India does this with everything - they demand local offsets (in many cases equivalent to 100% of foreign purchases) or local production as a means to have an external entity pay for increased education and skilled jobs improvements in India. Its also cost them significantly along the way - currently 17 years into a fighter aircraft purchase competition thats been cancelled something like 4 times now because western companies won't guarantee under contract the quality of local Indian manufacturers chosen by the Indian government as partners for offsetting.
Well, the problem is that the installation method isn't successful - its a time and money sink that Google wants nothing more to do with, so to leave it in place either means abandoning it in place (which has its own ongoing maintenance problems anyway, to ensure the pavement or roadway is safe) or someone else taking on the time and money sink in maintenance...
Thats why its being removed - its a costly failure and if left in place its an ongoing costly failure.
Its my belief that Stratolaunch may fly once or twice more, and then will be shipped to a museum somewhere, or sold for scrap. Given the rise of micro-launchers around the world these days, maintaining an expensive aircraft isn't as viable as it once was.
And your comment has nothing to do with my comment or the UN ruling.
International law does not prohibit the very very common practice of arrest and detention for interview under caution, charges being brought, and court bail or custodial remand while awaiting trial. Those are the things that Assange was subject to prior to his abscondment into the Ecuadorean embassy, and those are the things that the UN ruling includes in its period of "arbitrary detainment".
If held as correct, the UN ruling utterly destroys the judicial systems of *every* country in the world. As not one does not have the concept of detention before conviction.
And that is why the ruling is ludicrous. This has nothing to do with totalitarian governments (the UK is not one), nor tin pot dictators (again, UK is not ruled by one), nor kidnapping (Assange was never kidnapped).
Well, I doubt that that ability will really come to fruition, given that the carrier aircraft only has a range of 1,200 nautical miles, and the entire launch stack will require a huge support base to operate from any given site in the world - and on top of that, you need airspace closed to allow this thing to launch a rocket, so that requires a lot of notice.
In reality, this thing will fly from one or two air fields, with launches planned well in advance.
That's if this this thing will actually do any commercial launches - it's lacking a booster as it's cancelled it's own project and SpaceX cancelled the Falcon 5 and 9 variants that were targeted for Stratolaunch.
The UN ruling is ridiculous and should be laughed at, because it doesn't just cover the time in the Ecuadorean embassy - the UN ruling said Assange was "arbitrarily detained" from the moment he was first arrested under the extradition warrant.
Basically, the UN ruling implied that no one can be arrested pending extradition. In fact, if taken seriously, it throws into doubt the entire concept of arrest and detention at any point prior to conviction.
Which is why every one laughed at it and rightfully took no notice of it.
The British government didn't evaluate the request - the English and UK courts did. Several times - with Assange able to post a defence at each stage. And the request was found to be legal and valid at each and every stage. The rulings on those cases and appeals are available publicly, and they make for some good reading.
The whole extradition process is a legal process validated in the courts - the government didn't get involved.
Perhaps if you people supporting Assange stopped trying to misrepresent what happened just because you don't like it, you might get somewhere.
Yes I have, and no its not ludicrous - it passes all the tests for dual criminality (which defeats the Assange supporters arguments that the offences he is accused of are only offences in Sweden and no where else), and has also passed every other test that Asssanges lawyers threw at it in the Crown Court.
Assange fought his case in every level of court available in the UK - his arguments were rejected at every level, in detailed rulings that explain every single aspect of why the extradition request is valid and legal.
So no, its not ludicrous, its perfectly valid and correct.
And it has nothing to do with the US at all. Unless you are trying to refer to the new extradition request that the US has just posted and not the extradition request that started all this in the first place - in which case, my earlier post has nothing to do with any new extradition request, its all about the Swedish one.
The "ruling" on arbitrary detention can legitimately be laughed at because its ridiculous.
The problem with that ruling is that it didn't just declare Assanges time in the Ecuadorean embassy as "arbitrary detention" - that might have had credit.
