You've not heard of the Adobe Digital Publishing Suite Camera API. Adobe can't let HTML5 do things that Adobe Digital Publishing can't do. It seems to me that HTML5 makes all of the Adobe stuff obsolete, especially since the canvas can render SVG. You can do a machine translation of PDF to HTML5. But Adobe doesn't want you to know that.
I can deliver a wonderful interactive user experience with HTML5, especially because of the Web Audio/Video interface which makes the microphone and camera available to a Javascript program, the HTML5 2D canvas (I've not done anything with HTML5 3D canvas yet) and Websockets for a session-based connection. The Javascript language and the web APIs are kludges built on top of kludges, but they are well-optimized and they work across three widely-available browsers.
That is, except on iOS because Apple insists that web browsers use their handicapped rendering engine instead of the browser's native one. Apple needs to catch up. Right now, I just don't support them. You need to run Chrome, Firefox, or Opera with their full rendering engine, not Apple's handicapped one. This even works on Mac, just not iOS.
My next speech is in Seoul. I do not take it lightly that I can get on a plane in San Francisco and be in Seoul not long after my sleeping pill wears off. I did not step on a jet until I was in my twenties. Of course my kid was on one when he was one.
Making it routine will make it safer. Making it cheap will make it routine. And that will vastly expand the number of people using it, with tremendous economic consequences.
It might not be that we could have done better in the time of Apollo or the Space Shuttle. But we can do better now. We now, for the first time, have the technology that could make the economics possible.
Disappointing that you switched to Mars in the middle there. What we were talking about was reuse of rockets.
The reason it is disappointing is that it shows you didn't even consider another explanation, you're ready to engage in logical fallacy rather than confront another perspective.
Geez. When you use such a rhetorical device as this, you insult me, because it shows that you think I'm so dumb as to not see through it. If you want to have a discussion with me, you can do it without attacking the speaker and the speaker's choice of argument.
I have been an active contributor to the AMSAT geostationary development and there is going to be a FEMA sponsored satellite with my stuff above your head in a couple years. Probably more than one. And I've had code on the Space Shuttle. I'm not just a space fanboy.
The critical opportunity right now is economically very simple and easy to measure. It's reducing $/kg to LEO or GTO. Absolutely everything we do in space depends on that.
If we go to Mars and don't tremendously reduce $/kg, we get something like the Apollo era. We send a few people but we never get to the point that we can do it without sucking the government tit, and the government can't long-term plan and is notoriously fickle about funding science. And then there's a war, and another William Proxmire who is more interested in subsidizing dairy farmers than science, and we put away our aspirations for three more generations.
SpaceX is poised on the next step, in which reuse stops being a really impressive demo, stops being just research, and is actually executed in a way that creates a savings for space customers. We don't get that savings without significantly more launches. The fixed costs of operating SpaceX swamp the variable ones until they have a high enough cadence, and thus without the cadence reuse doesn't really save anything. And the customers are actually there on the SpaceX manifest! SpaceX just has to execute getting their missions launched sooner. So, it's just essential that SpaceX work on the economics of launch right now. A big part of SpaceX has to transition from being a research company to just executing on their existing technology. So, you're asking how cadence measures research progress, but I am not asking for research progress. It's time for economic progress.
Thus, it didn't look so great when Elon, having done his first sea landing from a GTO injection, took his eyes off of the economic ball and immediately announced his Mars mission.
There are lots of companies that just do research and never achieve the promise of their own technology. SpaceX shouldn't be one.
There are a few little issues that have to get resolved first, like making equatorial orbit space squeaky clean out to geostationary orbit and keeping it that way. Otherwise, your tether falls the first time anything of size hits it, and the energy on the ground is about equal to a thermonuclear bomb attack.
Mars isn't "serious R&D on reuse". Mars is just Elon's personal quest. And it's a quest well worth doing, just not before SpaceX has made earth-orbital space cheap to access.
It's sort of ludicrous that having escaped a gravity well, the first thing Elon wants to do is dive back in. Habitats in orbital space and on the Moon (note the size of the LM ascent stage compared to a Falcon 9) are a better environment for colonization than Mars would be before terraforming, because people on Mars would have to live in habitats anyway.
Regarding the cadence, SpaceX forecast 18 launches this year, which was a reasonable cadence for them to attempt to achieve. If Eutelsat goes well they will have achieved 6 in the first half of the year.
SpaceX is not yet operating at the cadence that could make reuse profitable, and they have not yet reflown the returned boosters. This is more important than simple profitability of the company, because it drives down the gateway cost of space. IMO that is critical for the human race.
