You likely mean the F-104. That aircraft was basically a rocket-powered dart - it had such a poor glide ratio that if you experienced a flameout below 15,000ft the standard procedure was to eject and ditch the plane.
The remaining cartons also worth to be seen. They summarize perfectly what I had read about the plane.:)
But them, Pentagon changed the rules demanding a multi hole aircraft, and Lockheed started to hack the airframe.
That was clearly the wrong approach. A drill would have been better than an axe. Drilled holes have better manufacturing tolerances.
At first, I stared to your response for some minutes without understanding it. Until I finally realized I typed "hole" instead of "role" - and laughed my ass out until near a heart attack.:-D
Ah, the neverending amusements on speaking foreign (to me) languages.:-D
The F-104 was a fantastic jet. But a terrible military jet.
That thing was made to be a fast, last minute, bomber interceptor. It was built to get there at Mach 2+, fill the bomber's ass with lead and get home. Originally, it hadn't provision even for missiles!
But them, Pentagon changed the rules demanding a multi hole aircraft, and Lockheed started to hack the airframe. As a technical achievement, it was a formidable one. But again, as a military weapon, a questionable one.
The best "worst" hack was the F-104G, made for Germany. They almost doubled the combat radius - but made the thing yet more harsh to handle. A lot of German women were made widows by this plane.
Curiously, Italy was also an operator for this aircraft, but without a single recorded casualty (perhaps nobody managed to take it off! =P ).
The bottom line I had read is: the F-104 is a formidable plane in the hands of formidable pilots. And a catastrophe waiting to happen in everybody else's.
I don't know if this is the "best" option, but I would withdraw the harddisk from the machine and mount it on a clean machine to check for damages and so the salvage.
My point has always been that you cannot legislate that someone avoid an accident. Once you do that, people are going to think they're required to swerve or otherwise do stupid things to avoid fault in an accident. There are already laws that cover negligent driving.
And our point is that you are plain wrong. You don't even know how the laws you mention works.
A lot of your arguments is plain wishful thinking.
You want people making safe decisions and not erratic ones because they're worried about criminal penalties for failing to avoid an accident
Wrong. You want people avoiding accidents, no matter how. It's the whole purpose of the law: to AVOID ACCIDENTS.
That has been my argument the entire time. I am sorry you failed to grasp that.
And I'm sorry for you being you. It must be difficult living this way, pulling out wishful thinking out of the ass and then pretending be sorry by the other people "failing" to follow your nonsense.:-)
Well hold on here. Reckless driving is a criminal matter. He can claim reckless driving all he wants but without some sort of moving violation or other criminal charge against me how can he possibly bring that accusation up in court?
Why should I have to prove that I did not commit a criminal act? It seems to be that the government should have to prove that I did. Whether or not I am at fault is a civil matter, not a criminal matter.
Because, besides being innocent until proved guilty, no one has the duty to prove your innocence - and you can bet your sorry ass that the guilty part would profit by accusing you.
If the other guys accuses you of reckless driving, you better prove you weren't.
I think I will side with the guy who very obviously has a railroad tie bolted onto the front of his truck as a bumper... I mean, you'd have to be stupid to pull in front of a vehicle like that, even if you weren't doing it to cut them off...
Unless the other guy's vehicle is a bus or truck weighting 10 times your car's weight - in which event your neck will receive full impact, as the railroad tie will not deform and will transfer fully the impact to the passengers.;-)
How can you possibly determine that someone willfully failed to avoid the accident?
By analyzing the accident. There's enough space on the road to avoid the hit? At what speed was you? At what speed was the culprit?
If you were speeding, you was on reckless driving.
If there was space to avoid the hit, you at very minimum was incompetent to void the accident and should not be driving.
Your right to be right is not greater than the right of other to be not be injured if you can avoid the injury.
If taking action could result in another accident then it is typically better to let the other person hit you.
Being that a good and valid excuse to the accident. All you have to do now is to prove your point - what you must do it anyway, what would you do if the other guys accuses you of being responsible by the accident?
