I think it's safe to assume they had backup power and it didn't cut in. We had that exact problem at work last year - the UPS gets tested monthly along with the genny, but the transfer switch does NOT, and of course that didn't work when it needed to. So our genny started right up after some yutz hit a pole outside our building, purring happily while we were running the datacenter on a large UPS (30 minute runtime, normally only needed for about 40 seconds to start and stabilize the genny, switch to it from mains) We had no idea the genny hadn't transferred over until the UPS's batteries were nearly exhausted and we started getting additional warnings. By then it was too late to do an orderly on most of our servers too, and the racks lost power abruptly.:P
A few months later the idiot doing our genny maintenance forgot to put the fuel cap back on the gas tank, and guess what won't start if the fuel tank pressure is wrong? (can't say I was aware of that either!) So we had a power loss, and... why isn't the genny starting? At least we caught that one early, 25 was more than enough in that case to give everything the orderly.
The only time you get a complete power systems test is if you throw the mains breaker manually. (or more intelligently, have a hot-cut unit installed to save wear on the breakers) And very few places actually DO that kind of test.
I'd be interested to know what exactly was the mode of loss. I assume air handlers that maintain superclean air in all the places such a fab need them to had stopped running, requiring them to open doors and turn on fans etc, and it just plain contaminated the batch from one end of the line to the other.
Should this go to court, we will hear the phrase, the lawyer for the defense will speak these words, probably very close to verbatim: "Would a reasonable person believe that flying their quad in this location created a significant risk starting a forrest fire?"
Lets face it, anytime you fly a quad you risk starting a fire below where you are flying. Bizarre things can happen, totally unlikely things CAN happen. A seagull or hawk could tackle your quad without warning, sending it plummeting in the ground, puncturing a LIPO cell and igniting the quad, through absolutely no fault of your own and completely beyond your control or ability to mitigate. The odds are very low though, otherwise we'd all be forced to fly over water or concrete exclusively. (and nobody would be allowed to drive a car!)
It's all going to come down to weighing the odds and the severity of the outcomes. "No-burn-orders" are posted when timber is dry, for example, because the odds have shifted and must be accompanied by a change in priorities. You can kill someone with your car pretty easily, yet we still let you drive your death-machine around on the roadways. You may tag some kid that walks out from behind a parked car, but we're not going to hold you liable unless you were especially negligent.
There's also a difference between "caused" and "triggered". If I store several leaky gas cans in my basement and one day the hot water heater clicks on and ignites the vapors and burns down my house, the hot water header did NOT "cause" the fire. My stupidity the gas cans was the cause, the HWH was just the trigger.
Thousands of acres of very flammable woodlands are just begging for an ignition source to start a wildfire. Unless the pilot's intent was to cause a fire and was taking advantage of the tinderbox, he should not be responsible for the outcome. Lightning, static discharge, engine heat or spark from exhaust, overheating random electronics, all sorts of things could be the trigger.
I see a distinction between say, falling onto a roof and catching the roof on fire, vs starting a wildfire. There's some liability for damage done, but when it's set up in a "chain reaction" manner, it's not reasonable to blindly assign responsibility for being the straw that breaks the camel's back.
If you're going to say the pilot was negligent for flying over the area (assuming he was allowed), then you have to accept that ANYONE being in the area and doing ANYTHING that triggers a large fire should make them just as liable. Drive your car through the area, liable. Turn on your electronic gadget while in the area, liable. Heck, turn on your AC while in the area, liable. Basically, anyone in the area that triggers the fire for any reason, liable. It's not reasonable.
Users who installed this update -- mostly developers and software engineers -- will likely have to reinstall their system from scratch or restore from a previous system image.
Maybe those "developers" and "engineers" need to learn how to fix their systems with the super-advanced CHOWN command, instead of reinstalling??
Of course they need to STOP making pollution, but reforesting their land will also help. There's no reason to berate them for not doing everything at once. Managing a country is all about tradeoffs. They traded their air manpower and quality for product exports and economic standing in the world. Now they're investing some more of that manpower in their environment. Granted, they should have been thinking a bit ahead on this, since it takes time to come to fruition, but at least they're trying.
I personally think this is an outstanding way for them to flex their manpower muscle. One of China's biggest strengths is their sheer numbers combined with their communist government, which is the most efficient way to weild manpower. It has its drawbacks of course, as does any other system, but communism really can get things done fast and at large scale like nothing else. I'd like to see this project quadruple in size in the next year or two. They have the ability to build up momentum fast, and by 2020 they may be at five times the headcount in this project, and only accelerating their efforts. You get that kind of momentum, and even in a project this large with a long return-time, you start to make a serious dent even in a problem that at first appeared "impractically large to tackle".
