These are hardware devices that were...hold on let me reiterate that HARDWARE. That means that there are tons and tons of regression tests.
HA! Hardware devices generally do get a bit better testing, but if you think they don't have a lot of flaws and require updates, then you haven't been paying attention. The cable company is constantly updating firmware in cable modems (and often screwing them up). Cisco has more serious vulnerabilities in its routers than I can count. Why are cell phones any different? Granted the devices I've listed are all network devices, but cell phones live on a network too. No reason why remote updates can't be done to the firmware.
I think the real reason you haven't seen a lot of vulnerabilities is simply because most phones haven't had the ability to send viruses and exploits to one another until recently.
Why would anyone become "multi-planetary" when there's no reason to do so? Other planets are harsh, inhospitable places. What's the incentive to spend the billions upon billions of dollars it'd take to develop the technology for a colony? "Coolness?" Not to mention the unknown health costs of living in a lower gravity for years.
It's all about economics, and if the economics aren't their the lowest launch costs imaginable aren't going to matter. The closest economic benefit we've got is mining Helium-3 from the moon, and even that's a pipe dream. I'm sure there will be a manned mission to Mars someday, but that's not anything like being "multi-planetary"
Well, technically there's no triangles involved. GPS uses timing based on distance from each satellite. Draw a sphere around each satellite you get a signal from with a radius of the distance it is from you. The intersection of all the spheres is where you must be. Of course it's a little bit more complicated than that since the receiver doesn't have an atomic clock, and thus can't directly tell the distance from each satellite.
And child molesters, Jim Jones and animal torturers lose out to Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, and the Taliban. Is your point the lowest of low is the standard for scum of the earth? You can be a nice guy and still be a total scumbag.
Marketing people are generally scumbags, it doesn't matter if you like them or not. The problem isn't the concept of advertising, or advertising itself, the problem is the people that do this job.
Yes I understand that, and triangulation is probbably a poor term. It does however provide a general idea of why GPS probbably won't work well on the moon.
There are two problems, both of which I think makes GPS unseable on the moon.
1. Signal strength. The moon is about 240,000 miles from the earth. The GPS satelites are at about 12,000 miles. Maybe you can have a very high gain antenna to boost the signal, but signal strength is going to be a problem.
2. Lack of triangulation. As you pointed out because of the extreme distance, you're not going to get very good triangulation from any of the satelites. Assuming you could get a signal, your degree of innacuracy is going to be rather large because of the poor triangulation. I'm not sure exactly how to do the math here, but my gut feeling is that this is going to make GPS pretty useless on the moon. You might be able to determine you're on the moon, or even in the Sea of Tranquility, but that's not exactly terribly usefull to the competition
The draft of the rules mention that you need to use rocket power, and not some kind of aerodynamic lift, but that's it. I think they should specify a more realistic conditions of the moon. Obviously you can't have it fly in a vacuum, but you could expose the craft to a vacuum before the flight to make sure it can survive a vacuum. You could do the same thing with the temperature extremes. At the very least a craft shouldn't be able to rely upon earth based navigation aids, like GPS, the suns position in the sky, or even the earths magnetic field.
Many providers don't charge for text messages, or give you a set amount of free messages to send. 10 cents per message is simply an outrageous amount of money.
I was able to read those two sentences and know what they meant. "per year" and "per day" are clearly different time period. If you really didn't understand on first read I think you need to slow down a bit, rather than just plowing through the summary and (apparently) reading only every other word. The article is very clear, it's your comprehension that's the problem here.
So the problem isn't to ban recruiters, lest you ban great jobs. The problem is banning clueless recruiters.
I'm sure there are great recruiters out their. I've talked to some not so bad ones. I'm also sure there's some great used car salesmen out their (And actually, I've talked to some very honest ones). The problem is that the industry has a deservedly bad reputation. Trying to find the needle in the haystack is really quite a difficult problem. Even good recruiters are still middlemen, and represent yet another barrier to what you actually want. Essentially the problem is more endemic that just bad recruiters. If recruiters actually worked like real-estate agents, rather than fishermen trolling a lake they might be usefull. But as it stands they're all fishermen putting out bait (job postings) trying to catch a fish (job seekers) and sell them on the open market.
