90% of news IS a press release. If you judge by that metric you may as well shut down slashdot.
No, you'd shut down PR Newswire. Editors and reporters may be incited to cover a story by PR people, but they are supposed to report the story rather than simply repeat the propaganda.
These types of problems don't happen with Open Source software, do they?
You must trademark your project name to fight this sort of abuse, and have an acceptable use policy for the mark. Open Source licensing was not meant to fight this, but Open Source does work along with a trademark.
Whoever it is must learn not to send us to Softpedia, and it's ilk, but to the developers. That's critical. The rest is learning to filter the story out of the promotion.
Remember, hey it was just last month, how Slashdot's new owner said they'd listen to us, and get rid of the problems that had cropped up with Dice, etc.?
Well, listen guys. This doesn't have a red bar or any indication that it's paid, but it's obviously a press release, it points to people we don't trust for file downloads rather than the people who make the software that is being discussed, and it contains obvious falsehoods (like OwnCloud's acceptance next to things like DropBox).
So, this is just an isolated problem that slipped through the cracks, right?
I thought polar launches had a potential land landing site.
San Nicolas Island, California, is an offshore navy landing strip which I've speculated about but I've not seen any official word from SpaceX. It's about half the distance from LA that they positioned the barge, perhaps uncomfortably close to LA as far as range safety is concerned.
I am dubious that any platform in deep water stays in one piece without continuous attention. The British ones that have survived, more or less, since World War II are in shallow water and shielded from large waves.
I think SpaceX will sell a lot more geostationary transfer orbit missions now. They've shown that they can do it with a pretty heavy payload: 5300 kg, and they delivered 1300 km greater apogee than promised.
Your cost figure for building a recovery platform is for one of them. So, suppose that one would work for GTO on F9. To limit the delta-V needed for recovery, you'd probably need another for GTO on F9H center stage, because it gets a lot higher and further downrange, one for LEO insertions that can't return to landing site, one for polar orbits from Vandenberg, one for the 51.6 degree inclination of ISS. You'd also need to permanently man them and sustain the expense of offshore maintenance. And you'd continue to need barges and ships to transfer rockets from them. So, this probably increases the per-launch staff and infrastructure expense significantly when SpaceX is trying to reduce that.
The rocket is a big narrow tube, yes, but it's quite bottom-heavy at landing. LOX is in the upper tank, and you can see from the Orbcom recovery video that they vent the LOX the instant the rocket sets down, so that tank is empty. RP-1 is at the bottom of the lower tank, and then engines are under that. The engines are the heaviest part. The rest of the rocket is equivalent in thickness and weight to a soda can scaled up to that size. Pressurization is used to keep it rigid during flight. So, I think the chance of tipping over, if the legs actually work correctly, is lower than many folks estimate.
The SES-9 re-entry really was ballistic. Only low-energy missions have the fuel to do a boostback burn, even lower energy if you want to return to launch site, and Falcon 9 Heavy can't return the center stage to launch site because it goes too far down-range. In general they need the barge to be where the rocket will come down, so that recovery does not impinge on mission fuel. A stationary platform is too containing, too expensive, and it only solves one problem: vertical motion. Vertical motion is not so big a problem that you have to build an entire artificial island mid-ocean, there are better ways to deal with it: the rocket can probably compensate for it.
Not only were they months behind schedule, but they got SES to switch places with Orbcomm, so that they could return to flight with a simpler mission. So, they really owed SES.
The challenge here for SpaceX is that a single engine can not throttle down enough to hover the empty booster. That's why they call it "hoverslam", if the engine stayed on the rocket would bounce back up. There would be a lot more room for error correction if that was the case.
On the Reddit spacex forum, the moderators aren't allowing posts with back-of-napkin engineering like this any longer. You need to present the math. They are doing that because we've heard all of the suggestions before and we're totally bored with them. Nets. Moving platforms. Big foam yonis. A big crane that grabs the rocket really fast. Giant baseball gloves.
One would hope the rocket itself could handle up-and-down motion of the barge. It has a radar altimeter and a computer.