No. The ruling in fact declared that Assange was "arbitrarily detained" from the moment he was arrested by British police to face the extradition warrant, several years prior to his abscondment to the embassy.
Yes, that's correct - the UN working group considers the judicial process of responding to a legal and valid extradition request to be "arbitrary detention". They apparently seemingly find the British legal system, which allowed Assange representation of his choosing, and repeated appeals to the highest courts in the land, to consist of "arbitrary detention".
Which is why the UN ruling can be dismissed out of hand. It's an absurd ruling, to say the least.
Google released plugins for IntelliJ based IDEs and VS Code (which isn't an IDE, its more of a text editor on lots of steroids) to add Kubernetes functionality, along the same lines as the Docker functionality that already exists as a plugin. The plugins basically allow you to interact with the deployed parts of the application you are currently working on, without switching contexts to another window.
Its neat, but its nothing mind blowing - its akin to having source control integration. Never the less, congrats Google!
Yeah, the speed difference you note has nothing to do with the engine and everything to do with aircraft becoming more optimised for the job - the difference between Mach 0.85 and Mach 0.9 is negligible in time, but significant in fuel costs.
The fact that the Boeing Sonic Cruiser was going to use turbofans (specifically the same engines as the 777), kinda shows the engine had little to do with the speed chosen.
Ok - you make the justification for increasing the FAAs budget by several orders of magnitude just to put enough engineers on the payroll to handle all the certification testing and validation in-house then....
Add to the mix the fact that Boeing has railed against Airbuses flight envelope protection software since it was launched in 1988 with the A320, insisting that Boeing pilots have final say at all times under Boeings ethos. And then they go and add this, without telling pilots....
Now thats indicative of something endemic in Boeing.
The problem with self-certification being "bad" is that its an extremely intensive process, involving a significant investment in time and personnel to achieve, and it happens relatively *rarely*.
So for the FAA to independently certificate an aircraft manufacturers changes, they would have to maintain a significant number of employees or contractors through relatively short periods of intensive work (certification of a new aircraft or a new model) and relatively long periods of little work (small upgrades to existing aircraft parts, no new aircraft or models in progress).
The real problem is not self certification.
No, the real problem is grandfathering.
Grandfathering is the ability for an aircraft manufacturer to take an existing design, one which on its own would not meet *current* safety requirements, and significantly refresh it. So long as the changes to the aircraft stay within a certain set of parameters, the aircraft manufacturer doesn't have to certify the entire aircraft, meaning they can incorporate some changes extremely cheaply while working around issues such as those on the MAX where changes introduced handling issues.
Take, for example, the Boeing 747 - under safety requirements dating back decades, the Boeing 747 would not be certified to carry passengers forward of its front passenger doors, as it violates current evacuation requirements. And yet it is still sold as a passenger model in the 747-800i. Because its grandfathered in and not required to meet current safety requirements as a result.
The handling issues on the MAX are a similar issue - Boeing attempted to manage handling differences by introducing a system to attempt to bring the handling characteristics back in line with those of the 737NG, so they could get away with certifying the aircraft under the grandfathering rules. They could have not introduced that system and instead detailed the changes, but that would have meant they could no longer have grandfathered in the handling characteristics of the MAX, meaning pilots would have been required to undergo specific conversion training to the MAX from the 737NG.
So yeah, get rid of grandfathering - it will drastically hurt aircraft manufacturers, but at the same time it will stop those same manufacturers from being allowed to introduce new models of aircraft that do not meet current standards.
If there was an emergency evacuation requiring suit usage, they would be pretty dead anyway as the suits are not quick to put on or use. In all emergency circumstances, the fall backs are "go to the Soyuz capsules and prepare for evacuation" and not "go put on bulky suits intended for external use only".
They have a second medium torso on the ISS, it would just take 12 hours to bring it up to usable spec for use in this space walk.
They elected to instead switch to another astronaut who fitted one of the other, already usable torso units.