You say the cost of losing the recruiters is some great jobs. I'm willing to pay that cost as I only need ONE job, not several. In essence the signal might go down a bit, but the noise is going to get cut down by a factor of at least 10. That's a win, and I'll take that any day of the week.
So, as usually, whoever pays calls the shots. These features are not going to happen.
The recruiters are just middlemen, and like all middlemen that aren't absolutely necessary. The only two parties that are necessary are the job seekers and the job providers. A website can easily replace the scumbag middlemen. The money ultimately comes from the job provider. They're the ones paying the middlemen, and that's ultimately where the power lies.
There's nothing I hate more than having to go through some recruiter (who often turns out to be a scumbag). What I want in a jobsite is an actual connection between job seekers and employers, with no middlemen getting in the way. The recruiters are a problem in more ways than I can count.
The reason you see PDF so often is it's a really easy transition from paper, which everyone is familiar with the tools to produce printed documents. If you don't use PDF, maintaining a website with information changing on a daily basis like that takes either a lot of maintenance by someone who knows HTML or some GUI tool, or a more sophisticated database driven application that's custom build for that sort of thing.
I know what Taliban did, but that has nothing to do with Islam. There were many crimes commited in the name of Christianity ( say) , that doesn't make Christianism or Christians bad.
I dunno about that. Christianity and Islam seem to have a thing with fanaticism and killing others, where other religions don't. When was the last time you heard of atrocities commited in the name of Buddhism or Taoism for instance? Christianity and Islam both claim to be religions of peace, but yet history shows something quite different. Comparing one to the other really misses the point. Hell, even Scientology has a better track record than Islam or Christianity. All it seems to produce is lawsuits, and embarrassing outbursts from Tom Cruise.
Other companies don't rabid fanatical followers, or a CEO that has his own personal reality distortion field.
Mod me down Apple fanboys, but somewhere in that warped brain of yours you know it's true.
Re:Meh... Color me unimpressed.
on
Flexible Body Armor
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Try telling a downhill skiier crashing into a wall at over 100 MPH that there are body parts that don't flex.
I doubt this stuff is going to have much protection against hitting a wall at 100MPH. The article says that racers are using this stuff on their arms and legs to protect against hitting the poles. I'm sure without protection hitting those poles as hard as they do is going to hurt like hell. If you hit a wall at 100mph, no amount of body armour is going to save you, as all your internal organs are going to be crushed in the impact.
If I had to guess, I'd say you most likely take on a confrontational tone with the cops and they your attitude is to blame for your propensity to get tickets instead of warnings. Shut the fuck up and die in a car wreck. Thank you.
Strange, I would have guessed the dame thing about you.
Yah! And I think we should go back to the times when segregation was all defined at a local level. That'd be fine, right? It'd all be fair and democratic, so for instance in Washington DC the white people could sit at the back of the bus.
at least, not where there's a significant chance of it disturbing other patrons, including children.
I'm disturbed by people reading anything by Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. I also think children will be harmed by viewing anything by either of these two idiots. Since when do people have the right to not be disturbed?
Parents who claim they can't prevent their kids from seeing these curse words are simply irresponsible.
I feel the same way about parents who let their kids be exposed to Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh. Kinds being exposed to this kind of trash is simply bad parenting.
Try to put things into perspective. Kids hearing swearing is really the least of our problems. You sound like you're out of the 1950s.
I think it's going to be near impossible to control online gambling. We can't even control the drug trade, and these guys think they can stop online gambling? I think there's problems with gambling. People get addicted, they lose all their money, and other people suffer because of it. What happens when your wife gambles away your entire savings? Are you an idiot because you trusted her with access to the bank account?
That makes it societies resposibility to try to prevent that harm. To do this we need legalized, regulated online gambling. You're not going to stop it, so the only way to control it is to legalize it and regulate it. Right now who's to say that the games are fair? No one, since it's a big free-for-all. But if it were legalized within the US, my guess is people are going to go to the trusted casinos because they're regulated and have to abide by certain rules, just like in Las Vegas.
Slashdot Mirror
These are hardware devices that were...hold on let me reiterate that HARDWARE. That means that there are tons and tons of regression tests.