What if dodging that vehicle caused you to crash?
What if by preventing your car to crash, a kid is dead?
You are the kind of driver that, if a kid crosses the street without looking, you prefer to hit the kid than a tree? Of course the three will trash your car but you would only be seriously injured if you would be speeding - what makes you negligent at best.
I don't know about there, but around here if you willingly fails to avoid an accident, you can be charge for life endangerment. The guy that made the mistake would be prosecuted by civil law for the losses, but you would face a prosecution by criminal law.
Unless you are a public transport driver and the victim is a biker. By some reason, they're allowed to ram bikers on the street.... =/ (Don't ask, I don't understand it neither)
The nice thing about computers is that they can automate routine tasks. A hacker doesn't have to spend any effort "just to play tricks", he can have his computer to it automatically for him just for the lulz.
And the nicer thing about Computers is that you can automate counter-measures and create honey-pots.
One really good hacker that would hack my servers by hand will eventually succeed - because he is smart enough to detect the honey pot and avoid being locked out while searching for the vulnerability.
But a bot? I have samples from years of server logs that I use to build a database of the most common attacks. None of these attacks will be a problem to me.
But a engaged, persistent human hacker? This guy is a threat to me.
You realize that hospitals have dedicated IT staff that take care of this sort of stuff, right? There's no need for hospital administrators to be setting up VPNs.
And I think this is exactly the problem. One that doesn't knows squat about the technology hires guys that can or can not know something about the technology - and from this point, every script kiddie in the World became a dangerous, perfidious, Evil Geniuses dedicated to Terrorism(tm). What's make easier staying in the job that admitting that you don't know squat about what you are doing, neither your boss knows shit about how to hire good tech staff.
The new IoT stuff is wide open to hackers too. People seem to only only care if they can control something with their iphone so can show off to friends. The sales people and manufacturers know this all too well and don't give a fuck about it.
I'm stocking popcorns for the show.:-)
And building a IoT secure server for the few that want some kind of protection and isolation.
There's no such a thing for a 100% secure system, but a 98% will do for mundane things. No one will spend the effort just to play tricks on the customer's living room illumination.
A Boeing 787 bound for Paris from New York mysteriously landed instead at Reykjavik, Iceland today. Boeing pilots say that there was no indication of failure of onboard navigation systems. "It's a mystery" commented one Boeing engineer.
When asked to comment, an Airbus representative opined "Tough luck for Boeing".
I'll thread this under here - I saw your comment below. I finally got the error on a box, the login issue. I resolved it by simply deleting the Slashdot cookies (all of them - there are quite a few) and any local storage associated with the site. Then I logged in again and all was good. I suspect it may have something to do with them adding https for the login.
For me, filtering the information is just a way to : 1) allow the team to work without interruption 2) obtain a clear description of the goal 3) distribute the work in function of the availability of people. If project could ask directly to the devs, it will be always the same guy who works.
If you agree that the word "proxying" can be used instead of "filtering", I can agree with you. It appears that we disagree only on the choose of words.:)
Communication is the main task (and, IMHO, should be the sole one) of managers.
No. I mean exactly what I said.
Budgeting, staffing, scheduling, planning, negotiating and a lot more must be done by people that knows exactly the consequences of their decisions. If the guy that does this all effectively has the skills to do that correctly, the guy's skills shouldn't be being wasted on non productive tasks. This guy should be doing active development!
You mean except for budgeting, staffing, scheduling, conflict resolution, planning, reporting, coaching, motivating, forecasting, negotiating, delegating, and the thousand other things a manager actually has to do in the real world?
If you think communication is the only thing a manager should have to do you are pretty clueless about what it takes to manage a group of people. Effective management is a hell of a lot more than just "communication".
If you think that MANAGEMENT should do anything else, you are delusional or you make money convincing people otherwise.:-)
Managers should MANAGE. Nothing more.
Managers don't take decisions. Managers manage the decision taking.
Managers don't do budgeting. Managers manage the budgeting process.
Managers don't plan. Managers manage the planning process.