This whole thing came about because the astronaut in question was fitted for the large torso, but on orbit determined that the medium torso was a better fit during an earlier spacewalk, and as such NASA errs on the side of caution as the fit contributes significantly to performance.
You know what, your phone also used to be plugged directly into the wall, no need for a battery their either - how about we go all the way back to that? Cables all the way, who needs batteries?!
Don't forget the fact that during the 1990s Boeing blamed several crashes of the 737 on pilots, when mounting evidence showed that the 737 had a rudder control issue which caused hard over or rudder reversal events in certain circumstances, such as on approach to landing.
In this case, yes, because hes not doing anything reasonable to stop the issue, as he is directly benefitting from the acts - he could reasonably say "the crown of largest number of subscribers on Youtube is not worth being advertised by a mass murdering gunman during a live stream of a shooting" and ask Youtube to either remove any mention of number of subscribers from his public facing account.
Or he could shut down his Youtube account.
But no, he does nothing, and basks in the glory of the attention he receives instead.
So yeah, this is nothing like some idiots eating Tide-pods and blaming Tide for it.
No lie needed - Apple only cracked down on it after it was exposed. Up to that point, Apple explicitly allowed it, as all the apps using it had to pass App Store reviews multiple times, so they had Apples express permission to use it.
This is something that that walled garden is supposed to prevent - but it didn't.
Aside from the fact that every jailbreak done on an iOS device is an exploit of a vulnerability, including lots of early ones where you just had to visit a website to jailbreak, App Store breaches are fairly regular, you just seemed to have tuned them out.
And that's when Apple isn't doing stuff like allowing apps to secretly record your screen, without your knowledge and without any guarantee that your personal information is secure.
And that's what an anti-trust court is going to determine - it's not whether Apple has a monopoly, its whether they are abusing their position.
Sure, it's a walled garden on only Apple products, but it's a large part of the overall app market and a significant amount of revenue - a court could certainly place limits on what Apple can and can't do in its own garden, if it finds Apple is abusing its position as gatekeeper.
This is going to happen in the EU in the next year or so as well - I think Apple has something to worry about.
Yeah, the problem is that the current Medicare spending rates are ridiculous - thats the point that is trying to be made.
You don't just need to increase Medicare spending, you need to reform the entire thing.
You already spend more per head of *population* (and not per person actually covered) on Medicare and Medicaid than many western countries spend on socialised medicine for their entire populations - that signifies a problem that you aren't going to spend your way out of, and it also signifies a fundamental issue with the way healthcare is provided in your country.
Do you think doctors and hospitals will all accept a 40% cut in revenue (and a much higher cut in actual profit) simply because?
And *thats* the fundamental problem - you are expecting for-profit entities to supply healthcare at reasonable cost, and they aren't. We have all read and heard about the ridiculous discussions that go on between care providers and insurance providers about costs and billing.
The government should run its own healthcare providers, and its own hospitals, and employ its own doctors, nurses and other staff.
But thats pretty unacceptable to Americans for some reason - apparently, only the military are allowed to be a massive government employer in such a manner.
I didn't understand the hate for AWS about Mongo, for several reasons.
Firstly, these companies (Mongo et al) spent years giving their product away and trumpting that - no licenses required, free software, have at it. And now they are complaining about others taking advantage of the free and open software - as if others are obligated in some way, as if Mongo et al have an entitlement to *anything*.
Secondly, of course if threatened, Amazon will strike back - and they did so quite correctly by ditching Mongo entirely and going with a compatible API. And people really complained about this - except that Microsoft have had this in production for years as part of Azure and DocumentDb, in that they have a Mongo compatible API for people who want to use it.
If you want to control your software, the license is the place to do it - complaining about people "taking advantage" just makes you look like a whining pathetic baby.
Fuck Mongo, fuck Elastic, fuck Redis. You aren't entitled to anything, you dug your own hole and you aren't entitled to be helped out of it.