Is it just me or does it start to seem like ol' Elon is going senile?
Not senile, but self-indulgent. Any college sophomore can deal with the same ideas and get nowhere. And then there's Mars. I fervently wish he'd leave off the Mars stuff until SpaceX was on a solid footing as a profitable launch company with rapid cadence.
You could also describe it as a modern form of faith-based explanation for existence couched in a scientific framework, but otherwise much as conventional religions attempted to explain existence before the scientific framework came about. It explains nothing, because if the world is a simulation, there is an outside to the simulation and one still has to explain how that world came about. Just as older explainers said the world was created by gods, leaving open the question of how the gods came about.
the differences in gravity will make living on Mars impossible.
ISS has recently had astronauts with bone mass gain during their time in microgravity, it just took the right exercise. The remaining unknown for a sustainable colony is implantation of a fertilized fetus and growth to term, which we really could figure out now on ISS using a small centrifuge to achieve 1/3G. It would just have to hold some mice. If we just can't get this to work at 1/3 gravity, we have the potential for people to live at 1G on the surface of Mars, although it would take a rather large centrifuge.
I hate to break it to you, but people have already lived off of Earth for extended periods. They have also lived under water, despite the fact that they can't breathe water without technical assistance. They have brought what we need of Earth with them.
Yes, we are evolved to live on Earth. But it is no sure thing that Earth will continue to fit the conditions that we evolved for.
I'm quite happy for you to stay on Earth and for your genetic legacy to die off whenever Earth becomes uninhabitable. Regardless of your feelings on the matter, people are going to other planets. It is likely that however few live, they will be the Human Race.
Unseemly? No. Just good process. Greg is not worried about legal liability, he's worried about what happens to you if you don't update the kernel. And he's not interested in feeding the script kiddies. People who want to know what the security problems are should read the kernel lists and diffs.
It means "don't blame me for what happens to you if you don't upgrade". This is what you say if you don't want to tell the world about the fixed security issues, but you want everyone to have the fix.
I agree that Al-Qaeda is mistaken. The inheritance taxes following such high-profile deaths would do more to boost the economy than "trickle down" ever did.
Everybody who could afford a lawyer to draw up a family trust will avoid inheritance taxes. This is not just the very rich.
Solar power runs the refrigerator in my RV. And lighting and electronics, but the refrigerator is the big power user. It's just a matter of having enough panels so that you get a practical amount of power from normal, rather than optimum, conditions. It beats running a generator.
Solar power heats my swimming pool. It gets pretty warm, which is a good trick for Northern California.
It's a matter of time until we have solar electricity on the home too. We don't expect it to completely eliminate power from the grid, but it will reduce it.
CST is not reusable, can't do a powered landing on solid ground, and although it's supposed to be launch-vehicle-agnostic, it is currently planned to use Atlas 5 and we don't have a US engine for that yet.
Contrast the Dragon, which is in the heritage of a flying spacecraft, is designed for powered landing on solid ground so that it can bring experiments back even more quickly than a space-plane - and SpaceX has proven its ability in powered landings now, and is intended to be reusable.
Obviously everyone who is still in the game will aim higher with their next complete redesign, but SpaceX does seem to have made a technical jump over everyone else.
Microsoft told an HP VP that they would sue the Samba project, and I got the internal memo after that meeting. They ended up backing SCO instead because they had to allow Samba as a term of the of the anti-trust settlement.
I looked at Sega v. Accolade and contractual pre-emption regarding fair use in copyright. I don't believe the reverse engineering term was enforcible.
So, do you suggest that I tell Matthew Garrett not to look at how Windows speaks to the ACPI and secure boot software any longer?
The big difference seems to be the personal relationship between Larry and Linus, because the license terms aren't that different from the proprietary software we absolutely need to reverse engineer to keep Linux and BSD talking to devices. And obviously Tridge was not part of that relationship, and wasn't even a kernel developer.
1) Microsoft does not have a no-reverse-engineering clause related to the SMB protocol.
No, but they do regarding any software that would have been a client or a server, and this potentially applies to the over-wire protocol. It doesn't restrict reverse engineering to decompilation-like acts on the software itself. Tridge was within his rights because reverse engineering for purposes of compatibility is protected in many jurisdictions.
So, you, Linus, and Larry were annoyed with Tridge for doing exactly what he did to create Samba. He figured out the over-wire protocol without ever looking at the software of the server. But nobody seemed to object to his work on Samba. At the time, every big corporation was using it, and IBM, Apple, and HP were building it into products. Maybe they still are.
most other VCS stage files, and if you change the file later while it's stage, the updated version is automatically included. But with git, you have to re-add it to the staging index again.