This is problematical, because it freezes a whole bunch of parameters. It means you can't aim for your orbit, you have to aim for your re-entry destination instead. Orbital inclination, speed, and the length of the burn must be exactly what is necessary to hit that platform. Especially for high-delta-V missions like this last one, where there isn't enough fuel for a boost-back burn and the barge was 600 kM downrange.
I don't believe "vertical thrusters" are practical because you would either be lifting the barge's entire weight into the air or pushing its entire displacement under the water. And it weighs a few hundred tons. You might mean "stabilizers", which are used to prevent rocking in cruise ships and are essentially underwater wings.
It might just be that a slow cyclical 20-foot vertical motion isn't a challenge to landing with radar altimetry. It's not likely to tip the rocket, either, because the empty rocket is bottom-heavy.
Actually, you're not being told to prove you're a human just to read a web site. You're being told that because you approach the site through what is, unfortunately, a known attack vector. Yes, Tor was created with the best intentions, to protect people who are victims of repressive governments, but its users don't always have those intentions. Some are just plain malicious.
I am also having a little trouble understanding why anyone needs to approach Perens.com, FreeDV.org, and other quite mundane sites using Tor.
Grasshopper, it is the time to learn the art of argument. One submits facts to make their argument, not simply contradiction. In this case, a discussion of the HTTP protocol would be appropriate.
How do you know about anyone's character? By watching their actions. I'm really sensitive about companies, because there are a lot of self-serving ones out there who don't deserve my business.
Now, if Cloudflare doesn't fix the problem or people show me that they've been giving data on democracy and freedom advocates to totalitarian governments, then I'll re-evaluate and move my business elsewhere. But if they are collecting data on Tor users who attack their own customer's sites, and handing them over to law enforcement, I'm going to be completely OK with that.
Giving up the freedom of other people appears to be the convenient option.
No, not particularly. I had never heard of a Tor interaction until today, one reason is that I don't use Tor.
If you want to talk about Freedom, let's allow users to choose not to use HTTPS instead of forcing it upon them as most sites do today. Even the browsers are starting to do it, Chrome won't run getUserMedia() over HTTP any longer. I know when I need to hide my web transactions, and resent being forced to do it the rest of the time.
There are session-oriented features that don't depend on logging in, too. I'm going to hope the developers of at least two wikis and Wordpress got it right, and that Debian is keeping an eye on them for me:-)
I've been using Cloudflare for a few years, and they've helped me handle traffic and abuse from my one-server site and have never been a problem or expensive. Nor have they been malicious. I also have some Open Source projects like FreeDV.org going through Cloudflare.
One of the things they do is protect me from web attacks. It's an unfortunate fact that Tor really is used for web attacks.
Obviously, if there is a problem with their capcha, they need to fix it. I think it's perfectly fair for someone who is approaching the site through a known attack vector to have to pass a capcha once.
Regarding cookies, you're always going to get one on my site, whether you are using Tor or not, to support logins. HTTP isn't session-based and you need cookies to simulate sessions, so that you can have logins and dispense privileges where appropriate. One would expect that Tor users understand how to deal with cookies, and with less civil attempts to nail down their identity.
Linux foundation is not the copyright holder. Individual developers are. A significant amount of the developers are represented by Software Freedom Conservancy.
Linux Foundation actually represents copyright infringers of the Linux kernel such as VMWare. They recently voted to keep the Linux developers off of their board because of this. They have effectively made themselves into a piracy organization.
And given that computers aren't perfectly random (and almost nothing is), even a "random" OTP will be cracked given enough time and resources. Not easily, but it's possible.
You get a pass for not knowing enough electronics to have the answer to this, it's not required of you. But yes, we have really random number sources.
Electronic components make noise. Several different forms of electronic noise are rooted in quantum-mechanical phenomena. It turns out that you can get really random noise from a 5 cent diode. One must design it so that it doesn't start receiving the local radio station or otherwise producing non-random information, and run software to check it before generating critical keys, but the ways to assure its quality are well-known.
Somehow I have published a 24-book series, taught computer science at the master's level, spoken before the U.N, taught computer law to lawyers, and was co-founder of one of the most important movements in computer science without reaching your exalted level, Grasshopper. I long to hear your achievements:-)
Securing the one-time pad has its issues, sure, but securing a private key has the same ones. Nothing has to depend on any one courier, or should.