I think it's still going to be awhile before they start working on the other end of the problem. (the production of pollution) They're still a bit high on the economic returns it's gotten them so far, and I'm sure they're thinking "just a little more, a little more, then we'll start cutting back..." But I think their time is limited, as their population is seeing through their propaganda that's been hard at work downplaying the issue. When everyone in your city is forced to wear masks and set up elaborate air filters in their house, you just can't shovel that much dirt under the rug anymore. And this initial push to tackle part of the problem should be a fairly effective PR stunt at home, chipping away at the idea that the government isn't doing anything about the problem. (which is basically how everyone in any city in China feels right now) Although some will view this as the only reason they're doing it, I think it's a combination of being their original reason and also something more than a token-effort to tackle the problem. But I expect them to get real tangible benefits from their reforestation efforts.
Hopefully they throw a lot more weight behind this project, they could easily become a world-leader in reforestation. (look around the world... who else is even trying at this level right now? nobody)
Consumers, and business owners in particular, love to drag their feet on upgrading their hardware. Kick the can down the street again and again, until finally they hit a wall and are forced to upgrade. It's interesting to see the government pulling the same derp maneuver.
A better plan is to do gradual upgrades on a schedule. When you suddenly find you have to upgrade a bunch of computers, AND peripherals AND os AND proprietary software all at once, it's not only financially painful but causes major pains for the people that have to learn all this new stuff at once. But they're blind, they just can't see the train until it hits them.
Can't say it surprises me to see the govt join the party.
The summary's claim of a "massive code rewrite" being needed is sensationalist BS.
It certainly does look that way. Apparently the problem is in the updater. If your UPDATER even needs to be "completely rewritten", I don't see how that could be described as a "massive rewrite".
MS never wanted skype, they wanted its userbase. Most users don't like the "new look" they gave it anyway. MS is just going to leverage this into a handy excuse to get the current skype users to move over to their own home-grown IM/Chat client.
Why the hell would they remove the headphone jack?
Yeah I'm still pissed off that they removed my serial port, floppy drive, S-video, and scsi dammit! Now they want my wired headphones jack too, what are they thinking?!
Blue what? No, I want my headphones in black, you dolt!
It looks like the senator gave him a month to dig up an excuse, and left him with very little wiggle room. It's nice to see a tech-savvy representative, and specifically one that knows how to close all the escapes at the same time to speed up the process. I'm sure the director would love to be able to stall for 30 days and then step back up into the light and kick the can down the road another 30 days, but I don't see that happening this time.
He's either going to have to dig up some at least semi-reputable cryptographers to throw under the bus, or admit that he's "pulling a trump" and ignoring all the experts around him in favor of his own opinions on the matter. (though in this case it's almost certainly coming down to just doing specifically what he's been told to do, more of a "trump by proxy" move) It's rather irritating to see we've set things up so that certain people can't make certain rules, but then we go and let them replace the person responsible for that rule with someone that will do whatever they tell them to - it defeats the purpose of the separation.
I'm also a little bit curious why I haven't seen this whole idea get compared with the TSA's baggage locks? Isn't that basically the same idea as this, though on a much more limited scale? Mandating a government back-door, and all the unintended as well as the widely-anticipated problems that you get as a result?
If you ask THIS group "what distro is best for (anything)" within a few hours you're going to get at least one suggestion for every distro known to mankind.
People are going to tend to suggest what works best for them. You haven't provided enough context of what you want to use it for, or how you want it to work for you, or what you're comfortable with, to even begin to weed out the extreme suggestions.
My rule of thumb on asking for advice for computer purchases or OS installs is "If you ask for advice, and someone immediately gives you ideas without asking you some questions, they aren't telling you what they think is best for you, they are telling you what they think is best for them." When anyone asks me for such advice, I ask them several questions so I can figure out their needs and decide on a few options that are best for them.
- You've already answered what hardware you have. That's a start - do you mostly use a gui, mostly (or exclusively) use command line, or do you want good support for both? - do you want your options somewhat limited but setup to be mostly automatic and easy, or are you comfortable with manually setting things up so you have more control and more options? - are there specific pieces of software you need to be able to run? (provide urls) Do you have a specific repo you want to use? - are you likely to need to rely somewhat on a specific person you know for technical support, that may only be fluent in (or willing to support) a specific distro? (which one(s)) or are you equally open to any options? - is there any other specific hardware you would like to have support for? (a laser printer, your favorite gaming mouse, an iPad, etc) - are there any distros you already favor or want to avoid?
that will get us warmed up and help narrow the field.