This actually sounds better to me. Filesystem mods are side effects rather than commands. The orphan issue I shall not defend.
Slashdot Mirror
You've not heard of the Adobe Digital Publishing Suite Camera API. Adobe can't let HTML5 do things that Adobe Digital Publishing can't do. It seems to me that HTML5 makes all of the Adobe stuff obsolete, especially since the canvas can render SVG. You can do a machine translation of PDF to HTML5. But Adobe doesn't want you to know that.
I can deliver a wonderful interactive user experience with HTML5, especially because of the Web Audio/Video interface which makes the microphone and camera available to a Javascript program, the HTML5 2D canvas (I've not done anything with HTML5 3D canvas yet) and Websockets for a session-based connection. The Javascript language and the web APIs are kludges built on top of kludges, but they are well-optimized and they work across three widely-available browsers.
That is, except on iOS because Apple insists that web browsers use their handicapped rendering engine instead of the browser's native one. Apple needs to catch up. Right now, I just don't support them. You need to run Chrome, Firefox, or Opera with their full rendering engine, not Apple's handicapped one. This even works on Mac, just not iOS.
Nope.
Just no. Nada. Not gonna happen.
And who at Slashdot took this seriously?
The parallels to aviation are really clear.
My next speech is in Seoul. I do not take it lightly that I can get on a plane in San Francisco and be in Seoul not long after my sleeping pill wears off. I did not step on a jet until I was in my twenties. Of course my kid was on one when he was one.
Making it routine will make it safer. Making it cheap will make it routine. And that will vastly expand the number of people using it, with tremendous economic consequences.
It might not be that we could have done better in the time of Apollo or the Space Shuttle. But we can do better now. We now, for the first time, have the technology that could make the economics possible.
Geez. When you use such a rhetorical device as this, you insult me, because it shows that you think I'm so dumb as to not see through it. If you want to have a discussion with me, you can do it without attacking the speaker and the speaker's choice of argument.
I have been an active contributor to the AMSAT geostationary development and there is going to be a FEMA sponsored satellite with my stuff above your head in a couple years. Probably more than one. And I've had code on the Space Shuttle. I'm not just a space fanboy.
The critical opportunity right now is economically very simple and easy to measure. It's reducing $/kg to LEO or GTO. Absolutely everything we do in space depends on that.
If we go to Mars and don't tremendously reduce $/kg, we get something like the Apollo era. We send a few people but we never get to the point that we can do it without sucking the government tit, and the government can't long-term plan and is notoriously fickle about funding science. And then there's a war, and another William Proxmire who is more interested in subsidizing dairy farmers than science, and we put away our aspirations for three more generations.
SpaceX is poised on the next step, in which reuse stops being a really impressive demo, stops being just research, and is actually executed in a way that creates a savings for space customers. We don't get that savings without significantly more launches. The fixed costs of operating SpaceX swamp the variable ones until they have a high enough cadence, and thus without the cadence reuse doesn't really save anything. And the customers are actually there on the SpaceX manifest! SpaceX just has to execute getting their missions launched sooner. So, it's just essential that SpaceX work on the economics of launch right now. A big part of SpaceX has to transition from being a research company to just executing on their existing technology. So, you're asking how cadence measures research progress, but I am not asking for research progress. It's time for economic progress.
Thus, it didn't look so great when Elon, having done his first sea landing from a GTO injection, took his eyes off of the economic ball and immediately announced his Mars mission.
There are lots of companies that just do research and never achieve the promise of their own technology. SpaceX shouldn't be one.
There are a few little issues that have to get resolved first, like making equatorial orbit space squeaky clean out to geostationary orbit and keeping it that way. Otherwise, your tether falls the first time anything of size hits it, and the energy on the ground is about equal to a thermonuclear bomb attack.
Mars isn't "serious R&D on reuse". Mars is just Elon's personal quest. And it's a quest well worth doing, just not before SpaceX has made earth-orbital space cheap to access.
It's sort of ludicrous that having escaped a gravity well, the first thing Elon wants to do is dive back in. Habitats in orbital space and on the Moon (note the size of the LM ascent stage compared to a Falcon 9) are a better environment for colonization than Mars would be before terraforming, because people on Mars would have to live in habitats anyway.
Regarding the cadence, SpaceX forecast 18 launches this year, which was a reasonable cadence for them to attempt to achieve. If Eutelsat goes well they will have achieved 6 in the first half of the year.
