Air Force is basically an application of the army/navy powers, despite its being its own branch, its the concept of an army and the navy using modern technology, obviously planes didnt exist in 1789. Air Force actually used to be part of the Army, The Navy also has planes.
WWV and WWVH are different from WWVB. WWV and WWVH are voice, WWVB is what the clocks are automatically set to. Still cancelling the voice service seems a little ridiculous to save 0000.1% of the federal budget, maybe what they should do is overlay the time signal on news and more informational broadcasts, i know there is already some informational broadcasting but it certainly could be expanded to justify the expense, however.
ext4 is not the end all of filesystems. ZFS and btrfs has far more capabilities. zfs for now being the more mature of the two. Plus, you have distributed filesystems such as CephFS. There is also XFS. These filesystems have many great features so there are reasons some people would use them.
I don't have a CS degree and know more than many CS people do. I never finished college. There is this mentality that there is something magical about a university campus that you can only learn things there rather than anywhere else. I know all about hash tables, parsing algorithms, math, 3D programming, b-trees and all the rest. Rather than just knowing how to write a bash script, I do know about underlying computer science theory and concepts. I am not using SQL without having an underlying knowledge of how the data structures work, the performance trade-offs, and so on, In fact I know more than enough to write my own SQL server if I needed to. So I do have in depth knowledge, rather than just shallow knowledge. I know assembly programming and CPUs work on a very low level. I could write my own operating system if I needed to. Since I have never been to college, none of this should be possible according to the University Lobby, because there is something magical about the piece of ground the University sits on that they have an exclusive monopoly on such knowledge.
I have never once set foot in the CS department of a university. Universities do not have a monopoly on knowledge, and should not. In fact, the fact is Universities are indoctrination centers and do promote dogma. Going to a University, you are mindlessly imbibing and regurgitating facts on demand, some of it you will never use or need and some of it which is propaganda and manipulation. Garbage in, garbage out. Education is a way of live, its not a place, a university campus, or whatever.
You go to a University and you spend years learning things you will never use and things which you could learn on your own for a fraction of the cost. It takes years of of your life. 4 years is a long time to spend without any real income, thats a big chunk out of you life that you cannot get back. I think people should be able to start living life at the age of 18 and that means you have a well paying job at that point, it means you are married, you are having your first children, raising a family, in your life career, maybe with an apprenticeship so you can start learning and making money at the same time, and that we can use a mix of apprenticeships and self study for people to learn. As people spend several years at their work, they accumulate more raises and income and seniority pay.
Until one is married, has a family, is in their life career and supporting them with their own income, they are not a man or a woman, they are still a child in adolescence. Becoming an adult means you take responsibility for your family and begin to raise a family and other things an adult does that really keeps the world turning. College is in many ways a disease, its responsible for pushing back adulthood well into the late 20s and even 30s. Expensive 6 year masters degrees is why we still have depressive, unfulfilled young people living in their parents basement (yegads) at age 30. It is truly a perversion and corruption of things.
I view Universities as a scam and that the University lobby has a vested interest in pushing the idea that everyone has to go to a University because it is their business model. The only people that might need that kind of environment are doctors but that is a specialized field with highly specialized requirements.
It may be surprising to many that it once was the case that all sorts of professional people never went to college, back in the 1700s and 1800s. Some of our founding fathers (in the USA) never formally attended college and were self studied, being raised in highly literate families, educated by relatives and their parents, with personal family libraries that encourages their children to self study on their own. Many parents who were a lawyer themselves would personally instruct the children on their trade and their children would learn it from their parents.
I can understand why CS people might be apprehensive about this article, After you spent $200,000 for a degree to learn things you could have learned
It's outrageous you can copyright an instruction set. Its a language, and you shouldnt be able to copyright languages, protocols, etc. Didnt transmeta and several other companies implement x86 without paying Intel a fee? It seems the fee should only be for licensing Intels schematics. but if your going to use all of your own electronic designs it should be fine to support an existing ISA. ISAs are not difficult to implement. In fact you can create one in an hour. This certainly is not worth millions of dollars of fees. 99.9% of the effort to create your own CPU is in laying out the electronics, making the masks, and all of the difficulties of being able to fabricate the thing. Maybe I am missing something here but something does not make sense.