HA! Hardware devices generally do get a bit better testing, but if you think they don't have a lot of flaws and require updates, then you haven't been paying attention. The cable company is constantly updating firmware in cable modems (and often screwing them up). Cisco has more serious vulnerabilities in its routers than I can count. Why are cell phones any different? Granted the devices I've listed are all network devices, but cell phones live on a network too. No reason why remote updates can't be done to the firmware.
I think the real reason you haven't seen a lot of vulnerabilities is simply because most phones haven't had the ability to send viruses and exploits to one another until recently.
Why would anyone become "multi-planetary" when there's no reason to do so? Other planets are harsh, inhospitable places. What's the incentive to spend the billions upon billions of dollars it'd take to develop the technology for a colony? "Coolness?" Not to mention the unknown health costs of living in a lower gravity for years.
It's all about economics, and if the economics aren't their the lowest launch costs imaginable aren't going to matter. The closest economic benefit we've got is mining Helium-3 from the moon, and even that's a pipe dream. I'm sure there will be a manned mission to Mars someday, but that's not anything like being "multi-planetary"
Well, technically there's no triangles involved. GPS uses timing based on distance from each satellite. Draw a sphere around each satellite you get a signal from with a radius of the distance it is from you. The intersection of all the spheres is where you must be. Of course it's a little bit more complicated than that since the receiver doesn't have an atomic clock, and thus can't directly tell the distance from each satellite.
And child molesters, Jim Jones and animal torturers lose out to Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, and the Taliban. Is your point the lowest of low is the standard for scum of the earth? You can be a nice guy and still be a total scumbag.
Marketing people are generally scumbags, it doesn't matter if you like them or not. The problem isn't the concept of advertising, or advertising itself, the problem is the people that do this job.
Yes I understand that, and triangulation is probbably a poor term. It does however provide a general idea of why GPS probbably won't work well on the moon.
Is GPS really unusable near the moon?
There are two problems, both of which I think makes GPS unseable on the moon.
1. Signal strength. The moon is about 240,000 miles from the earth. The GPS satelites are at about 12,000 miles. Maybe you can have a very high gain antenna to boost the signal, but signal strength is going to be a problem.
2. Lack of triangulation. As you pointed out because of the extreme distance, you're not going to get very good triangulation from any of the satelites. Assuming you could get a signal, your degree of innacuracy is going to be rather large because of the poor triangulation. I'm not sure exactly how to do the math here, but my gut feeling is that this is going to make GPS pretty useless on the moon. You might be able to determine you're on the moon, or even in the Sea of Tranquility, but that's not exactly terribly usefull to the competition
Whilst the summary is factually correct, it is written in a misleading way.
Only because you're reading too fast and not paying enough attention. Stop skimming and start reading.
The draft of the rules mention that you need to use rocket power, and not some kind of aerodynamic lift, but that's it. I think they should specify a more realistic conditions of the moon. Obviously you can't have it fly in a vacuum, but you could expose the craft to a vacuum before the flight to make sure it can survive a vacuum. You could do the same thing with the temperature extremes. At the very least a craft shouldn't be able to rely upon earth based navigation aids, like GPS, the suns position in the sky, or even the earths magnetic field.
Many providers don't charge for text messages, or give you a set amount of free messages to send. 10 cents per message is simply an outrageous amount of money.
I was able to read those two sentences and know what they meant. "per year" and "per day" are clearly different time period. If you really didn't understand on first read I think you need to slow down a bit, rather than just plowing through the summary and (apparently) reading only every other word. The article is very clear, it's your comprehension that's the problem here.
So the problem isn't to ban recruiters, lest you ban great jobs. The problem is banning clueless recruiters.
I'm sure there are great recruiters out their. I've talked to some not so bad ones. I'm also sure there's some great used car salesmen out their (And actually, I've talked to some very honest ones). The problem is that the industry has a deservedly bad reputation. Trying to find the needle in the haystack is really quite a difficult problem. Even good recruiters are still middlemen, and represent yet another barrier to what you actually want. Essentially the problem is more endemic that just bad recruiters. If recruiters actually worked like real-estate agents, rather than fishermen trolling a lake they might be usefull. But as it stands they're all fishermen putting out bait (job postings) trying to catch a fish (job seekers) and sell them on the open market.
