The problem is equating every loan idiot to the relatively organized efforts of ISIS and similar groups isn't really useful.
The Islamic terror groups have a well organized recruitment and propaganda system. Groups like ISIS and AQAP come out in support of and encourage others to repeat attacks like those in France last week. They even provide training and funding.
Its a lot more pervasive, resilient, and persistent than Anders Behring Breivik and some fuck tards he drank beer with. Those folks are one-and-done type groups. AQAP, ISIS, and Boko Haram are organized to survive and attack another day.
The Australia attack was clearly ISIS inspired, they guy even wanted an ISIS flag during the hostage negotiation. The media keeps calling him a lone wolf but that really isn't the case, maybe the communication only went in one direction ISIS->Gunman in the form of propaganda but that is still a kind of loose organization.
Its true we are always going to have "I just know they put a microchip in my butt therefore I have to blow up a federal building" crazies out there. There will also be the occasional individual who picks up a bible or a copy of Catcher in the Rye for that matter and decides he has been called to cleanse the earth; its going to happen! Militant Islam is different though. There are no Christian secs with significant populations advocating mass murders, there absolutely are Islamist groups who have large numbers of followers, control of state apparatus, significant military assets, and probably more important than any of that money and talent to get the word out.
There is a difference between advocating attacking people with guns and actually doing it. Its a very subtle difference, I admit.
The problem is its all a matter of perspectives when you talk about advocating attacking people with guns.
For instance ISIS considers itself a nation state. I imagine they consider the US Army's recruitment site as advocating people join an organization to attack them with guns. I am not saying that is a reasonable opinion but I'd wager many ISIS guys would agree with it if you asked them.
anti-CSRF all require some kind of authorized session, or authentication on the request itself, in the case of REST.
The grandparent was suggesting the router have no authentication. CSRF attack take advantage of the fact the client may repeat authorization/authentication headers, and things like session cookies whenever it connects to a resource in a realm its previously connected with. The attacker is able to forge request because he does not have to gain access to the authentication secrets or the session secret, he merely needs to induce the request.
If the router is not going to authenticate the session in the first place, it would be possible for the attacker to simply script out establishing the session, and then follow it with whatever requests he likes.
I suppose that is a pure XSS attack and no longer CSRF in that you can't 'forge' an anonymous request. CSRF is a vulnerability that might exist on these things anyway, but generally isn't probably a huge concern because people don't spend all day logged into their routers. Assuming there is at least a semi-sane session timeout the risk is probably low.
The risk still stands though, if the only form of authentication is the request came form an RFC1918 address owning the router from the outside will be a trivial to exploit using allowed behavior of client web browsers.
So in order to protect the rights of others to freely express opinions they are going to silence people expressing the opinion that certain opinions should not be expressed.
Right because its completely impossible you could ever visit a site with some malicious site that runs a little JS to build a form on the fly and submit forged request to your internal router if it were completely unauthenticated.
Don't be stupid, while its a good control to only allow these things to be managed from the inside, and you probably don't need to go overboard you DO need at least a username and password and you DO need to change the defaults!
Sites maybe. Applications on the other hand stand to gain considerably. Watch some "modern" application sit there and make 100's of ajax requests for 14 lines of JSON and get back to me. For something web based trying to show any real-time information those headers can be 30% of the traffic.
As far as tooling I am not that worried, there will be plenty of accepted widely used tools available to dump web headers if the protocol went binary. I have never had anyone question if tcpdump is decoding ether frames properly. Once a few good libraries for C/Java/Ruby/Perl/Python are written stuff will just use them and all our tools will just get a point release.
Bandwidth is bigger and cheaper than ever. So why?
In places where its being delivered by cable to the edge or damn near to the edge yes. The rest of the world not so much.
Think about. Anywhere dense enough AND stable enough pretty is pretty well covered for highspeed Internet access.
The problem is everywhere else, is being more and more covered by Cellular. There is only so much spectrum, there are laws of physics that place caps on just how much information can be sent there.
So you have trouble on both ends. You have very high population places, us westerners might think of as slums where people want to run lots of cellular radios. You can only get so far with micro cells and wifi. After all the micro-cell or wifi have to connect to something. If the cell is to small you could have just pulled the cable or fiber in.
Ditto for sparsely populated areas. You again get lots of people on one tower there as well (but using more TX power) again because its only economical and practical to put so much density in. Satellites have essentially the limitations.