You argue forcefully, but sorry, not convincingly.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you'd shut down PR Newswire. Editors and reporters may be incited to cover a story by PR people, but they are supposed to report the story rather than simply repeat the propaganda.
You must trademark your project name to fight this sort of abuse, and have an acceptable use policy for the mark. Open Source licensing was not meant to fight this, but Open Source does work along with a trademark.
Whoever it is must learn not to send us to Softpedia, and it's ilk, but to the developers. That's critical. The rest is learning to filter the story out of the promotion.
Remember, hey it was just last month, how Slashdot's new owner said they'd listen to us, and get rid of the problems that had cropped up with Dice, etc.?
Well, listen guys. This doesn't have a red bar or any indication that it's paid, but it's obviously a press release, it points to people we don't trust for file downloads rather than the people who make the software that is being discussed, and it contains obvious falsehoods (like OwnCloud's acceptance next to things like DropBox).
So, this is just an isolated problem that slipped through the cracks, right?
San Nicolas Island, California, is an offshore navy landing strip which I've speculated about but I've not seen any official word from SpaceX. It's about half the distance from LA that they positioned the barge, perhaps uncomfortably close to LA as far as range safety is concerned.
I am dubious that any platform in deep water stays in one piece without continuous attention. The British ones that have survived, more or less, since World War II are in shallow water and shielded from large waves.
I think SpaceX will sell a lot more geostationary transfer orbit missions now. They've shown that they can do it with a pretty heavy payload: 5300 kg, and they delivered 1300 km greater apogee than promised.
Your cost figure for building a recovery platform is for one of them. So, suppose that one would work for GTO on F9. To limit the delta-V needed for recovery, you'd probably need another for GTO on F9H center stage, because it gets a lot higher and further downrange, one for LEO insertions that can't return to landing site, one for polar orbits from Vandenberg, one for the 51.6 degree inclination of ISS. You'd also need to permanently man them and sustain the expense of offshore maintenance. And you'd continue to need barges and ships to transfer rockets from them. So, this probably increases the per-launch staff and infrastructure expense significantly when SpaceX is trying to reduce that.
The rocket is a big narrow tube, yes, but it's quite bottom-heavy at landing. LOX is in the upper tank, and you can see from the Orbcom recovery video that they vent the LOX the instant the rocket sets down, so that tank is empty. RP-1 is at the bottom of the lower tank, and then engines are under that. The engines are the heaviest part. The rest of the rocket is equivalent in thickness and weight to a soda can scaled up to that size. Pressurization is used to keep it rigid during flight. So, I think the chance of tipping over, if the legs actually work correctly, is lower than many folks estimate.
The SES-9 re-entry really was ballistic. Only low-energy missions have the fuel to do a boostback burn, even lower energy if you want to return to launch site, and Falcon 9 Heavy can't return the center stage to launch site because it goes too far down-range. In general they need the barge to be where the rocket will come down, so that recovery does not impinge on mission fuel. A stationary platform is too containing, too expensive, and it only solves one problem: vertical motion. Vertical motion is not so big a problem that you have to build an entire artificial island mid-ocean, there are better ways to deal with it: the rocket can probably compensate for it.
There seems to be a lot of inside information flowing to at least one of the Reddit moderators. Even lowly I have had my tour of the SpaceX plant. :-)
Not only were they months behind schedule, but they got SES to switch places with Orbcomm, so that they could return to flight with a simpler mission. So, they really owed SES.
The challenge here for SpaceX is that a single engine can not throttle down enough to hover the empty booster. That's why they call it "hoverslam", if the engine stayed on the rocket would bounce back up. There would be a lot more room for error correction if that was the case.
On the Reddit spacex forum, the moderators aren't allowing posts with back-of-napkin engineering like this any longer. You need to present the math. They are doing that because we've heard all of the suggestions before and we're totally bored with them. Nets. Moving platforms. Big foam yonis. A big crane that grabs the rocket really fast. Giant baseball gloves.
One would hope the rocket itself could handle up-and-down motion of the barge. It has a radar altimeter and a computer.
