you're going to get annexed.
The Asian side of the Bering Strait is in Russia. The map in the article is rather poor and dosn't show any international borders. In order to build this China would need treaties with both the Russian Federation and The USA.
Maybe if they wanted to build a tunnel to Japan they could annex North Korea...
We're on our 2nd LTS upgrade where I work. It took us three weeks. No one noticed fuck all nothing.
:)
Which is the way things actually should be
The last Windows upgrade I was a part of took six months. Why? We had to fight an uphill battle because of legacy shit wouldn't work on the new Windows thanks to MS deprecating features it relied on.
IME changes in such functionality between Windows (and Office) versions tend to poorly documented. This may be part of the reason it took you so long.
I have yet to work at or talk to folks that work IN a Windows environment where they haven't dealt with the same shit.
How often are these the people making the decisions (or waving around TCO numbers)? Another issue is that there appear to be a fairly large number of "Windows only" sysadmins. Who don't have anything to compare it with.
That's a really good point because that a huge part of the XP problem, is that people were scared shitless into not upgrading, so the fixation on XP was much stronger than it otherwise would have been. And now the upgrades to Windows 7 and Windows 8 are even more challenging for those XP users because it's such a huge change.
XP to 7/8 isn't really an "upgrade". There is no easy way in which you can take a working XP machine and convert it to 7/8 with a fair chance of having all the applications still work as they did before. Even if you could there would still be UI differences to trip up end users.
Such a move is far better described as a "migration".
You don't often need to fix things yourself. Reporting the bug is often sufficient to get a fix.
The option to fix things yourself (including hiring someone to do the job) always exists for OSS. Even if you get the response "it's a feature not a bug".
There also tend to be fewer "middlemen" between users/systadmins and developers. There's a very good chance that "support" with OSS is an actual developer. It's not uncommon when dealing with "support" for proprietary software for people to come away with an impression of "I know more about how this thing works than he/she does".
IME OSS support tends to be more amenable to email, web froums and other forms of communication which allow for an "asynchronous dialoge".
Where as proprietary support tends to prefer telephone (possibly "web chat") often including being put "on hold" or "transfered". (Rarely with any option to put them "on hold" though.)
You could have replaced the ignition cylinder and then pretty much stopped there. You would have to have two keys then, one for the door and one for the ignition,
It's actually a fairly modern idea to have the same key fit both the ignition switch and the car doors.
One of the challenges for renewables like wind/solar is being able to generate power when the grid doesn't need it.
With the other challenge for these white elephants being to generate power when the grid does need it.
Maybe instead of stopping the windmills they should keep them spinning but use desal plants as a power sink for the "excess" power.
Or you could use such excess from nuclear plants sized to be able to meet peak demand. This would keep the lights on and have a lower "carbon footprint" than the so called "renewables". Especially once you factored in construction, maintanance and the requirement for some kind of backup.
Alternativly take the wind/solar rubbish of the power grid and have them just run water pumping, desalination, air to fuel or something else where power availability isn't time critical.
And did you bother to find how much CO2 gets pumped into those (enclosed) greenhouses and what level of global greenhouse effect the same kind of CO2 increase would cause in the atmosphere at large?
Note that the so called "greenhouse effect" isn't the way greenhouses actually "work" in the first places. Greenhouses actually raise their temperature by blocking convention...
A passenger jet is a relatively finite system compared to a climate model which purports to accurately predict what will happen in 100 years based on (let's assume) reliable measurements over the last 200 years
An engine block casting being a few orders of magnitude less complex than a passengers jet too.
You certainly can't rely on 200 years of accurate measurements someone could have written down "plausible numbers" for reasons far less serious than not wanting to be eaten by a polar bear. There's also issues of accuracy. You'd be hard pressed to measure temperature to 1/10 of a degree even now. It simply isn't credible to assume than this was possible in 1814. Yet it's not uncommon for highly processed temperature data to be treated as accurate to 1/100 of a degree. Which is nonsensical.