Managers don't solve conflicts. Managers manage the conflict solving process.
And so on.
Reporting, coaching, etc are COMMUNICATION tasks - where Managers should excel.
Your list suggests that you aren't doing enough delegating, even if you're at a small company.
Alternatively, it suggests the he works on a third world company - where managers lives the illusion that they are the main and most important hole on development, being the developer's themselves just tools being used by the "master".
You mean except for budgeting, staffing, scheduling, conflict resolution, planning, reporting, coaching, motivating, forecasting, negotiating, delegating, and the thousand other things a manager actually has to do in the real world?
No. I mean exactly what I said.
Budgeting, staffing, scheduling, planning, coaching, negotiating and a lot more must be done by people that knows exactly the consequences of their decisions. If the guy that does this all effectively has the skills to do that correctly, the guy's skills shouldn't be being wasted on non productive tasks. This guy should be doing active development!
If you think communication is the only thing a manager should have to do you are pretty clueless about what it takes to manage a group of people. Effective management is a hell of a lot more than just "communication".
If you think that MANAGEMENT should do anything else, you are delusional or you make money convincing people otherwise.:-)
Managers should MANAGE. Nothing more.
Managers don't take decisions. Managers manage the decision taking.
Managers don't do budgeting. Managers manage the budgeting process.
Managers don't plan. Managers manage the planning process.
Managers don't solve conflicts. Managers manage the conflict solving process.
And so on.
Reporting, coaching, etc are COMMUNICATION tasks - where Managers should excel.
Slashdot Mirror
From TFS: "The demolition company's CEO dismissed the incident as 'not a big deal.'" In what sense is tearing down the wrong house not a big deal?
Demolishing the wrong 20 stories building, as did by his predecessor.
China Criticizes Subsidized Ride-Hailing Apps As Anti-Competitive
Ah, this sounds like music to my ears!
Play it again, Sam! :-)
This one, in special, appears to explain the XB-70A #2 disaster.
(ok. enough for today)
You likely mean the F-104. That aircraft was basically a rocket-powered dart - it had such a poor glide ratio that if you experienced a flameout below 15,000ft the standard procedure was to eject and ditch the plane.
The remaining cartons also worth to be seen. They summarize perfectly what I had read about the plane. :)
But them, Pentagon changed the rules demanding a multi hole aircraft, and Lockheed started to hack the airframe.
That was clearly the wrong approach. A drill would have been better than an axe. Drilled holes have better manufacturing tolerances.
At first, I stared to your response for some minutes without understanding it. Until I finally realized I typed "hole" instead of "role" - and laughed my ass out until near a heart attack. :-D
Ah, the neverending amusements on speaking foreign (to me) languages. :-D
The F-104 was a fantastic jet. But a terrible military jet.
That thing was made to be a fast, last minute, bomber interceptor. It was built to get there at Mach 2+, fill the bomber's ass with lead and get home. Originally, it hadn't provision even for missiles!
But them, Pentagon changed the rules demanding a multi hole aircraft, and Lockheed started to hack the airframe. As a technical achievement, it was a formidable one. But again, as a military weapon, a questionable one.
The best "worst" hack was the F-104G, made for Germany. They almost doubled the combat radius - but made the thing yet more harsh to handle. A lot of German women were made widows by this plane.
Curiously, Italy was also an operator for this aircraft, but without a single recorded casualty (perhaps nobody managed to take it off! =P ).
The bottom line I had read is: the F-104 is a formidable plane in the hands of formidable pilots. And a catastrophe waiting to happen in everybody else's.
I don't know if this is the "best" option, but I would withdraw the harddisk from the machine and mount it on a clean machine to check for damages and so the salvage.
My point has always been that you cannot legislate that someone avoid an accident. Once you do that, people are going to think they're required to swerve or otherwise do stupid things to avoid fault in an accident. There are already laws that cover negligent driving.
And our point is that you are plain wrong. You don't even know how the laws you mention works.
A lot of your arguments is plain wishful thinking.