If you are developing for a large enterprise project, the way to go is use a commercially supported open source project in my opinion like Magnolia CMS or ERP5. The problem is not the language. If you want something that is well designed and maintained, expect to pay, use open source but expect to pay for quality open source, open source really does not mean free as in beer.
If you really need to your code running inside the web server, this seems to be what you are requesting, maybe mod_php or such, or you can embed a web server into your program, I know you can do that with Perl's POE, Pythons Twisted, among MANY other modules. There may be some advantages to running code for requests in a per request process in reducing the chance of a leak between requests.
Traditional Apache certainly isnt the only game in town for open source programming and languages, and has flexibility, as we can see. I believe if I recall correctly you can capture of a broad range of requests to multiple URIs to a single CGI or FastCGI handler so you can have your own logic to pick apart the URI and handle that yourself.
You might be able to configure FastCGI to handle all requests with a single process, I have not looked into this.
If you want something scalable, you also want a lot of handler processes, not one and they may run on different servers, so you probably want to consider some sort of IPC solution anyway if you need to access some global state or send messages into the server farm. So, in this case, this is an example of how actually having CGI scripts running per request isn't really the limitation you make it seem because you will have to use IPC mechanisms anyway for global state and messaging.
The notion of going from PHP to.NET is terrible, really horrifying idea. For the sake of all things good and decent, NO! Going from an open source platform where you are not vendor locked and can control the source to giving all of that up for Microsoft's closed source solutions is a horrifying idea.
The notion that since a certain project has problems that the language it is written in is bad isn't sound logical thinking.
What these people need is a commercially supported PHP, Python, Ruby or Java CMS, they do exist in large numbers, you can find them. This way you do not give up access to the source code for the platform. If you want real support and responsiveness, you should pay and expect to pay the company that develops the code, even if, in fact, ESPECIALLY if it is an open source project!
You should use open source, BUT, Stop thinking you can using open source you can get something for free. Stop thinking that using open source doesn't mean you should not pay, especially if you are using it for a large commercial project for an enterprise. Expect if you want something fixed and want developers to pay attention, that you will have to pay for the commercial support package for the open source software.
Don't go for closed source software, instead go with commercially supported open source. You can and should do this by using one of the many commercially supported open source systems that are available, such as Mangolia CMS, ERP5, there are many others.
There have been mitigation being implemented for the bugs to reduce the severity of the problem, so that hopefully will keep current CPUs out of too much trouble. There are too many CPUs around of course to replace them all right away, so the software fixes have to suffice. Eventually new CPU generations will have more fixes built into the CPU. Many spectre variants are a long shot to exploit anyway.
From what I understand is that the flaws result from being able to tell what another process is doing through how fast some code runs. If another process is running the same code as your process, the behaviour of the other process can be gleaned by watching how fast code runs in your process. The CPU learns by watching code execute what code paths are most likely to be taken. So the learning from watching another process can affect other processes.
One solution for a CPU fix is to isolate processes so the CPU isolates its learning and predictions to within each process, one process will not affect the performance of other processes. Processes can not benefit from each other, thats the downside, but no more leaking of state between processes.
It could also be made so the Operating System can configure all of this in more detail about how much should be shared between process, if it all, what kind of optimizations should be done , or none at all, etc, so the user can make their own decisions about security/performance trade offs.
Perhaps the Operating System could be allowed to turn off hardware based optimizations and control the speculative execution scheduling itself which would make it easier to address bugs and security concerns with software updates.
It all requires some changes to the CPU, but from what I understand, its not all that of a big deal to add to CPUs.
a software layer like a VM can make things worse because it creates more "gadgets" that can be exploited, due to the way the flaws work. What they should have really done is simply had a switch in the CPU where the OS can turn off all of this speculative stuff, would have been simple to implement. *facepalm*
Do you work for Intel? AMD is not vulnerable to the newly announced exploits. Also the ones AMD is vulnerable too are low risk and hard to exploit, far lower risk than Intel only ones, which are trivial to exploit. Bottom line: AMD is VASTLY safer.
Encapsulation is a basic feature of Object Oriented language and is thought to be a generally good thing. Bundling code and data into an object is thought to be an important leading to less of a mess.
