Technically you are both wrong and right. Works for hire apply but they do not apply to everything. It is a little vague. This is why most consulting contacts end up with provisos that explicitly state the ownership of ANY work.
Be glad that you've never been in the corporate world at a level to watch the incompetent sychophants rise despite clear reasoning why they should be let go (much less 'not promoted.')
I've seen mid-level executives receive promotions for 'not being in the red' because for the three years they ran a division they re-org'd every year because the years you perform a re-org your numbers were given HUGE discrepancy allowances. One guy lost more than 10 million (on a budget of 7 million) a year for 3 years in a row and was promoted - through this trick.
Worse, I've known people who were CTOs of actual Silicon Valley tech companies (not huge ones, but worth a couple of hundred millions dollars) who DID NOT KNOW WHAT TCP/IP WAS OR WHAT A SOCKET WAS. Not CIOs, or CISO - CTO. It's okay though, he looked the part, and he said yes all the time.
They're measuring an anomalous force in an electromagnetic cavity. That's a measurement, a concrete fact. They're claiming that they'll be able to make a starship with it. That's beyond any credibility. It's totally delusional.
Jesus H you're dishonest. They HOPE to use it to propel objects from LEO to GEO. The reason that NASA is looking into this is in the HOPE that it bears fruit. NOBODY said they WILL be able to make a starship with it.
Some of the statements get rather ambitious, but they aren't statements of fact they're suggestions about what COULD be possible if this pans out.
Why do you keep saying this? They aren't giving an answer. They don't understand why it works, they clearly suggest that we should figure out why it does...
You seem to be building a straw man argument so you can rant about the COM.
That's just silly. The people reporting this observable phenomenon do not claim to understand why this happens - in fact the point of the article is that we should strive to understand why this works.
Just because YOU don't understand why this works doesn't mean that they are claiming to be violating the conservation of momentum - especially since they are not. Most especially because there's a clear expenditure of input energy - a grossly inefficient (it would seem) one.
I see you like to comment on something without reading it.... try taking a look at the article... it says specifically that conservation of momentum is NOT violated...
Well, the article says it, so it must be true.
If you're not throwing anything out of the back of the rocket, you're violating conservation of momentum.
So... You're now arguing that you can violate the conservation of momentum. Interesting.
If you're a company producing "division" size software and you don't know what you want - Agile isn't going to save you - it's going to obscure your problems.
IBM - stop hiring PROJECT managers as PRODUCT managers and get some domain experts for the software you wish to build and have them be your product managers. You might, just might, get a clue as to what your software should be doing.
Not at all, because Jumbo jets don't automatically talk to each other and make autonomous decisions on that data. You can, at certain times during the flight, engage aspects of such systems but they require human interaction.
...is that people like this don't realize the implications of technology on his 'fantasy' of how things could be.
I don't want my autonomous car talking to ANYTHING that I don't control/manage/filter. I don't care what some unknown car reported, I don't trust that car. I'm no member of the tinfoil hat brigade, but I do work in software security and I assure you - IT IS INSANE to presume that ANY automaker is going to produce software that isn't trivially easy to pwn in the next decade. They all roll their own solutions (or have someone produce a custom solution) and using cryptography as an example - don't roll your own, even if you *really* know what you're doing, you're likely to regret it.
Okay children, I'm going to teach you this command explicitly so that you know what you never, ever, EVER - wake up little Johnny - what was I saying? Oh yeah, ever, ever use it.
No he doesn't. He addresses a specific negative attribution about systemd in that it is anti-UNIX because it keeps everything in one repository. He doesn't claim that this is the only reason anyone states it is anti-UNIX.
He's certainly being selective in what he is addressing, but surely he can't be expected to discuss everything anyone ever complained about involving systemd in this interview...?
The Air Superiority mission will retain a pilot for a long time. Recon/Air-to-Ground/Resupply - these will all be primarily remote operated (they're often automated now.)
Why aren't weapon systems modular allowing for easy upgrade? No money in that?
They are modular, and explicitly intended for upgrades. Easy? That depends upon your definition of 'easy' - if you don't mind spending money, it's easy.
And why use human pilots for combat craft, a drone could accelerate and turn under massive G forces and still function where a human would black out.
Response time, situational awareness, the difficulty is maintaining a connection during electronic warfare, et cetera, ad nauseum. I think that there are quite a few mission profiles that would suite remote operation, but air superiority isn't one of them (not yet.)
1st: make a fast, sturdy air frame with a reliable engine, 2nd make all electronics and weapons modular easy to replace and upgrade, 3rd get rid of the human.
It would make it simpler to realize if they're just taking the piss or really are as stupid as what they write... (Although I've seen some quality AC posts as well.)
Slashdot Mirror
Technically you are both wrong and right. Works for hire apply but they do not apply to everything. It is a little vague. This is why most consulting contacts end up with provisos that explicitly state the ownership of ANY work.
Be glad that you've never been in the corporate world at a level to watch the incompetent sychophants rise despite clear reasoning why they should be let go (much less 'not promoted.')
I've seen mid-level executives receive promotions for 'not being in the red' because for the three years they ran a division they re-org'd every year because the years you perform a re-org your numbers were given HUGE discrepancy allowances. One guy lost more than 10 million (on a budget of 7 million) a year for 3 years in a row and was promoted - through this trick.