You want people making safe decisions and not erratic ones because they're worried about criminal penalties for failing to avoid an accident
Wrong. You want people avoiding accidents, no matter how. It's the whole purpose of the law: to AVOID ACCIDENTS.
That has been my argument the entire time. I am sorry you failed to grasp that.
And I'm sorry for you being you. It must be difficult living this way, pulling out wishful thinking out of the ass and then pretending be sorry by the other people "failing" to follow your nonsense. :-)
Well hold on here. Reckless driving is a criminal matter. He can claim reckless driving all he wants but without some sort of moving violation or other criminal charge against me how can he possibly bring that accusation up in court?
Here.
And also here
Why should I have to prove that I did not commit a criminal act? It seems to be that the government should have to prove that I did. Whether or not I am at fault is a civil matter, not a criminal matter.
Because, besides being innocent until proved guilty, no one has the duty to prove your innocence - and you can bet your sorry ass that the guilty part would profit by accusing you.
If the other guys accuses you of reckless driving, you better prove you weren't.
I think I will side with the guy who very obviously has a railroad tie bolted onto the front of his truck as a bumper... I mean, you'd have to be stupid to pull in front of a vehicle like that, even if you weren't doing it to cut them off...
Unless the other guy's vehicle is a bus or truck weighting 10 times your car's weight - in which event your neck will receive full impact, as the railroad tie will not deform and will transfer fully the impact to the passengers. ;-)
How can you possibly determine that someone willfully failed to avoid the accident?
By analyzing the accident. There's enough space on the road to avoid the hit? At what speed was you? At what speed was the culprit?
If you were speeding, you was on reckless driving.
If there was space to avoid the hit, you at very minimum was incompetent to void the accident and should not be driving.
Your right to be right is not greater than the right of other to be not be injured if you can avoid the injury.
If taking action could result in another accident then it is typically better to let the other person hit you.
Being that a good and valid excuse to the accident. All you have to do now is to prove your point - what you must do it anyway, what would you do if the other guys accuses you of being responsible by the accident?
What if dodging that vehicle caused you to crash?
What if by preventing your car to crash, a kid is dead?
You are the kind of driver that, if a kid crosses the street without looking, you prefer to hit the kid than a tree? Of course the three will trash your car but you would only be seriously injured if you would be speeding - what makes you negligent at best.
I don't know about there, but around here if you willingly fails to avoid an accident, you can be charge for life endangerment. The guy that made the mistake would be prosecuted by civil law for the losses, but you would face a prosecution by criminal law.
Unless you are a public transport driver and the victim is a biker. By some reason, they're allowed to ram bikers on the street.... =/ (Don't ask, I don't understand it neither)
The nice thing about computers is that they can automate routine tasks. A hacker doesn't have to spend any effort "just to play tricks", he can have his computer to it automatically for him just for the lulz.
And the nicer thing about Computers is that you can automate counter-measures and create honey-pots.
One really good hacker that would hack my servers by hand will eventually succeed - because he is smart enough to detect the honey pot and avoid being locked out while searching for the vulnerability.
But a bot? I have samples from years of server logs that I use to build a database of the most common attacks. None of these attacks will be a problem to me.
But a engaged, persistent human hacker? This guy is a threat to me.
You realize that hospitals have dedicated IT staff that take care of this sort of stuff, right? There's no need for hospital administrators to be setting up VPNs.
And I think this is exactly the problem. One that doesn't knows squat about the technology hires guys that can or can not know something about the technology - and from this point, every script kiddie in the World became a dangerous, perfidious, Evil Geniuses dedicated to Terrorism(tm). What's make easier staying in the job that admitting that you don't know squat about what you are doing, neither your boss knows shit about how to hire good tech staff.
The new IoT stuff is wide open to hackers too. People seem to only only care if they can control something with their iphone so can show off to friends. The sales people and manufacturers know this all too well and don't give a fuck about it.
I'm stocking popcorns for the show. :-)
And building a IoT secure server for the few that want some kind of protection and isolation.