You say the cost of losing the recruiters is some great jobs. I'm willing to pay that cost as I only need ONE job, not several. In essence the signal might go down a bit, but the noise is going to get cut down by a factor of at least 10. That's a win, and I'll take that any day of the week.
Guilt by association has never been a particularly valid claim.
Yah, I've started looking at Craigslist fairly exclusively just because there's actual companies there instead of middlemen.
So, as usually, whoever pays calls the shots. These features are not going to happen.
The recruiters are just middlemen, and like all middlemen that aren't absolutely necessary. The
only two parties that are necessary are the job seekers and the job providers. A website can easily replace the scumbag middlemen. The money ultimately comes from the job provider. They're the ones paying the middlemen, and that's ultimately where the power lies.
There's nothing I hate more than having to go through some recruiter (who often turns out to be a scumbag). What I want in a jobsite is an actual connection between job seekers and employers, with no middlemen getting in the way. The recruiters are a problem in more ways than I can count.
The reason you see PDF so often is it's a really easy transition from paper, which everyone is familiar with the tools to produce printed documents. If you don't use PDF, maintaining a website with information changing on a daily basis like that takes either a lot of maintenance by someone who knows HTML or some GUI tool, or a more sophisticated database driven application that's custom build for that sort of thing.
I know what Taliban did, but that has nothing to do with Islam. There were many crimes commited in the name of Christianity ( say) , that doesn't make Christianism or Christians bad.
I dunno about that. Christianity and Islam seem to have a thing with fanaticism and killing others, where other religions don't. When was the last time you heard of atrocities commited in the name of Buddhism or Taoism for instance? Christianity and Islam both claim to be religions of peace, but yet history shows something quite different. Comparing one to the other really misses the point. Hell, even Scientology has a better track record than Islam or Christianity. All it seems to produce is lawsuits, and embarrassing outbursts from Tom Cruise.
Other companies don't rabid fanatical followers, or a CEO that has his own personal reality distortion field.
Mod me down Apple fanboys, but somewhere in that warped brain of yours you know it's true.
Try telling a downhill skiier crashing into a wall at over 100 MPH that there are body parts that don't flex.
I doubt this stuff is going to have much protection against hitting a wall at 100MPH. The article says that racers are using this stuff on their arms and legs to protect against hitting the poles. I'm sure without protection hitting those poles as hard as they do is going to hurt like hell. If you hit a wall at 100mph, no amount of body armour is going to save you, as all your internal organs are going to be crushed in the impact.
And with this latest bit of evidence I'm officially crossing Houston off the list of places I'd ever consider living. Thanks for the tip.
If I had to guess, I'd say you most likely take on a confrontational tone with the cops and they your attitude is to blame for your propensity to get tickets instead of warnings. Shut the fuck up and die in a car wreck. Thank you.
Strange, I would have guessed the dame thing about you.
Yah! And I think we should go back to the times when segregation was all defined at a local level. That'd be fine, right? It'd all be fair and democratic, so for instance in Washington DC the white people could sit at the back of the bus.
at least, not where there's a significant chance of it disturbing other patrons, including children.
I'm disturbed by people reading anything by Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. I also think children will be harmed by viewing anything by either of these two idiots. Since when do people have the right to not be disturbed?
Parents who claim they can't prevent their kids from seeing these curse words are simply irresponsible.
I feel the same way about parents who let their kids be exposed to Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh. Kinds being exposed to this kind of trash is simply bad parenting.
Try to put things into perspective. Kids hearing swearing is really the least of our problems. You sound like you're out of the 1950s.
I think it's going to be near impossible to control online gambling. We can't even control the drug trade, and these guys think they can stop online gambling? I think there's problems with gambling. People get addicted, they lose all their money, and other people suffer because of it. What happens when your wife gambles away your entire savings? Are you an idiot because you trusted her with access to the bank account?
That makes it societies resposibility to try to prevent that harm. To do this we need legalized, regulated online gambling. You're not going to stop it, so the only way to control it is to legalize it and regulate it. Right now who's to say that the games are fair? No one, since it's a big free-for-all. But if it were legalized within the US, my guess is people are going to go to the trusted casinos because they're regulated and have to abide by certain rules, just like in Las Vegas.