As for Polymorphism and so on, templates etc, other languages more simply solve the problems this is trying to solve by having for instance, just one scalar data type as with Perl and several others. You can have polymorphism in Perl, actually, its just less often necessary.
The problem with C++ is things which should be simple are complex, not that there are too many features. With Perl or Python, if you want to create a variable and stuff data into it, its very easy to do, syntax is very straightfoward, like my $var="hello"; $var="hello2"; The variable automatically allocates memory, resizes as needed, and is reference counted so there is never a hanging pointer . Want a dictionary? In perl, its my %hash=(key1=>"value1"); Hash allocated nice and easy, automatically resizes as needed. How to do that in C++? The syntax is more complex and convoluted. In Perl or Python, the simple is easy, the hard is possible, there are a lot of advanced features but you don't need to use complex syntax to do the simple stuff.
They don't really *need* scripts to throw up an ad. A flat JPG would do perfectly fine. I'd be perfectly find with JPG ads and have defended these, but the scripts, the video garbage, i've lost my tolerance for it. The websites are ramming down all of these 100% CPU scripts and bandwidth hogging video down peoples throats and then they act surprised and so hurt when people install an ad blocker. It really pisses me off.
I could not more strongly oppose getting rid of systemd. Those of us who have used its features would basically be fucked. Since systemd does not deny you the right to start your services the way you always have because systemd does not take away any existing functionality, its fully backward compatable with your sysvinit scripts, systemd does not take away anything from you. Those of us who have been using systemd's advanced features would be harmed if you had your way. this is all about YOU trying to FORCE your way on other people who you don't think should be allowed to use systemd, because systemd does not take away any functionality from you, since it is fully backward compatable with all of your sysvinit scripts. Bottom line: don't listen to systemd haters, they are full of it
systemd is actually pretty good. Basically, people have this idea that systemd forces you to do things one way and it takes away your choice to do it the old way. This is false and its a major misconception. systemd does not take away any functionality, it only adds additional functionality. What this means is you can still start services exactly as you have before. If you want to use sysvinit init, you can, just as you have before. In fact, it gives you a choice of what kind of init style to use. If you want to use sysvinit, you can with systemd. Because systemd has complete backward compatibility with sysvinit and does not deny people the ability to continue to start services as they have before, the objections against systemd lack merit, and are moot, and actually harmful as they are based on falsehoods and misconceptions.
Mainly, the opposition to systemd comes from people who do not think other people should be allowed to use the functionality that systemd offers, because systemd doesnt prevent you from using things the way you want to, it does not take away any fucntionality, sysvinit, it doesnt deny them the ability to use them the way they want to use it. So the systemd haters are the ones who want to take away users freedom and want to force their own preferences on everyone else. Devuan is ridiculous and unnecessary because anyone can use sysvinit on a systemd OS because systemd supports it.
systemd actually gives you more control over the system rather than being this automata so you can actually configure things more precisely than you could before, which dismisses this idea it has any similarity to Windows. There is none at all. Its an open source project, it has a high degree of control, flexibility and configurability.
Perhaps no enforcement is better. All I see from the FCCs handling of the broadcast band is that they use it against the community by using their power to cement the monopoly of 100,000 watt globalist megastations with their hollywood drivel that I would not call music. I say abolish the 100,000 watt monopolies and open FM to anyone with a 200-1000 watt power limit for people who live in the community the station will serve to encourage a more locally sourced community thing. The power limit with open access wouild create a 5 mile range thing that would ensure that local people in the community could use the spectrum and that spectrum is reserved for such local stations
Its probably because interstellar travel given the distances is involved is nearly impossible to do, they decided it wasnt worth the effort and environmental damage it would cause their own planet. That is interstellar travel attempts could be a threat to the habitility of our own planet unless we use resources from other planets like pick up Hydrogen and other gases from Jupiter.
Plus you have all of the radiation in space and the fact that travelling through space would pretty much suck, being stuck in some nasty little capsule. This is really the best explanation for the paradox.
The universe is probably teaming with life but no one wants to go to the trouble to try interstellar travel and its just way too hard to do.