There's no such a thing for a 100% secure system, but a 98% will do for mundane things. No one will spend the effort just to play tricks on the customer's living room illumination.
How do you think electronic medical records get updated, exactly?
Using a secure intranet, bridged only to authorised pars using a VPN ?
It's never happened to me, either. Has it been reported on why it affects some users but not others?
It never happened to me neither. I just don't know why...
--
Sent from my UNIX machine
A Boeing 787 bound for Paris from New York mysteriously landed instead at Reykjavik, Iceland today. Boeing pilots say that there was no indication of failure of onboard navigation systems. "It's a mystery" commented one Boeing engineer.
When asked to comment, an Airbus representative opined "Tough luck for Boeing".
Link, or it didn't happen.
Here!
I'll thread this under here - I saw your comment below. I finally got the error on a box, the login issue. I resolved it by simply deleting the Slashdot cookies (all of them - there are quite a few) and any local storage associated with the site. Then I logged in again and all was good. I suspect it may have something to do with them adding https for the login.
*THANK YOU VERY MUCH* :-)
For me, filtering the information is just a way to :
1) allow the team to work without interruption
2) obtain a clear description of the goal
3) distribute the work in function of the availability of people. If project could ask directly to the devs, it will be always the same guy who works.
If you agree that the word "proxying" can be used instead of "filtering", I can agree with you. It appears that we disagree only on the choose of words. :)
(sigh) Let's try again.
Communication is the main task (and, IMHO, should be the sole one) of managers.
No. I mean exactly what I said.
Budgeting, staffing, scheduling, planning, negotiating and a lot more must be done by people that knows exactly the consequences of their decisions. If the guy that does this all effectively has the skills to do that correctly, the guy's skills shouldn't be being wasted on non productive tasks. This guy should be doing active development!
You mean except for budgeting, staffing, scheduling, conflict resolution, planning, reporting, coaching, motivating, forecasting, negotiating, delegating, and the thousand other things a manager actually has to do in the real world?
If you think communication is the only thing a manager should have to do you are pretty clueless about what it takes to manage a group of people. Effective management is a hell of a lot more than just "communication".
If you think that MANAGEMENT should do anything else, you are delusional or you make money convincing people otherwise. :-)
Managers should MANAGE. Nothing more.
Managers don't take decisions. Managers manage the decision taking.
Managers don't do budgeting. Managers manage the budgeting process.
Managers don't plan. Managers manage the planning process.
Managers don't solve conflicts. Managers manage the conflict solving process.
And so on.
Reporting, coaching, etc are COMMUNICATION tasks - where Managers should excel.
what the hell is going on with this site? Sometimes I can't login! Others, post me as anonymous coward besides being logged!!!
Your list suggests that you aren't doing enough delegating, even if you're at a small company.
Alternatively, it suggests the he works on a third world company - where managers lives the illusion that they are the main and most important hole on development, being the developer's themselves just tools being used by the "master".
You mean except for budgeting, staffing, scheduling, conflict resolution, planning, reporting, coaching, motivating, forecasting, negotiating, delegating, and the thousand other things a manager actually has to do in the real world?
No. I mean exactly what I said.
Budgeting, staffing, scheduling, planning, coaching, negotiating and a lot more must be done by people that knows exactly the consequences of their decisions. If the guy that does this all effectively has the skills to do that correctly, the guy's skills shouldn't be being wasted on non productive tasks. This guy should be doing active development!
If you think communication is the only thing a manager should have to do you are pretty clueless about what it takes to manage a group of people. Effective management is a hell of a lot more than just "communication".
If you think that MANAGEMENT should do anything else, you are delusional or you make money convincing people otherwise. :-)
Managers should MANAGE. Nothing more.
Managers don't take decisions. Managers manage the decision taking.
Managers don't do budgeting. Managers manage the budgeting process.
Managers don't plan. Managers manage the planning process.
Managers don't solve conflicts. Managers manage the conflict solving process.
And so on.
Reporting, coaching, etc are COMMUNICATION tasks - where Managers should excel.