Slashdot Mirror
India does this with everything - they demand local offsets (in many cases equivalent to 100% of foreign purchases) or local production as a means to have an external entity pay for increased education and skilled jobs improvements in India. Its also cost them significantly along the way - currently 17 years into a fighter aircraft purchase competition thats been cancelled something like 4 times now because western companies won't guarantee under contract the quality of local Indian manufacturers chosen by the Indian government as partners for offsetting.
Well, the problem is that the installation method isn't successful - its a time and money sink that Google wants nothing more to do with, so to leave it in place either means abandoning it in place (which has its own ongoing maintenance problems anyway, to ensure the pavement or roadway is safe) or someone else taking on the time and money sink in maintenance...
Thats why its being removed - its a costly failure and if left in place its an ongoing costly failure.
Its my belief that Stratolaunch may fly once or twice more, and then will be shipped to a museum somewhere, or sold for scrap. Given the rise of micro-launchers around the world these days, maintaining an expensive aircraft isn't as viable as it once was.
And your comment has nothing to do with my comment or the UN ruling.
International law does not prohibit the very very common practice of arrest and detention for interview under caution, charges being brought, and court bail or custodial remand while awaiting trial. Those are the things that Assange was subject to prior to his abscondment into the Ecuadorean embassy, and those are the things that the UN ruling includes in its period of "arbitrary detainment".
If held as correct, the UN ruling utterly destroys the judicial systems of *every* country in the world. As not one does not have the concept of detention before conviction.
And that is why the ruling is ludicrous. This has nothing to do with totalitarian governments (the UK is not one), nor tin pot dictators (again, UK is not ruled by one), nor kidnapping (Assange was never kidnapped).
Well, I doubt that that ability will really come to fruition, given that the carrier aircraft only has a range of 1,200 nautical miles, and the entire launch stack will require a huge support base to operate from any given site in the world - and on top of that, you need airspace closed to allow this thing to launch a rocket, so that requires a lot of notice.
In reality, this thing will fly from one or two air fields, with launches planned well in advance.
That's if this this thing will actually do any commercial launches - it's lacking a booster as it's cancelled it's own project and SpaceX cancelled the Falcon 5 and 9 variants that were targeted for Stratolaunch.
The UN ruling is ridiculous and should be laughed at, because it doesn't just cover the time in the Ecuadorean embassy - the UN ruling said Assange was "arbitrarily detained" from the moment he was first arrested under the extradition warrant.
Basically, the UN ruling implied that no one can be arrested pending extradition. In fact, if taken seriously, it throws into doubt the entire concept of arrest and detention at any point prior to conviction.
Which is why every one laughed at it and rightfully took no notice of it.
The British government didn't evaluate the request - the English and UK courts did. Several times - with Assange able to post a defence at each stage. And the request was found to be legal and valid at each and every stage. The rulings on those cases and appeals are available publicly, and they make for some good reading.
The whole extradition process is a legal process validated in the courts - the government didn't get involved.
Perhaps if you people supporting Assange stopped trying to misrepresent what happened just because you don't like it, you might get somewhere.
Yes I have, and no its not ludicrous - it passes all the tests for dual criminality (which defeats the Assange supporters arguments that the offences he is accused of are only offences in Sweden and no where else), and has also passed every other test that Asssanges lawyers threw at it in the Crown Court.
Assange fought his case in every level of court available in the UK - his arguments were rejected at every level, in detailed rulings that explain every single aspect of why the extradition request is valid and legal.
So no, its not ludicrous, its perfectly valid and correct.
And it has nothing to do with the US at all. Unless you are trying to refer to the new extradition request that the US has just posted and not the extradition request that started all this in the first place - in which case, my earlier post has nothing to do with any new extradition request, its all about the Swedish one.
The "ruling" on arbitrary detention can legitimately be laughed at because its ridiculous.