We are approaching the point were many of high bandwidth have nots are likely to remain have nots pretty no matter what policy well meaning pols come up with it; because at some point basic economic reality slaps you in the face. Yes there is still plenty of USA to cover, we got just about everyone power and phone 60+ years ago, fast Internet will get there too but it will take time.
I don't think we should let trying to keep bandwidth requirements held to a minimum stand in the way of solving real problems and doing new things, but I also don't think its a good or fair idea to just completely say "fuck it" with regard to something like protocol overhead.
Right the airlines are not operating what is the model of an efficient market. They are actually trying to take advantage of inefficiency. As you say these 'unbundled' items are not really items at all. They have no value or even meaning outside the context of the other product.
A hour of content is an hour of content, independent of what transport protocol gets it to my display. Leg room on a flight to Dallas no so much.
The airline game is really about reducing your access to information and making it harder to price compare. So when you go to the travel website and see Airline A wants $200 and airline B wants $220 a ticket you can't immediately determine which is the better deal, because you first have to find out if they charge for checked bags, how much, is the first bag free, etc.
Unbundling cable has the opposite effect it will make it perfectly clear where you money goes (ESPN). Without the cross subsidy will the hangers on have the pricing power to be profitable. My guess is no, but really nothing of value will be lost.
If all you want is to allow SSH there is no good reason to do this, and if you want alot more than SSH there is still probably no good reason to do this.
SSH is probably the most mature, robust VPN solutions out there with probably the among the best over all security records to boot. SSH can do port forwarding but it can also do point-to-point tunnels. Certainly if you only want to access a single host SSH should be your VPN, and even if you want to access multiple hosts across the tunnel, SSH + some shell scripts to setup routing is probably among your best options.
Should you use netfilter or pfsense to limit source ips that can connect, sure why not can't hurt; but I trust sshd with a listing port that gets Internet traffic way more than I trust BobsOMGPoniesVPNd to do it.
Okay, Islamist imperialism which was often violent had effectively cut off the route between European Christians and the holy land. Christians saw the need to preserve both a route of passage to the holy land and to provide Christians in the region relief from the very real abuses they were suffering at the hands of their Islamic occupiers. A war broke out on which both sides committed atrocities.
Islam is no more and no less to blame for the crusades than the Christan kingdoms.
and not blame an entire reliegon of 1.2 billion people for a handful of incidents, and fringe groups.
No I am tired of that argument it might have been legit 20 years ago but history in the mean time has proven its horse shit.
You be real. One religion in recent history has been responsible for the vast vast majority of religious inspired violence. Essentially two mainstream religions feature a scripture that preaches violence against its enemies, the Islamic and Jewish faiths. The latter does not have any prevailing interpretations advocating violence outside a small patch of land.
Christianity has the New Testament which is supreme over the Old and is very consistent in its advocacy of nonviolence. Where violence is "called for" the specified actor is nearly always God who will be doing the damning, smiting, cutting down of, etc.. Its not up to the individual. Generally this pretty compatible with modern society. They up the road can hope as much as he likes God will strike me down, as long as he does take the initiative himself I am not especially concerned. One can be a practicing Christian using most main line interpretations without doing much direct harm to anyone else.
Islam on the other hand host lots of prevailing interpretations that very much do require followers to attack others. Its not socially compatible at all. When polled you actually find quite a lot of support for groups like ISIS and Boko Haram from "western" faithful (ignorant teenagers anyway) even if they are not about to take up arms themselves.
These might be "fringe groups" but its a pretty damn large fringe compared to the fringes of other major religions.
I am not saying governments ought to step in an stop people from practicing their faith but I do think the rest of society might do well to express a little less religious tolerance and acceptance. A little social exclusion would probably lead lots of younger folks to drop it, and maybe after a generation or two most followers who remain won't bring it up often at all and will boil it down to a few annual excuses for naked commercialism.
Reagan proved nothing of the sort. Reagan proved nothing of the sort. He proved short term deficits are okay if anything and we pretty much always knew that.
Reagan's spending was in the context of a very different world. There was literally no economy or currency that could provide the secure wealth store the US and dollar offered at the time. Today there is plenty of mostly safe sovereign debt to buy out there. There was no possibility of the first world trading oil in anything but the dollar; while still along way off its imaginable today. Most importantly however there was a definable end in sight, eventually the USSR would be defeated at which time some of the most expensive weapons efforts could be scaled back, after which the budget would balance.