Turn the shower on just long enough to get wet, the turn the shower off. Soap up and wash, then turn the shower back on just long enough to rinse and then turn the water off.
If I tried to do that, I'd probably save less water than I wasted while I cussed and fiddled with the hot and cold knobs as I oscillated between freeze and fry trying to get the water resumed properly.
(why aren't temperature controlled showers more common??)
The shower is probably the best example of potential for reclamation. Most people would be very lucky to get 1/8c of actual suspended materials from that 17 gallons of shower water. (most of which is dead skin and hair) Compare that to the "super concentrated contaminants" of your morning #2, in just two gallons of water. Clearly the shower is going waaay too far in diluting things.
I'd agree though they could certainly take the filtering too far and not push enough water down the blackwater system, causing it to not flow efficiently. A single day's dishwasher, shower, and clothes washer could be over-concentrated into a pint or two of thick sludge that won't travel well.
And it's no different than those "low volume" flush toilets that you sometimes have to ring the handle a second (or third!) time to get them to empty the bowl properly. Even if you took that 17 gallon shower and only lightly concentrated it into one gallon of blackwater to (easily) go down the sewer, that's 16 gallons left to flush the toilet with. That right there will probably handle the average person's toilet use for the entire day, without placing any additional strain on the sewer system.
It's not only doable, it's actually not that difficult to do right.
I'm not as young as I used to be, so 19 gals a day is plenty.
I was thinking the same thing, but then I started looking a little harder at this. I was a bit shocked to see that someone that takes a shower every day has already used around 17 gallons of water. Flush your toilet once and you've just used the last two gallons of your ration for the day!
Then there's all sorts of other household overhead like washing dishes and clothes, cooking, and more. And you still haven't drank even your first glass of water for the day. (half a gallon is recommended every day, but that can include beverages)
We use (waste?) a lot of water every day. I'd like to see reuse of "grey water" become commonplace or even required. Most water could be reused in the toilet for example. Most "washers" (be they people, clothes, dishes, etc) are used to flush away contaminants, but then we don't bother to filter and reuse the water, we just dump it just like it is right down the drain, which is a huge waste.
mycomputer:~ root # csrutil status System Integrity Protection status: disabled.
guess what, it's disabled! The trick is you have to boot off the recovery partition to flip the bit. It's similar to the process of unsetting the SCHG flag on a file. You can set it with root access, but you can't UNset it if kernel protection mode has been elevated by booting off a normal OS. That is a one-way trip, and a restart is the only way to unset it. In other words, no, you cannot use system prefs to disable SIP. That's kind of the point... it prevents a user from getting social-engineered into giving malware their password (which, depending on the user, can be very easy to pull off) and then simply SUDO a command to turn off SIP. Forcing the user to boot off the recovery partition to turn off SIP has two huge advantages:
1. novice users are unlikely to be willing / able to do it 2. malware can't turn it off regardless of how successful they are at deceiving the user
The idea here is to address "The user is the weakest point in the security of most computer systems".
Here's a decent guide on how to disable it. Or how to modify other associated settings such as where a machine can netboot from:
Anyway, one of the things SIP does is it protects bundled applications in the/Applications folder from being modified or deleted. Other apps installed in the/Applications folder aren't supposed to be included, things like Firefox or Photoshop for example. It sounds like there's a bug here that's causing some installed apps to get granted SIP protection when they should not. Disable SIP and you should be able to remove those apps. SIP supersedes root, (which is why you can't SUDO it off) and so you can't just boot into single user mode to remove those apps if SIP is enabled
I turn it off on my computer because I'm not an easy mark to social engineer, and I occasionally need to do things that SIP prevents me from doing. (or causes me a hassle - Operation Not Permitted when I am logged in as root just pisses me off, I'm not an idiot so stop telling me what I can and can't do with my own computer!) Better than 98% of users will never have a good reason to disable SIP though. So the issue is more about clickbait and headlines than anything else. Even the crowd here probably doesn't get anywhere over 20% ever having a reason to disable it.