Just Kill SLS, fund BFR and save money. Keep the Atlas and Delta for high priority military projects (these are actually used by Air Force). Given the 30 year lead up to Webb, probably better launch that on a Delta IV for now. Use Space X, Blue Origin, Orbital/ATK etc for everything else. SLS is threatening to become another shuttle white elephant for NASA, sucking up the money leaving little left for actual science.
Part of the problem with NASAs cost is congressional mandates as pork barell to districts with the plants. Shelby comes to mind. If NASA were more independent of congress perhaps their engineers could exert more discipline on their suppliers and select based on best value?
Hopefully they will launch it on an Atlas or Delta not Space X at this time. Space X is plenty reliable enough for commercial satellites that are built to off the shelf designs where you can have a replacement in a year. It would be terrible to have to wait another 30 years for Webb however.
Space X has proven you can do reuseability and that its design works, so it should be possible to do that with very high reliability, the key would be maintaining a low cost and overhead level with high reliability, as other launch platforms originally started out as promising low cost but it was proven over time that the resources needed to launch it were much greater than anticipated so ended up becoming very expensive, the shuttle comes to mind. Over time hopefully they can show their capability to do that.
SpaceX is good for commercial launches where they are willling to accept a little higher risk to launch off the shelf commercial satellites. For things relating to national security, and one off NASA stuff thats been underway for a decade like James Webb, can they be so confident that it will be as reliable as the ULA stuff. The idea of something like James Webb being lost is pretty scary after its taken so long. SpaceX not being there yet as far as having the same record as ULA, doesnt mean its a bad platform for lower risk launches.
Wrong. You could not be more off the mark here. A lot of applications rely on a peer to peer connection, it can include a gaming application, peer to peer video conferencing and so on. Having to pay for central server/cloud resources to proxy this stuff around would drive up the cost unnecessarily . It unnecessary wastes bandwidth and congests the networks, slowing things down, to have to transmit data through servers. The bottom line, we need more IP addresses. Most users DO want their own IP address even if they don't know what an IP address is, because the applications they use work much better with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Air Force is basically an application of the army/navy powers, despite its being its own branch, its the concept of an army and the navy using modern technology, obviously planes didnt exist in 1789. Air Force actually used to be part of the Army, The Navy also has planes.
WWV and WWVH are different from WWVB. WWV and WWVH are voice, WWVB is what the clocks are automatically set to. Still cancelling the voice service seems a little ridiculous to save 0000.1% of the federal budget, maybe what they should do is overlay the time signal on news and more informational broadcasts, i know there is already some informational broadcasting but it certainly could be expanded to justify the expense, however.
ext4 is not the end all of filesystems. ZFS and btrfs has far more capabilities. zfs for now being the more mature of the two. Plus, you have distributed filesystems such as CephFS. There is also XFS. These filesystems have many great features so there are reasons some people would use them.
I don't have a CS degree and know more than many CS people do. I never finished college. There is this mentality that there is something magical about a university campus that you can only learn things there rather than anywhere else. I know all about hash tables, parsing algorithms, math, 3D programming, b-trees and all the rest. Rather than just knowing how to write a bash script, I do know about underlying computer science theory and concepts. I am not using SQL without having an underlying knowledge of how the data structures work, the performance trade-offs, and so on, In fact I know more than enough to write my own SQL server if I needed to. So I do have in depth knowledge, rather than just shallow knowledge. I know assembly programming and CPUs work on a very low level. I could write my own operating system if I needed to. Since I have never been to college, none of this should be possible according to the University Lobby, because there is something magical about the piece of ground the University sits on that they have an exclusive monopoly on such knowledge.
I have never once set foot in the CS department of a university. Universities do not have a monopoly on knowledge, and should not. In fact, the fact is Universities are indoctrination centers and do promote dogma. Going to a University, you are mindlessly imbibing and regurgitating facts on demand, some of it you will never use or need and some of it which is propaganda and manipulation. Garbage in, garbage out. Education is a way of live, its not a place, a university campus, or whatever.