That brings us to the late Bush and Clinton economic boom, what was one of the characteristics of that, oh yes the budget nearly balanced, and if you did some really fucking creative accounting with lots of spin could even claim a surplus! So if anything Reagan might have proven deficits DO matter.
Well, then it's a good thing there's only two of them.
I think the bean counters might deserve some credit though. Don't you think somebody asked "what happens to our business if things go wrong at TSMC?" and the answer was well our chief competition also uses them so there will probably be little impact to our market share, they won't be able to supply anyone with chips either.
Oh yes before you say anything. I realize we still have the underlying integer representation. So if we know ahead of time we need to keep that, there is an out.
Now do you want to explain to the PHP how (14205????) 23:59:59 is a time and that 142057???? + 1 is also 23:59:59 but its really a second later. Sounds like a long meeting to me.
It does, B runs when A says its finished. So now we are looking at the logs, and B has logged a start time before A logged its end time. What does this mean? Does it mean there is a bug in A that caused it to release the lock B was waiting for prematurely? Was everything just fine, but it happen to be clock change night? We can't tell.
23:59:60 being its on distinctly represent second would make what transpired perfectly clear, calling the next second by the same identifier 23:59:59 cases us to lose information.
How are they bitten exactly. Neither one of them can get chips. There is therefore no real competitive disadvantage. They only way I see them getting bitten is if Intel decides they really want a slice of the high end GPU market; ups their game on the design side AND allocates their 14nm facilities to GPUs in favor of cranking out more CPUs.
DST isn't so much a problem because if you are doing things right, mostly you store time in UTC and apply the timezone when you display it or convert human inputs from it. Well really some library does this for you using the published tzdata but you get the idea. This gives monotone time, in that its always increasing. Your proposal actually makes things harder because you will end up with two events that logically can't coincide having potentially the same timestamps or even timestamps that appear in the wrong order depending on resolution.
Suppose Job A is suppose to run at 23:59:59.00 Job B uses the output of Job A and is an event triggered completion of job B
Job A logs that it started at 23:59:59.01 Job A logs it completed at 23:59:59.97 (it took less than a second to run) Now we insert our leap second by resting the clock to 23:59:59.00 again Job B runs and logs its start time at 23:59:59.02 (this should be impossible! A isn't finished yet)
And really most of the time logs of least concern, but you would create problems for all kinds of systems that interact with each other and make time based decisions.
The driver seat is a nice place to be but there isn't always car to ride in. I know a few guys who do things like RPG and PL/I and you know what they set they own rate and make a tonne of bank when someone needs them. The operative clause is 'when someone needs them' most of the time, they are out looking for someone who needs them.
There is plenty of funding in the area of identifying dense portal energy sources with low ecological impact.
We need/want that for all sorts of things. When someone comes up with something truly new, like working fusion or something we can than explore if its adaptable to space travel.
Until there I don't see much value coming from our continued efforts in space. We have no way to recover in any useful quantity anything we might find out there. Knowing how the earth got its water does not advance or materially improve the quality of life for any human, etc. It just isn't important. We have limited resources if we are going to invest in basic research (and I think we should) we should at least invest in more immediately useful stuff.
Doing more climate science for instance (which might mean pointing a spectrometer or two at the sun) won't lead directly to products but might help us set policy and or plan our future. As to looking at the sun well you don't for the most part need to go to space to do that, get much closer than we already are and you can't escape its gravity or will be irradiated. There certainly is some value in getting out of atmosphere to look at stuff like that, good thing we already have an orbital science station.
Conclusion not only is there no causal relationship between the availability of guns and violent crime, but either no relationship at all or greater availability of guns assault rifles in particular at least correlate with lower rates of violent crime.
Gun control advocates need to find something better to do with their time. The public would be better served if they all went to work on something productive like improving traffic safety.
Better yet we could cut those weapons programs and use the savings to fill in existing budget holes and just reduce the deficit.
Lets face it, geek love of space aside NASA isn't really a very good use of the public's resources. We have done a lot and learned a lot its time to put it back on self for a while until we solve some big energy problems.