This is one of those flamebait topics that is basically pointless to debate. It's too general. There are too many ways to define a bug, and many of them depend heavily on indirect/abstract qualities of the language, such as what sort of people use it or what sort of problems it's most commonly used to solve. It's just impossible to remove enough of the unknowns and side-effects of one sort of bug to give a useful answer on any other.
For example. if you're going to judge a language on the code-to-fix ratio of commits, does that tell you how prone the code is to having bugs in the first commit, or how easy it is to find and commit fixes? Those two alone say very different (and somewhat opposite) things based on the same metric measurement.
I'm only going to scratch the surface here and try to list off a few of the things you could say make a language "more buggy":
- typical user has below-average coding skill in general - typical user doesn't follow standards well - poorly defined standards - hides bugs with coercion, ignoring return values, and other methods of ignoring behaviors which could easily be either a shortcut or a bug - scope is wide or unbounded (a very relative metric) - tends to be used to solve more complex problems - used in new fields where users are less educated in the problem they are trying to solve - poor debugging feedback - poor quality crash dumps - poor quality of available or more commonly used compilers - compiles directly to target platform rather than using an established post-compiler - use of optimizers that haven't undergone rigorous testing (edge-bugs in optimizers are a PAIN to debug) - poor documentation / built-in help - average reliability of most common target platform
Even with this limited set, I don't see how you could assign weights to be able to get any more than even a rough comparison between two languages. I think I could compare any two languages and make a case for either being better with regard to bugs. (and instead of you suggesting two for me to try, do it yourself... take those two you have already jumped on after reading that last statement and go try for yourself instead of challenging me)
Is it just my imagination or are they confusing "hurts competition" with "lowers retailer margin"?
They're creating a race to the bottom, and then complaining about their falling margins. That's going to be the result when you play that game. I suppose you might look at it as "bad for competition" if you're a vendor looking for better margins, and ultimately it may end up driving some vendors out of the market and lowering competition, but in a free market economy a Race to the Bottom will usually fix itself. Sometimes it crashes the market a bit hard and it takes awhile to rebound, but when it does, the remaining vendors are usually more careful to avoid a repeat occurrence.
And as for their handing out blocks of inventory for resale, that's just another angle they're trying to exploit to squeeze a little more out of their inventory. Iin the case of hotels, those few vacant rooms every day, they're just playing the "half of something is better than all of nothing" game, and the resellers getting their margin is usually okay as long as they're not selling at a loss. If they're stupid and dumping larger than necessary blocks of rooms to the resellers, which is then resulting in a drop in traditional direct sales, that's their own fault for overdoing it. It's no different than using sales to attract customers, and making the mistake of making too many, too frequent, or too heavily discounted sales. Don't DO that, the customers will take advantage of it and the outcome is your own fault. If you don't know how to play that game, you shouldn't be playing it at all, not complaining when you lose.
According to that chart, a banana is about the same dose as living within 50 miles of a normal reactor for a year. (and living that close to a coal plant is triple that dose!)
This is one of those "Your odds of getting killed by a cow are greater than getting killed by a shark" moments.
I certainly have doubt, and I consider myself quite reasonable.
I suspect this fellow has a rather distorted opinion of who a "reasonable person" is, or is grossly over-estimating opinions.
Maybe he's including "life in the universe we will never encounter"? That I think I can buy into. The universe is just too big for there not to be life elsewhere, probably a lot of elsewheres. But be it in the past, present, or future, the tense doesn't really matter because our current understanding of physics prevents us from ever being able to even discover evidence of their existence, and the problem just grows more difficult as the universe continues to expand.
I love Kurz's videos, and he did a wonderful (2 part) video on the subject, The Fermi Paradox. It's both educational and enlightening - a "must watch" for anyone pondering aliens.
I had a little more time to go looking for solid numbers, and it's proving difficult to find anyone that wants to talk about the durability of solar panels in space. NASA does have an excellent writeup regarding their panels, though their longevity isn't discussed
Wikipedia also has a decent writeup that's closer to our topic, discussing viability in a variety of settings, but again doesn't really hit on life-expectancy.
The closest answer I found is "The space environment is hostile; panels suffer about 8 times the degradation they would on Earth (except at orbits that are protected by the magnetosphere)."