Worse, I've known people who were CTOs of actual Silicon Valley tech companies (not huge ones, but worth a couple of hundred millions dollars) who DID NOT KNOW WHAT TCP/IP WAS OR WHAT A SOCKET WAS. Not CIOs, or CISO - CTO. It's okay though, he looked the part, and he said yes all the time.
Crazy man. Crazy.
They're measuring an anomalous force in an electromagnetic cavity. That's a measurement, a concrete fact. They're claiming that they'll be able to make a starship with it. That's beyond any credibility. It's totally delusional.
Jesus H you're dishonest. They HOPE to use it to propel objects from LEO to GEO. The reason that NASA is looking into this is in the HOPE that it bears fruit. NOBODY said they WILL be able to make a starship with it.
Some of the statements get rather ambitious, but they aren't statements of fact they're suggestions about what COULD be possible if this pans out.
Why do you keep saying this? They aren't giving an answer. They don't understand why it works, they clearly suggest that we should figure out why it does...
You seem to be building a straw man argument so you can rant about the COM.
That's just silly. The people reporting this observable phenomenon do not claim to understand why this happens - in fact the point of the article is that we should strive to understand why this works.
Just because YOU don't understand why this works doesn't mean that they are claiming to be violating the conservation of momentum - especially since they are not. Most especially because there's a clear expenditure of input energy - a grossly inefficient (it would seem) one.
I see you like to comment on something without reading it.... try taking a look at the article... it says specifically that conservation of momentum is NOT violated...
Well, the article says it, so it must be true.
If you're not throwing anything out of the back of the rocket, you're violating conservation of momentum.
So... You're now arguing that you can violate the conservation of momentum. Interesting.
...what they want.
If you're a company producing "division" size software and you don't know what you want - Agile isn't going to save you - it's going to obscure your problems.
IBM - stop hiring PROJECT managers as PRODUCT managers and get some domain experts for the software you wish to build and have them be your product managers. You might, just might, get a clue as to what your software should be doing.
Not at all, because Jumbo jets don't automatically talk to each other and make autonomous decisions on that data. You can, at certain times during the flight, engage aspects of such systems but they require human interaction.
...is that people like this don't realize the implications of technology on his 'fantasy' of how things could be.
I don't want my autonomous car talking to ANYTHING that I don't control/manage/filter. I don't care what some unknown car reported, I don't trust that car. I'm no member of the tinfoil hat brigade, but I do work in software security and I assure you - IT IS INSANE to presume that ANY automaker is going to produce software that isn't trivially easy to pwn in the next decade. They all roll their own solutions (or have someone produce a custom solution) and using cryptography as an example - don't roll your own, even if you *really* know what you're doing, you're likely to regret it.
30GB
- Boy are YOU an optimist...
Okay children, I'm going to teach you this command explicitly so that you know what you never, ever, EVER - wake up little Johnny - what was I saying? Oh yeah, ever, ever use it.
Seriously. Don't use it.
No he doesn't. He addresses a specific negative attribution about systemd in that it is anti-UNIX because it keeps everything in one repository. He doesn't claim that this is the only reason anyone states it is anti-UNIX.
He's certainly being selective in what he is addressing, but surely he can't be expected to discuss everything anyone ever complained about involving systemd in this interview...?
Your 'logic' implies that any distribution that uses systemd has rewritten the entire operating system.
Do you still think that's true? LOL.
+1
Your apparent definition of
the UNIX philosophy
would seem to suggest that the Linux kernel violates it as well because it's monolithic... Yes, that's absurd, but so - it appears - is your claim.
Why do you think it TOTALLY violates the UNIX philosophy?
Their out-sourcing industry would go under...
Gods no, I like *nix the way it is. Windows IS the honeypot.
I don't know... Spaghetti is pretty good.
Indeed.
A zealot in any shape or form is narrow minded.
"A zealot is someone who won't change their mind, or change the subject..."
Sorry, the radar was in operational service, and was also fitted to the F-15 which was flying, but not deployed to combat units yet.
I think you mean at least *2 years AFTER NATO fighters*, lol.
In 1973 F-15s had it in operational use.
The Air Superiority mission will retain a pilot for a long time. Recon/Air-to-Ground/Resupply - these will all be primarily remote operated (they're often automated now.)
Why aren't weapon systems modular allowing for easy upgrade? No money in that?
They are modular, and explicitly intended for upgrades. Easy? That depends upon your definition of 'easy' - if you don't mind spending money, it's easy.
And why use human pilots for combat craft, a drone could accelerate and turn under massive G forces and still function where a human would black out.
Response time, situational awareness, the difficulty is maintaining a connection during electronic warfare, et cetera, ad nauseum. I think that there are quite a few mission profiles that would suite remote operation, but air superiority isn't one of them (not yet.)
1st: make a fast, sturdy air frame with a reliable engine, 2nd make all electronics and weapons modular easy to replace and upgrade, 3rd get rid of the human.
Like the WOPR? ;)
Word
It would make it simpler to realize if they're just taking the piss or really are as stupid as what they write... (Although I've seen some quality AC posts as well.)