Good science requires discipline, and there are scientists out there that have the right discipline, and those who don't. There is good science happening, and there are flags that tell you who is practicing it and who isn't
Most obvious of these would be that the good scientists arn't going to come out with nonsense like "settled science" or argumentum ad populum logical fallacies
The best way to know if a model is working is to leave it untouched and see if it predicts accurately.
The fundermental problem with all of these models is the sucess rate for accurate prediction of these kind of models is ZERO. But all of the errors are in the direction of "too warm". Random number outputs might well be more accurate at this point in time.
At best the whiole exercise is poor science.
Evolution is a slow process - it takes millions of years for it to work.
If it took that long most domestic species of plants and animals wouldn't exist. Even evolution where humans were not part of the selection process has been observed to happen over much shorter periods.
But in 200 odd years, we've basically changed the atmosphere enough that historical records show it points to a natural ELE (extinction-level event) that has occurred a few times in Earth's past.
There are no ELEs in historical record. What history (and archeology) does show is that human societies tend to do better in warm periods than cool periods.
Yes, the dinosaurs were wiped out by a meteor. But prior to that, there were other events of climatic disruption that killed almost all life on Earth.
And 400ppm of CO2 is one of them.
It's very difficult to see much relationship between CO2 and temperature over the whole of the Earth's history. http://www.biocab.org/Geologic...
Plants also have trouble with concentrations below 200ppm but thrive at levels of 1,000+ppm.
More to the point if there was any validity in these doomsday senarios we wouldn't be around to discuss them in the first place.
That's a good law. We need more of those.
Far more general data protection laws are commonplace. The USA is unusal in not having such laws.
How does Hulu manage in Canada? Or Netflix in Canada and the EU?
U2's have been flying for 50 years. I smell rotten fish. How does collision avoidance software not understand altitude?
If the U2 had an operating transponder the LAX SSR would know it's altitude. If it didn't it would only show up on primary radar, possibly not very well given it's altitude, speed and low RCS.
Maybe some sort of rounding error gave a bogus much lower altitude. I though LAX were ment to have sorted out all issue with possible conflicts between military and civil traffic after Hughes Airwest 706.
The problem with a non-profit group developing software in this fashion is the tragedy of the commons situation, where many people (and companies) who would be paying the $50k without blinking an eye towards the commercial solution all of a sudden go nuts and have their board of directors breathing down their throat because they made the donation for nearly the same amount.
Or even would have no issues with multiple $50k per annum proprietary "support" contracts, but $5k one off for OSS is somehow a problem.
And I'll let you in on a little secret: some teams writing proprietary software are also understaffed.
There's also a possibility that the team will be disbanded before (or soon after) the product "ships". Thus some completly different team (or none at all) has the "snag list". (Possibly filtered through several layers of "it's a feature not a bug" levels of "support".)
A. Hire someone to maintain and work on that software.
B. Whine about someone not giving you their time for free.
C. Buy a commercial solution which costs you 50 k USD a year and has at most same level of support as OpenSSL (though better packaged and you get to chat with the smooth sales rep)
There's also option D: Support which looks good on paper and ticks all the right "boxes". But turns out to be worst than useles in practice. (Typically with the person who has to use the "support" having had little to no input into the original purchasing decision. Because "smooth sales reps" tend to want avoid "BofHs".)
The best part is that not even two weeks after heartbleed was disclosed, Fire eye announced a vulnerability in IE that affects everything from 6 to the latest release 11. In response to the wide range of the vulnerability several agencies declared IE persona non grata till it is fixed. So much for commercial software being more secure.
IE would be better described as Gratis and Proprietary. AFAIK it's never been sold...
On the one hand this is an issue with a lot of open source projects where bugs are sidelined by the next shiny feature.
Since you can see the same thing sort of thing happening with proprietary software it's probably not an "open source" issue.
If they need money and programmers, why are they wasting time and effort implementing OpenSSL extensions people don't actually need?
"Feature creep" is common in software.
Why are they wasting their time writing their own memory manager?
Possibly one of the platforms has (or had) a buggy memory manager. A better approach to these situations is use a separate library with malloc (or whatever replacements). Which enables the standard functions to be used where the original issue isn't present.