So where you put it has a major impact on lifespan.
fun fact: $LINENO refers to the line that triggered the trap when used in a single-line trap definition, which you can pass as a parameter when calling the actual trapping function.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's safe to assume they had backup power and it didn't cut in. We had that exact problem at work last year - the UPS gets tested monthly along with the genny, but the transfer switch does NOT, and of course that didn't work when it needed to. So our genny started right up after some yutz hit a pole outside our building, purring happily while we were running the datacenter on a large UPS (30 minute runtime, normally only needed for about 40 seconds to start and stabilize the genny, switch to it from mains) We had no idea the genny hadn't transferred over until the UPS's batteries were nearly exhausted and we started getting additional warnings. By then it was too late to do an orderly on most of our servers too, and the racks lost power abruptly. :P
A few months later the idiot doing our genny maintenance forgot to put the fuel cap back on the gas tank, and guess what won't start if the fuel tank pressure is wrong? (can't say I was aware of that either!) So we had a power loss, and... why isn't the genny starting? At least we caught that one early, 25 was more than enough in that case to give everything the orderly.
The only time you get a complete power systems test is if you throw the mains breaker manually. (or more intelligently, have a hot-cut unit installed to save wear on the breakers) And very few places actually DO that kind of test.
I'd be interested to know what exactly was the mode of loss. I assume air handlers that maintain superclean air in all the places such a fab need them to had stopped running, requiring them to open doors and turn on fans etc, and it just plain contaminated the batch from one end of the line to the other.
How about we simplify this a bit... "'Women Are Sexualized By Men"
Focusing on some specific example is really pointless, isn't it? Women eye men, men eye women, that's how it works.
Should this go to court, we will hear the phrase, the lawyer for the defense will speak these words, probably very close to verbatim: "Would a reasonable person believe that flying their quad in this location created a significant risk starting a forrest fire?"
Lets face it, anytime you fly a quad you risk starting a fire below where you are flying. Bizarre things can happen, totally unlikely things CAN happen. A seagull or hawk could tackle your quad without warning, sending it plummeting in the ground, puncturing a LIPO cell and igniting the quad, through absolutely no fault of your own and completely beyond your control or ability to mitigate. The odds are very low though, otherwise we'd all be forced to fly over water or concrete exclusively. (and nobody would be allowed to drive a car!)
It's all going to come down to weighing the odds and the severity of the outcomes. "No-burn-orders" are posted when timber is dry, for example, because the odds have shifted and must be accompanied by a change in priorities. You can kill someone with your car pretty easily, yet we still let you drive your death-machine around on the roadways. You may tag some kid that walks out from behind a parked car, but we're not going to hold you liable unless you were especially negligent.
There's also a difference between "caused" and "triggered". If I store several leaky gas cans in my basement and one day the hot water heater clicks on and ignites the vapors and burns down my house, the hot water header did NOT "cause" the fire. My stupidity the gas cans was the cause, the HWH was just the trigger.
Thousands of acres of very flammable woodlands are just begging for an ignition source to start a wildfire. Unless the pilot's intent was to cause a fire and was taking advantage of the tinderbox, he should not be responsible for the outcome. Lightning, static discharge, engine heat or spark from exhaust, overheating random electronics, all sorts of things could be the trigger.
I see a distinction between say, falling onto a roof and catching the roof on fire, vs starting a wildfire. There's some liability for damage done, but when it's set up in a "chain reaction" manner, it's not reasonable to blindly assign responsibility for being the straw that breaks the camel's back.
If you're going to say the pilot was negligent for flying over the area (assuming he was allowed), then you have to accept that ANYONE being in the area and doing ANYTHING that triggers a large fire should make them just as liable. Drive your car through the area, liable. Turn on your electronic gadget while in the area, liable. Heck, turn on your AC while in the area, liable. Basically, anyone in the area that triggers the fire for any reason, liable. It's not reasonable.
Maybe those "developers" and "engineers" need to learn how to fix their systems with the super-advanced CHOWN command, instead of reinstalling??
and so it begins!
Of course they need to STOP making pollution, but reforesting their land will also help. There's no reason to berate them for not doing everything at once. Managing a country is all about tradeoffs. They traded their air manpower and quality for product exports and economic standing in the world. Now they're investing some more of that manpower in their environment. Granted, they should have been thinking a bit ahead on this, since it takes time to come to fruition, but at least they're trying.
I personally think this is an outstanding way for them to flex their manpower muscle. One of China's biggest strengths is their sheer numbers combined with their communist government, which is the most efficient way to weild manpower. It has its drawbacks of course, as does any other system, but communism really can get things done fast and at large scale like nothing else. I'd like to see this project quadruple in size in the next year or two. They have the ability to build up momentum fast, and by 2020 they may be at five times the headcount in this project, and only accelerating their efforts. You get that kind of momentum, and even in a project this large with a long return-time, you start to make a serious dent even in a problem that at first appeared "impractically large to tackle".