The problem with that ruling is that it didn't just declare Assanges time in the Ecuadorean embassy as "arbitrary detention" - that might have had credit.
No. The ruling in fact declared that Assange was "arbitrarily detained" from the moment he was arrested by British police to face the extradition warrant, several years prior to his abscondment to the embassy.
Yes, that's correct - the UN working group considers the judicial process of responding to a legal and valid extradition request to be "arbitrary detention". They apparently seemingly find the British legal system, which allowed Assange representation of his choosing, and repeated appeals to the highest courts in the land, to consist of "arbitrary detention".
Which is why the UN ruling can be dismissed out of hand. It's an absurd ruling, to say the least.
Google released plugins for IntelliJ based IDEs and VS Code (which isn't an IDE, its more of a text editor on lots of steroids) to add Kubernetes functionality, along the same lines as the Docker functionality that already exists as a plugin. The plugins basically allow you to interact with the deployed parts of the application you are currently working on, without switching contexts to another window.
Its neat, but its nothing mind blowing - its akin to having source control integration. Never the less, congrats Google!
Thats some fine shit you seem to be smoking...
Yeah, the speed difference you note has nothing to do with the engine and everything to do with aircraft becoming more optimised for the job - the difference between Mach 0.85 and Mach 0.9 is negligible in time, but significant in fuel costs.
The fact that the Boeing Sonic Cruiser was going to use turbofans (specifically the same engines as the 777), kinda shows the engine had little to do with the speed chosen.
Ok - you make the justification for increasing the FAAs budget by several orders of magnitude just to put enough engineers on the payroll to handle all the certification testing and validation in-house then....
Add to the mix the fact that Boeing has railed against Airbuses flight envelope protection software since it was launched in 1988 with the A320, insisting that Boeing pilots have final say at all times under Boeings ethos. And then they go and add this, without telling pilots....
Now thats indicative of something endemic in Boeing.
The problem with self-certification being "bad" is that its an extremely intensive process, involving a significant investment in time and personnel to achieve, and it happens relatively *rarely*.
So for the FAA to independently certificate an aircraft manufacturers changes, they would have to maintain a significant number of employees or contractors through relatively short periods of intensive work (certification of a new aircraft or a new model) and relatively long periods of little work (small upgrades to existing aircraft parts, no new aircraft or models in progress).
The real problem is not self certification.
No, the real problem is grandfathering.
Grandfathering is the ability for an aircraft manufacturer to take an existing design, one which on its own would not meet *current* safety requirements, and significantly refresh it. So long as the changes to the aircraft stay within a certain set of parameters, the aircraft manufacturer doesn't have to certify the entire aircraft, meaning they can incorporate some changes extremely cheaply while working around issues such as those on the MAX where changes introduced handling issues.
Take, for example, the Boeing 747 - under safety requirements dating back decades, the Boeing 747 would not be certified to carry passengers forward of its front passenger doors, as it violates current evacuation requirements. And yet it is still sold as a passenger model in the 747-800i. Because its grandfathered in and not required to meet current safety requirements as a result.
The handling issues on the MAX are a similar issue - Boeing attempted to manage handling differences by introducing a system to attempt to bring the handling characteristics back in line with those of the 737NG, so they could get away with certifying the aircraft under the grandfathering rules. They could have not introduced that system and instead detailed the changes, but that would have meant they could no longer have grandfathered in the handling characteristics of the MAX, meaning pilots would have been required to undergo specific conversion training to the MAX from the 737NG.
So yeah, get rid of grandfathering - it will drastically hurt aircraft manufacturers, but at the same time it will stop those same manufacturers from being allowed to introduce new models of aircraft that do not meet current standards.
If there was an emergency evacuation requiring suit usage, they would be pretty dead anyway as the suits are not quick to put on or use. In all emergency circumstances, the fall backs are "go to the Soyuz capsules and prepare for evacuation" and not "go put on bulky suits intended for external use only".
They have a second medium torso on the ISS, it would just take 12 hours to bring it up to usable spec for use in this space walk.