Occam's razor
SpaceX is not yet operating at the cadence that could make reuse profitable, and they have not yet reflown the returned boosters. This is more important than simple profitability of the company, because it drives down the gateway cost of space. IMO that is critical for the human race.
Not senile, but self-indulgent. Any college sophomore can deal with the same ideas and get nowhere. And then there's Mars. I fervently wish he'd leave off the Mars stuff until SpaceX was on a solid footing as a profitable launch company with rapid cadence.
This is just a fancy sort of solipsism.
You could also describe it as a modern form of faith-based explanation for existence couched in a scientific framework, but otherwise much as conventional religions attempted to explain existence before the scientific framework came about. It explains nothing, because if the world is a simulation, there is an outside to the simulation and one still has to explain how that world came about. Just as older explainers said the world was created by gods, leaving open the question of how the gods came about.
ISS has recently had astronauts with bone mass gain during their time in microgravity, it just took the right exercise. The remaining unknown for a sustainable colony is implantation of a fertilized fetus and growth to term, which we really could figure out now on ISS using a small centrifuge to achieve 1/3G. It would just have to hold some mice. If we just can't get this to work at 1/3 gravity, we have the potential for people to live at 1G on the surface of Mars, although it would take a rather large centrifuge.
I hate to break it to you, but people have already lived off of Earth for extended periods. They have also lived under water, despite the fact that they can't breathe water without technical assistance. They have brought what we need of Earth with them.
Yes, we are evolved to live on Earth. But it is no sure thing that Earth will continue to fit the conditions that we evolved for.
I'm quite happy for you to stay on Earth and for your genetic legacy to die off whenever Earth becomes uninhabitable. Regardless of your feelings on the matter, people are going to other planets. It is likely that however few live, they will be the Human Race.
Unseemly? No. Just good process. Greg is not worried about legal liability, he's worried about what happens to you if you don't update the kernel. And he's not interested in feeding the script kiddies. People who want to know what the security problems are should read the kernel lists and diffs.
Everyone who configures their own kernel, and everyone with a need for the bleeding edge to support their hardware etc.
It means "don't blame me for what happens to you if you don't upgrade". This is what you say if you don't want to tell the world about the fixed security issues, but you want everyone to have the fix.
Everybody who could afford a lawyer to draw up a family trust will avoid inheritance taxes. This is not just the very rich.
Solar power runs the refrigerator in my RV. And lighting and electronics, but the refrigerator is the big power user. It's just a matter of having enough panels so that you get a practical amount of power from normal, rather than optimum, conditions. It beats running a generator.
Solar power heats my swimming pool. It gets pretty warm, which is a good trick for Northern California.
It's a matter of time until we have solar electricity on the home too. We don't expect it to completely eliminate power from the grid, but it will reduce it.
CST is not reusable, can't do a powered landing on solid ground, and although it's supposed to be launch-vehicle-agnostic, it is currently planned to use Atlas 5 and we don't have a US engine for that yet.
Contrast the Dragon, which is in the heritage of a flying spacecraft, is designed for powered landing on solid ground so that it can bring experiments back even more quickly than a space-plane - and SpaceX has proven its ability in powered landings now, and is intended to be reusable.
Obviously everyone who is still in the game will aim higher with their next complete redesign, but SpaceX does seem to have made a technical jump over everyone else.
Microsoft told an HP VP that they would sue the Samba project, and I got the internal memo after that meeting. They ended up backing SCO instead because they had to allow Samba as a term of the of the anti-trust settlement.
I looked at Sega v. Accolade and contractual pre-emption regarding fair use in copyright. I don't believe the reverse engineering term was enforcible.
So, do you suggest that I tell Matthew Garrett not to look at how Windows speaks to the ACPI and secure boot software any longer?
The big difference seems to be the personal relationship between Larry and Linus, because the license terms aren't that different from the proprietary software we absolutely need to reverse engineer to keep Linux and BSD talking to devices. And obviously Tridge was not part of that relationship, and wasn't even a kernel developer.
No, but they do regarding any software that would have been a client or a server, and this potentially applies to the over-wire protocol. It doesn't restrict reverse engineering to decompilation-like acts on the software itself. Tridge was within his rights because reverse engineering for purposes of compatibility is protected in many jurisdictions.
So, you, Linus, and Larry were annoyed with Tridge for doing exactly what he did to create Samba. He figured out the over-wire protocol without ever looking at the software of the server. But nobody seemed to object to his work on Samba. At the time, every big corporation was using it, and IBM, Apple, and HP were building it into products. Maybe they still are.
I had something to say about that.
This actually sounds better to me. Filesystem mods are side effects rather than commands. The orphan issue I shall not defend.