I think it's still going to be awhile before they start working on the other end of the problem. (the production of pollution) They're still a bit high on the economic returns it's gotten them so far, and I'm sure they're thinking "just a little more, a little more, then we'll start cutting back..." But I think their time is limited, as their population is seeing through their propaganda that's been hard at work downplaying the issue. When everyone in your city is forced to wear masks and set up elaborate air filters in their house, you just can't shovel that much dirt under the rug anymore. And this initial push to tackle part of the problem should be a fairly effective PR stunt at home, chipping away at the idea that the government isn't doing anything about the problem. (which is basically how everyone in any city in China feels right now) Although some will view this as the only reason they're doing it, I think it's a combination of being their original reason and also something more than a token-effort to tackle the problem. But I expect them to get real tangible benefits from their reforestation efforts.
Hopefully they throw a lot more weight behind this project, they could easily become a world-leader in reforestation. (look around the world... who else is even trying at this level right now? nobody)
Consumers, and business owners in particular, love to drag their feet on upgrading their hardware. Kick the can down the street again and again, until finally they hit a wall and are forced to upgrade. It's interesting to see the government pulling the same derp maneuver.
A better plan is to do gradual upgrades on a schedule. When you suddenly find you have to upgrade a bunch of computers, AND peripherals AND os AND proprietary software all at once, it's not only financially painful but causes major pains for the people that have to learn all this new stuff at once. But they're blind, they just can't see the train until it hits them.
Can't say it surprises me to see the govt join the party.
It certainly does look that way. Apparently the problem is in the updater. If your UPDATER even needs to be "completely rewritten", I don't see how that could be described as a "massive rewrite".
MS never wanted skype, they wanted its userbase. Most users don't like the "new look" they gave it anyway. MS is just going to leverage this into a handy excuse to get the current skype users to move over to their own home-grown IM/Chat client.
Yeah I'm still pissed off that they removed my serial port, floppy drive, S-video, and scsi dammit! Now they want my wired headphones jack too, what are they thinking?!
Blue what? No, I want my headphones in black, you dolt!
It looks like the senator gave him a month to dig up an excuse, and left him with very little wiggle room. It's nice to see a tech-savvy representative, and specifically one that knows how to close all the escapes at the same time to speed up the process. I'm sure the director would love to be able to stall for 30 days and then step back up into the light and kick the can down the road another 30 days, but I don't see that happening this time.
He's either going to have to dig up some at least semi-reputable cryptographers to throw under the bus, or admit that he's "pulling a trump" and ignoring all the experts around him in favor of his own opinions on the matter. (though in this case it's almost certainly coming down to just doing specifically what he's been told to do, more of a "trump by proxy" move) It's rather irritating to see we've set things up so that certain people can't make certain rules, but then we go and let them replace the person responsible for that rule with someone that will do whatever they tell them to - it defeats the purpose of the separation.
I'm also a little bit curious why I haven't seen this whole idea get compared with the TSA's baggage locks? Isn't that basically the same idea as this, though on a much more limited scale? Mandating a government back-door, and all the unintended as well as the widely-anticipated problems that you get as a result?
If you ask THIS group "what distro is best for (anything)" within a few hours you're going to get at least one suggestion for every distro known to mankind.
People are going to tend to suggest what works best for them. You haven't provided enough context of what you want to use it for, or how you want it to work for you, or what you're comfortable with, to even begin to weed out the extreme suggestions.
My rule of thumb on asking for advice for computer purchases or OS installs is "If you ask for advice, and someone immediately gives you ideas without asking you some questions, they aren't telling you what they think is best for you, they are telling you what they think is best for them." When anyone asks me for such advice, I ask them several questions so I can figure out their needs and decide on a few options that are best for them.
- You've already answered what hardware you have. That's a start
- do you mostly use a gui, mostly (or exclusively) use command line, or do you want good support for both?
- do you want your options somewhat limited but setup to be mostly automatic and easy, or are you comfortable with manually setting things up so you have more control and more options?
- are there specific pieces of software you need to be able to run? (provide urls) Do you have a specific repo you want to use?
- are you likely to need to rely somewhat on a specific person you know for technical support, that may only be fluent in (or willing to support) a specific distro? (which one(s)) or are you equally open to any options?
- is there any other specific hardware you would like to have support for? (a laser printer, your favorite gaming mouse, an iPad, etc)
- are there any distros you already favor or want to avoid?
that will get us warmed up and help narrow the field.