They elected to instead switch to another astronaut who fitted one of the other, already usable torso units.
This whole thing came about because the astronaut in question was fitted for the large torso, but on orbit determined that the medium torso was a better fit during an earlier spacewalk, and as such NASA errs on the side of caution as the fit contributes significantly to performance.
You know what, your phone also used to be plugged directly into the wall, no need for a battery their either - how about we go all the way back to that? Cables all the way, who needs batteries?!
Don't forget the fact that during the 1990s Boeing blamed several crashes of the 737 on pilots, when mounting evidence showed that the 737 had a rudder control issue which caused hard over or rudder reversal events in certain circumstances, such as on approach to landing.
In this case, yes, because hes not doing anything reasonable to stop the issue, as he is directly benefitting from the acts - he could reasonably say "the crown of largest number of subscribers on Youtube is not worth being advertised by a mass murdering gunman during a live stream of a shooting" and ask Youtube to either remove any mention of number of subscribers from his public facing account.
Or he could shut down his Youtube account.
But no, he does nothing, and basks in the glory of the attention he receives instead.
So yeah, this is nothing like some idiots eating Tide-pods and blaming Tide for it.
No lie needed - Apple only cracked down on it after it was exposed. Up to that point, Apple explicitly allowed it, as all the apps using it had to pass App Store reviews multiple times, so they had Apples express permission to use it.
This is something that that walled garden is supposed to prevent - but it didn't.
Aside from the fact that every jailbreak done on an iOS device is an exploit of a vulnerability, including lots of early ones where you just had to visit a website to jailbreak, App Store breaches are fairly regular, you just seemed to have tuned them out.
And that's when Apple isn't doing stuff like allowing apps to secretly record your screen, without your knowledge and without any guarantee that your personal information is secure.
And that's what an anti-trust court is going to determine - it's not whether Apple has a monopoly, its whether they are abusing their position.
Sure, it's a walled garden on only Apple products, but it's a large part of the overall app market and a significant amount of revenue - a court could certainly place limits on what Apple can and can't do in its own garden, if it finds Apple is abusing its position as gatekeeper.
This is going to happen in the EU in the next year or so as well - I think Apple has something to worry about.
Yeah, the problem is that the current Medicare spending rates are ridiculous - thats the point that is trying to be made.
You don't just need to increase Medicare spending, you need to reform the entire thing.
You already spend more per head of *population* (and not per person actually covered) on Medicare and Medicaid than many western countries spend on socialised medicine for their entire populations - that signifies a problem that you aren't going to spend your way out of, and it also signifies a fundamental issue with the way healthcare is provided in your country.
And *thats* the fundamental problem - you are expecting for-profit entities to supply healthcare at reasonable cost, and they aren't. We have all read and heard about the ridiculous discussions that go on between care providers and insurance providers about costs and billing.
The government should run its own healthcare providers, and its own hospitals, and employ its own doctors, nurses and other staff.
But thats pretty unacceptable to Americans for some reason - apparently, only the military are allowed to be a massive government employer in such a manner.
I didn't understand the hate for AWS about Mongo, for several reasons.
Firstly, these companies (Mongo et al) spent years giving their product away and trumpting that - no licenses required, free software, have at it. And now they are complaining about others taking advantage of the free and open software - as if others are obligated in some way, as if Mongo et al have an entitlement to *anything*.
Secondly, of course if threatened, Amazon will strike back - and they did so quite correctly by ditching Mongo entirely and going with a compatible API. And people really complained about this - except that Microsoft have had this in production for years as part of Azure and DocumentDb, in that they have a Mongo compatible API for people who want to use it.
If you want to control your software, the license is the place to do it - complaining about people "taking advantage" just makes you look like a whining pathetic baby.
Fuck Mongo, fuck Elastic, fuck Redis. You aren't entitled to anything, you dug your own hole and you aren't entitled to be helped out of it.