You go to a University and you spend years learning things you will never use and things which you could learn on your own for a fraction of the cost. It takes years of of your life. 4 years is a long time to spend without any real income, thats a big chunk out of you life that you cannot get back. I think people should be able to start living life at the age of 18 and that means you have a well paying job at that point, it means you are married, you are having your first children, raising a family, in your life career, maybe with an apprenticeship so you can start learning and making money at the same time, and that we can use a mix of apprenticeships and self study for people to learn. As people spend several years at their work, they accumulate more raises and income and seniority pay.
Until one is married, has a family, is in their life career and supporting them with their own income, they are not a man or a woman, they are still a child in adolescence. Becoming an adult means you take responsibility for your family and begin to raise a family and other things an adult does that really keeps the world turning. College is in many ways a disease, its responsible for pushing back adulthood well into the late 20s and even 30s. Expensive 6 year masters degrees is why we still have depressive, unfulfilled young people living in their parents basement (yegads) at age 30. It is truly a perversion and corruption of things.
I view Universities as a scam and that the University lobby has a vested interest in pushing the idea that everyone has to go to a University because it is their business model. The only people that might need that kind of environment are doctors but that is a specialized field with highly specialized requirements.
It may be surprising to many that it once was the case that all sorts of professional people never went to college, back in the 1700s and 1800s. Some of our founding fathers (in the USA) never formally attended college and were self studied, being raised in highly literate families, educated by relatives and their parents, with personal family libraries that encourages their children to self study on their own. Many parents who were a lawyer themselves would personally instruct the children on their trade and their children would learn it from their parents.
I can understand why CS people might be apprehensive about this article, After you spent $200,000 for a degree to learn things you could have learned
I didnt know that Google Maps was run by people from the Flat Earther Society. I suppose they suddenly realized the earth is actually round.
It's outrageous you can copyright an instruction set. Its a language, and you shouldnt be able to copyright languages, protocols, etc. Didnt transmeta and several other companies implement x86 without paying Intel a fee? It seems the fee should only be for licensing Intels schematics. but if your going to use all of your own electronic designs it should be fine to support an existing ISA. ISAs are not difficult to implement. In fact you can create one in an hour. This certainly is not worth millions of dollars of fees. 99.9% of the effort to create your own CPU is in laying out the electronics, making the masks, and all of the difficulties of being able to fabricate the thing. Maybe I am missing something here but something does not make sense.
If you are developing for a large enterprise project, the way to go is use a commercially supported open source project in my opinion like Magnolia CMS or ERP5. The problem is not the language. If you want something that is well designed and maintained, expect to pay, use open source but expect to pay for quality open source, open source really does not mean free as in beer.
If you really need to your code running inside the web server, this seems to be what you are requesting, maybe mod_php or such, or you can embed a web server into your program, I know you can do that with Perl's POE, Pythons Twisted, among MANY other modules. There may be some advantages to running code for requests in a per request process in reducing the chance of a leak between requests.
Traditional Apache certainly isnt the only game in town for open source programming and languages, and has flexibility, as we can see. I believe if I recall correctly you can capture of a broad range of requests to multiple URIs to a single CGI or FastCGI handler so you can have your own logic to pick apart the URI and handle that yourself.
You might be able to configure FastCGI to handle all requests with a single process, I have not looked into this.
If you want something scalable, you also want a lot of handler processes, not one and they may run on different servers, so you probably want to consider some sort of IPC solution anyway if you need to access some global state or send messages into the server farm. So, in this case, this is an example of how actually having CGI scripts running per request isn't really the limitation you make it seem because you will have to use IPC mechanisms anyway for global state and messaging.
The notion of going from PHP to .NET is terrible, really horrifying idea. For the sake of all things good and decent, NO! Going from an open source platform where you are not vendor locked and can control the source to giving all of that up for Microsoft's closed source solutions is a horrifying idea.
The notion that since a certain project has problems that the language it is written in is bad isn't sound logical thinking.
What these people need is a commercially supported PHP, Python, Ruby or Java CMS, they do exist in large numbers, you can find them. This way you do not give up access to the source code for the platform. If you want real support and responsiveness, you should pay and expect to pay the company that develops the code, even if, in fact, ESPECIALLY if it is an open source project!
You should use open source, BUT, Stop thinking you can using open source you can get something for free. Stop thinking that using open source doesn't mean you should not pay, especially if you are using it for a large commercial project for an enterprise. Expect if you want something fixed and want developers to pay attention, that you will have to pay for the commercial support package for the open source software.