But look at all the salt water you used, and things like bathing by taking a swim. It doesn't work that way on land unless you live on a lake.
I thought that was the sound effect that came with the discussion of toilets?
If I tried to do that, I'd probably save less water than I wasted while I cussed and fiddled with the hot and cold knobs as I oscillated between freeze and fry trying to get the water resumed properly.
(why aren't temperature controlled showers more common??)
The shower is probably the best example of potential for reclamation. Most people would be very lucky to get 1/8c of actual suspended materials from that 17 gallons of shower water. (most of which is dead skin and hair) Compare that to the "super concentrated contaminants" of your morning #2, in just two gallons of water. Clearly the shower is going waaay too far in diluting things.
I'd agree though they could certainly take the filtering too far and not push enough water down the blackwater system, causing it to not flow efficiently. A single day's dishwasher, shower, and clothes washer could be over-concentrated into a pint or two of thick sludge that won't travel well.
And it's no different than those "low volume" flush toilets that you sometimes have to ring the handle a second (or third!) time to get them to empty the bowl properly. Even if you took that 17 gallon shower and only lightly concentrated it into one gallon of blackwater to (easily) go down the sewer, that's 16 gallons left to flush the toilet with. That right there will probably handle the average person's toilet use for the entire day, without placing any additional strain on the sewer system.
It's not only doable, it's actually not that difficult to do right.
I was thinking the same thing, but then I started looking a little harder at this. I was a bit shocked to see that someone that takes a shower every day has already used around 17 gallons of water. Flush your toilet once and you've just used the last two gallons of your ration for the day!
Then there's all sorts of other household overhead like washing dishes and clothes, cooking, and more. And you still haven't drank even your first glass of water for the day. (half a gallon is recommended every day, but that can include beverages)
We use (waste?) a lot of water every day. I'd like to see reuse of "grey water" become commonplace or even required. Most water could be reused in the toilet for example. Most "washers" (be they people, clothes, dishes, etc) are used to flush away contaminants, but then we don't bother to filter and reuse the water, we just dump it just like it is right down the drain, which is a huge waste.
mycomputer:~ root # csrutil status
System Integrity Protection status: disabled.
guess what, it's disabled! The trick is you have to boot off the recovery partition to flip the bit. It's similar to the process of unsetting the SCHG flag on a file. You can set it with root access, but you can't UNset it if kernel protection mode has been elevated by booting off a normal OS. That is a one-way trip, and a restart is the only way to unset it. In other words, no, you cannot use system prefs to disable SIP. That's kind of the point... it prevents a user from getting social-engineered into giving malware their password (which, depending on the user, can be very easy to pull off) and then simply SUDO a command to turn off SIP. Forcing the user to boot off the recovery partition to turn off SIP has two huge advantages:
1. novice users are unlikely to be willing / able to do it
2. malware can't turn it off regardless of how successful they are at deceiving the user
The idea here is to address "The user is the weakest point in the security of most computer systems".
Here's a decent guide on how to disable it. Or how to modify other associated settings such as where a machine can netboot from:
https://www.macworld.com/artic...
Anyway, one of the things SIP does is it protects bundled applications in the /Applications folder from being modified or deleted. Other apps installed in the /Applications folder aren't supposed to be included, things like Firefox or Photoshop for example. It sounds like there's a bug here that's causing some installed apps to get granted SIP protection when they should not. Disable SIP and you should be able to remove those apps. SIP supersedes root, (which is why you can't SUDO it off) and so you can't just boot into single user mode to remove those apps if SIP is enabled
I turn it off on my computer because I'm not an easy mark to social engineer, and I occasionally need to do things that SIP prevents me from doing. (or causes me a hassle - Operation Not Permitted when I am logged in as root just pisses me off, I'm not an idiot so stop telling me what I can and can't do with my own computer!) Better than 98% of users will never have a good reason to disable SIP though. So the issue is more about clickbait and headlines than anything else. Even the crowd here probably doesn't get anywhere over 20% ever having a reason to disable it.
the market's not very good right now trying to find someplace to unload crates of rotten tomatoes and eggs....
This is one of those flamebait topics that is basically pointless to debate. It's too general. There are too many ways to define a bug, and many of them depend heavily on indirect/abstract qualities of the language, such as what sort of people use it or what sort of problems it's most commonly used to solve. It's just impossible to remove enough of the unknowns and side-effects of one sort of bug to give a useful answer on any other.