This is problematical, because it freezes a whole bunch of parameters. It means you can't aim for your orbit, you have to aim for your re-entry destination instead. Orbital inclination, speed, and the length of the burn must be exactly what is necessary to hit that platform. Especially for high-delta-V missions like this last one, where there isn't enough fuel for a boost-back burn and the barge was 600 kM downrange.
Big hot rocket engines and nozzles crack when immersed in cold water.
I don't believe "vertical thrusters" are practical because you would either be lifting the barge's entire weight into the air or pushing its entire displacement under the water. And it weighs a few hundred tons. You might mean "stabilizers", which are used to prevent rocking in cruise ships and are essentially underwater wings.
It might just be that a slow cyclical 20-foot vertical motion isn't a challenge to landing with radar altimetry. It's not likely to tip the rocket, either, because the empty rocket is bottom-heavy.
Actually, you're not being told to prove you're a human just to read a web site. You're being told that because you approach the site through what is, unfortunately, a known attack vector. Yes, Tor was created with the best intentions, to protect people who are victims of repressive governments, but its users don't always have those intentions. Some are just plain malicious.
I am also having a little trouble understanding why anyone needs to approach Perens.com, FreeDV.org, and other quite mundane sites using Tor.
Put that copy of A Fire on the Deep down, before there's no hope for you.
Grasshopper, it is the time to learn the art of argument. One submits facts to make their argument, not simply contradiction. In this case, a discussion of the HTTP protocol would be appropriate.
How do you know about anyone's character? By watching their actions. I'm really sensitive about companies, because there are a lot of self-serving ones out there who don't deserve my business.
Now, if Cloudflare doesn't fix the problem or people show me that they've been giving data on democracy and freedom advocates to totalitarian governments, then I'll re-evaluate and move my business elsewhere. But if they are collecting data on Tor users who attack their own customer's sites, and handing them over to law enforcement, I'm going to be completely OK with that.
No, not particularly. I had never heard of a Tor interaction until today, one reason is that I don't use Tor.
If you want to talk about Freedom, let's allow users to choose not to use HTTPS instead of forcing it upon them as most sites do today. Even the browsers are starting to do it, Chrome won't run getUserMedia() over HTTP any longer. I know when I need to hide my web transactions, and resent being forced to do it the rest of the time.
There are session-oriented features that don't depend on logging in, too. I'm going to hope the developers of at least two wikis and Wordpress got it right, and that Debian is keeping an eye on them for me :-)
I've been using Cloudflare for a few years, and they've helped me handle traffic and abuse from my one-server site and have never been a problem or expensive. Nor have they been malicious. I also have some Open Source projects like FreeDV.org going through Cloudflare.
One of the things they do is protect me from web attacks. It's an unfortunate fact that Tor really is used for web attacks.
Obviously, if there is a problem with their capcha, they need to fix it. I think it's perfectly fair for someone who is approaching the site through a known attack vector to have to pass a capcha once.
Regarding cookies, you're always going to get one on my site, whether you are using Tor or not, to support logins. HTTP isn't session-based and you need cookies to simulate sessions, so that you can have logins and dispense privileges where appropriate. One would expect that Tor users understand how to deal with cookies, and with less civil attempts to nail down their identity.
Linux foundation is not the copyright holder. Individual developers are. A significant amount of the developers are represented by Software Freedom Conservancy.
Linux Foundation actually represents copyright infringers of the Linux kernel such as VMWare. They recently voted to keep the Linux developers off of their board because of this. They have effectively made themselves into a piracy organization.
You get a pass for not knowing enough electronics to have the answer to this, it's not required of you. But yes, we have really random number sources.
Electronic components make noise. Several different forms of electronic noise are rooted in quantum-mechanical phenomena. It turns out that you can get really random noise from a 5 cent diode. One must design it so that it doesn't start receiving the local radio station or otherwise producing non-random information, and run software to check it before generating critical keys, but the ways to assure its quality are well-known.
Somehow I have published a 24-book series, taught computer science at the master's level, spoken before the U.N, taught computer law to lawyers, and was co-founder of one of the most important movements in computer science without reaching your exalted level, Grasshopper. I long to hear your achievements :-)
Securing the one-time pad has its issues, sure, but securing a private key has the same ones. Nothing has to depend on any one courier, or should. You argue forcefully, but sorry, not convincingly.