Don't go for closed source software, instead go with commercially supported open source. You can and should do this by using one of the many commercially supported open source systems that are available, such as Mangolia CMS, ERP5, there are many others.
There have been mitigation being implemented for the bugs to reduce the severity of the problem, so that hopefully will keep current CPUs out of too much trouble. There are too many CPUs around of course to replace them all right away, so the software fixes have to suffice. Eventually new CPU generations will have more fixes built into the CPU. Many spectre variants are a long shot to exploit anyway.
From what I understand is that the flaws result from being able to tell what another process is doing through how fast some code runs. If another process is running the same code as your process, the behaviour of the other process can be gleaned by watching how fast code runs in your process. The CPU learns by watching code execute what code paths are most likely to be taken. So the learning from watching another process can affect other processes.
One solution for a CPU fix is to isolate processes so the CPU isolates its learning and predictions to within each process, one process will not affect the performance of other processes. Processes can not benefit from each other, thats the downside, but no more leaking of state between processes.
It could also be made so the Operating System can configure all of this in more detail about how much should be shared between process, if it all, what kind of optimizations should be done , or none at all, etc, so the user can make their own decisions about security/performance trade offs.
Perhaps the Operating System could be allowed to turn off hardware based optimizations and control the speculative execution scheduling itself which would make it easier to address bugs and security concerns with software updates.
It all requires some changes to the CPU, but from what I understand, its not all that of a big deal to add to CPUs.
a software layer like a VM can make things worse because it creates more "gadgets" that can be exploited, due to the way the flaws work. What they should have really done is simply had a switch in the CPU where the OS can turn off all of this speculative stuff, would have been simple to implement. *facepalm*
Do you work for Intel? AMD is not vulnerable to the newly announced exploits. Also the ones AMD is vulnerable too are low risk and hard to exploit, far lower risk than Intel only ones, which are trivial to exploit. Bottom line: AMD is VASTLY safer.
The variants AMD are affected by are the low risk hard to exploit ones that are a long shot. The intel only one is more trivial to exploit.
Encapsulation is a basic feature of Object Oriented language and is thought to be a generally good thing. Bundling code and data into an object is thought to be an important leading to less of a mess.
As for Polymorphism and so on, templates etc, other languages more simply solve the problems this is trying to solve by having for instance, just one scalar data type as with Perl and several others. You can have polymorphism in Perl, actually, its just less often necessary.
The problem with C++ is things which should be simple are complex, not that there are too many features. With Perl or Python, if you want to create a variable and stuff data into it, its very easy to do, syntax is very straightfoward, like my $var="hello"; $var="hello2"; The variable automatically allocates memory, resizes as needed, and is reference counted so there is never a hanging pointer . Want a dictionary? In perl, its my %hash=(key1=>"value1"); Hash allocated nice and easy, automatically resizes as needed. How to do that in C++? The syntax is more complex and convoluted. In Perl or Python, the simple is easy, the hard is possible, there are a lot of advanced features but you don't need to use complex syntax to do the simple stuff.
They don't really *need* scripts to throw up an ad. A flat JPG would do perfectly fine. I'd be perfectly find with JPG ads and have defended these, but the scripts, the video garbage, i've lost my tolerance for it. The websites are ramming down all of these 100% CPU scripts and bandwidth hogging video down peoples throats and then they act surprised and so hurt when people install an ad blocker. It really pisses me off.
I could not more strongly oppose getting rid of systemd. Those of us who have used its features would basically be fucked. Since systemd does not deny you the right to start your services the way you always have because systemd does not take away any existing functionality, its fully backward compatable with your sysvinit scripts, systemd does not take away anything from you. Those of us who have been using systemd's advanced features would be harmed if you had your way. this is all about YOU trying to FORCE your way on other people who you don't think should be allowed to use systemd, because systemd does not take away any functionality from you, since it is fully backward compatable with all of your sysvinit scripts. Bottom line: don't listen to systemd haters, they are full of it
systemd is actually pretty good. Basically, people have this idea that systemd forces you to do things one way and it takes away your choice to do it the old way. This is false and its a major misconception. systemd does not take away any functionality, it only adds additional functionality. What this means is you can still start services exactly as you have before. If you want to use sysvinit init, you can, just as you have before. In fact, it gives you a choice of what kind of init style to use. If you want to use sysvinit, you can with systemd. Because systemd has complete backward compatibility with sysvinit and does not deny people the ability to continue to start services as they have before, the objections against systemd lack merit, and are moot, and actually harmful as they are based on falsehoods and misconceptions.