For example. if you're going to judge a language on the code-to-fix ratio of commits, does that tell you how prone the code is to having bugs in the first commit, or how easy it is to find and commit fixes? Those two alone say very different (and somewhat opposite) things based on the same metric measurement.
I'm only going to scratch the surface here and try to list off a few of the things you could say make a language "more buggy":
- typical user has below-average coding skill in general
- typical user doesn't follow standards well
- poorly defined standards
- hides bugs with coercion, ignoring return values, and other methods of ignoring behaviors which could easily be either a shortcut or a bug
- scope is wide or unbounded (a very relative metric)
- tends to be used to solve more complex problems
- used in new fields where users are less educated in the problem they are trying to solve
- poor debugging feedback
- poor quality crash dumps
- poor quality of available or more commonly used compilers
- compiles directly to target platform rather than using an established post-compiler
- use of optimizers that haven't undergone rigorous testing (edge-bugs in optimizers are a PAIN to debug)
- poor documentation / built-in help
- average reliability of most common target platform
Even with this limited set, I don't see how you could assign weights to be able to get any more than even a rough comparison between two languages. I think I could compare any two languages and make a case for either being better with regard to bugs. (and instead of you suggesting two for me to try, do it yourself... take those two you have already jumped on after reading that last statement and go try for yourself instead of challenging me)
Is it just my imagination or are they confusing "hurts competition" with "lowers retailer margin"?
They're creating a race to the bottom, and then complaining about their falling margins. That's going to be the result when you play that game. I suppose you might look at it as "bad for competition" if you're a vendor looking for better margins, and ultimately it may end up driving some vendors out of the market and lowering competition, but in a free market economy a Race to the Bottom will usually fix itself. Sometimes it crashes the market a bit hard and it takes awhile to rebound, but when it does, the remaining vendors are usually more careful to avoid a repeat occurrence.
And as for their handing out blocks of inventory for resale, that's just another angle they're trying to exploit to squeeze a little more out of their inventory. Iin the case of hotels, those few vacant rooms every day, they're just playing the "half of something is better than all of nothing" game, and the resellers getting their margin is usually okay as long as they're not selling at a loss. If they're stupid and dumping larger than necessary blocks of rooms to the resellers, which is then resulting in a drop in traditional direct sales, that's their own fault for overdoing it. It's no different than using sales to attract customers, and making the mistake of making too many, too frequent, or too heavily discounted sales. Don't DO that, the customers will take advantage of it and the outcome is your own fault. If you don't know how to play that game, you shouldn't be playing it at all, not complaining when you lose.
not sure if clickbait or fear-mongering.
Go eat a banana then get tested for radiation. Bananas are an excellent natural source for Potassium, which is naturally radioactive.
Radiation Dose Chart
According to that chart, a banana is about the same dose as living within 50 miles of a normal reactor for a year. (and living that close to a coal plant is triple that dose!)
This is one of those "Your odds of getting killed by a cow are greater than getting killed by a shark" moments.
I certainly have doubt, and I consider myself quite reasonable.
I suspect this fellow has a rather distorted opinion of who a "reasonable person" is, or is grossly over-estimating opinions.
Maybe he's including "life in the universe we will never encounter"? That I think I can buy into. The universe is just too big for there not to be life elsewhere, probably a lot of elsewheres. But be it in the past, present, or future, the tense doesn't really matter because our current understanding of physics prevents us from ever being able to even discover evidence of their existence, and the problem just grows more difficult as the universe continues to expand.
I love Kurz's videos, and he did a wonderful (2 part) video on the subject, The Fermi Paradox. It's both educational and enlightening - a "must watch" for anyone pondering aliens.
I had a little more time to go looking for solid numbers, and it's proving difficult to find anyone that wants to talk about the durability of solar panels in space. NASA does have an excellent writeup regarding their panels, though their longevity isn't discussed
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/g...
Wikipedia also has a decent writeup that's closer to our topic, discussing viability in a variety of settings, but again doesn't really hit on life-expectancy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The closest answer I found is "The space environment is hostile; panels suffer about 8 times the degradation they would on Earth (except at orbits that are protected by the magnetosphere)."
So where you put it has a major impact on lifespan.
If you're into bash I also suggest you look into traps and "strict" bash: http://redsymbol.net/articles/...
fun fact: $LINENO refers to the line that triggered the trap when used in a single-line trap definition, which you can pass as a parameter when calling the actual trapping function.