Mainly, the opposition to systemd comes from people who do not think other people should be allowed to use the functionality that systemd offers, because systemd doesnt prevent you from using things the way you want to, it does not take away any fucntionality, sysvinit, it doesnt deny them the ability to use them the way they want to use it. So the systemd haters are the ones who want to take away users freedom and want to force their own preferences on everyone else. Devuan is ridiculous and unnecessary because anyone can use sysvinit on a systemd OS because systemd supports it.
systemd actually gives you more control over the system rather than being this automata so you can actually configure things more precisely than you could before, which dismisses this idea it has any similarity to Windows. There is none at all. Its an open source project, it has a high degree of control, flexibility and configurability.
Perhaps no enforcement is better. All I see from the FCCs handling of the broadcast band is that they use it against the community by using their power to cement the monopoly of 100,000 watt globalist megastations with their hollywood drivel that I would not call music. I say abolish the 100,000 watt monopolies and open FM to anyone with a 200-1000 watt power limit for people who live in the community the station will serve to encourage a more locally sourced community thing. The power limit with open access wouild create a 5 mile range thing that would ensure that local people in the community could use the spectrum and that spectrum is reserved for such local stations
Its probably because interstellar travel given the distances is involved is nearly impossible to do, they decided it wasnt worth the effort and environmental damage it would cause their own planet. That is interstellar travel attempts could be a threat to the habitility of our own planet unless we use resources from other planets like pick up Hydrogen and other gases from Jupiter.
Plus you have all of the radiation in space and the fact that travelling through space would pretty much suck, being stuck in some nasty little capsule. This is really the best explanation for the paradox.
The universe is probably teaming with life but no one wants to go to the trouble to try interstellar travel and its just way too hard to do.
Just Kill SLS, fund BFR and save money. Keep the Atlas and Delta for high priority military projects (these are actually used by Air Force). Given the 30 year lead up to Webb, probably better launch that on a Delta IV for now. Use Space X, Blue Origin, Orbital/ATK etc for everything else. SLS is threatening to become another shuttle white elephant for NASA, sucking up the money leaving little left for actual science.
Part of the problem with NASAs cost is congressional mandates as pork barell to districts with the plants. Shelby comes to mind. If NASA were more independent of congress perhaps their engineers could exert more discipline on their suppliers and select based on best value?
Hopefully they will launch it on an Atlas or Delta not Space X at this time. Space X is plenty reliable enough for commercial satellites that are built to off the shelf designs where you can have a replacement in a year. It would be terrible to have to wait another 30 years for Webb however.
Space X has proven you can do reuseability and that its design works, so it should be possible to do that with very high reliability, the key would be maintaining a low cost and overhead level with high reliability, as other launch platforms originally started out as promising low cost but it was proven over time that the resources needed to launch it were much greater than anticipated so ended up becoming very expensive, the shuttle comes to mind. Over time hopefully they can show their capability to do that.
SpaceX is good for commercial launches where they are willling to accept a little higher risk to launch off the shelf commercial satellites. For things relating to national security, and one off NASA stuff thats been underway for a decade like James Webb, can they be so confident that it will be as reliable as the ULA stuff. The idea of something like James Webb being lost is pretty scary after its taken so long. SpaceX not being there yet as far as having the same record as ULA, doesnt mean its a bad platform for lower risk launches.
Wrong. You could not be more off the mark here. A lot of applications rely on a peer to peer connection, it can include a gaming application, peer to peer video conferencing and so on. Having to pay for central server/cloud resources to proxy this stuff around would drive up the cost unnecessarily . It unnecessary wastes bandwidth and congests the networks, slowing things down, to have to transmit data through servers. The bottom line, we need more IP addresses. Most users DO want their own IP address even if they don't know what an IP address is, because the applications they use work much better with it.