All that stuff about astroid mining and such is at this time ridiculous because of the energy inputs required. When someone figures out a potential energy source that isn't a million dollars worth of ecologically destructive chemicals that can both get something out of earths gravity and power useful activity once its out there it will be time to go back to space. Building a slightly better can to put people and things in is the easy part, we can do that whenever.
Until there is a eco-friendly, sustainable way to generate hydrogen
I would think a handful of Nuclear generating plants around the country could be build with their output going to simply cracking water.
We seem to get by with a handful of oil refineries today. So it seems reasonably a small number of large multi reactor facilities could provide adequate resilience while limiting the ecological impact to just those sites. Without going down the usual Slashdot nuclear discussion rabbit hole, if these facilities were specifically designed to have a long operation life 100+ years and were breeders the outputs could be almost nothing besides the H2 gas we want and whatever impurities existed in the input water; some of which might be desirable itself such as salt.
echoes a similar move by electric car maker Tesla in 2014, when Chief Executive Elon Musk made Tesla patents available to all, hoping to spur innovation in the electric vehicle world (and, perhaps, to draw publicity.) Toyota has similar goals for the fuel-cell car market. 'At Toyota, we believe that when good ideas are shared, great things can happen,'
While I think its good of them to do this I am not so sure Toyota or Tesla really have many options. They want to sell a product, cars, that depend on certain infrastructure namely filling/charging stations. Unless they want to be forever in the business of operating those themselves they have to make it attractive for others to do so.
First they can't really expect people to pay to a risk investing in supporting their product, so extracting fees from would be station operators would only make it less like anyone will step forward. Which in turn makes it less likely they can sell cars to the public.
At the same time they really need their competitors to embrace 'their' technology as a kind of standard, for pretty much the same reasons. If they want the infrastructure to spring up there needs to be a critical mass of vehicles out there to make money supporting. If they want to sell vehicles beyond the boutique space Tesla currently operates in they need the infrastructure built out.
Yet Concord no longer flies. They had a damn good safety record too. Its a little tough to compare because there were really only two airline operating them through most of there service life, but there was one major crash! One!
If anything the crash, made everyone wake up and realize the youngest of those birds was more than 30 years old. Which is pretty well EOL for airliners.
They stopped building them and they were only flying them because they had them, a sunk cost. The airlines recognized there in fact were not really enough rich people to sell tickets to such that they could be operated profitably if they had to pay for their own depreciation to enable purchase of a new bird. Either that or they figured if the charged what they would really need to not even the rich would bother.
No it was not safety that killed the Concord, it was cost and it was dead bird flying a long time before the accident in 2000.
Oh I am sure this is the case, to a degree. I was just pointing out that their statement was basically meaningless.
To your point however, Netflix has more incentive to comply than the ISP did/do. In the case of the content industry vs. ISPs:
The ISPs just need to do enough to avoid legal responsibility. They had basically two options, they could claim to be common carriers and just say "we don't wiretap" so we don't know and are not responsible for what's on our network. Doing so would have limited their future opportunity to monetize all the marketing intel they get now by responding to bogus DNS lookups and other sniffing, ad injection etc.
Instead the block a torrent site once in a great while and send a few toothless nastygrams to customers that are so abusive its hard not to notice. That keeps them from being accused of interference content industry license agreements and similar legal attacks.
Netflix vs. Content industry: All the same considerations the ISPs have but also they are a direct counter party to negotiations with those content providers. If the MPAA is unhappy with a big ISP they can't do much unless they have a legal challenge. Its not like Disney is going to make their site unavailable to anyone coming from an Comcast IP or something. It would do them more harm.
Netflix on the other hand, needs the content more than the content needs Netflix. Big Content has lots of distribution outlets. They could decide not to license their content to Netflix if they don't think Netflix is playing by the rules they agreed to follow, or they might charge them more if they think Netflix is cannibalizing revenue from the other distribution outlets.
So yes they pick their poison. There is optimizing to be done though. It might be more profitable to cut loose a few thousand customers outside their service regions in order to keep the licensing costs for the content they need to retain their other customers down.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is equating every loan idiot to the relatively organized efforts of ISIS and similar groups isn't really useful.
The Islamic terror groups have a well organized recruitment and propaganda system. Groups like ISIS and AQAP come out in support of and encourage others to repeat attacks like those in France last week. They even provide training and funding.
Its a lot more pervasive, resilient, and persistent than Anders Behring Breivik and some fuck tards he drank beer with. Those folks are one-and-done type groups. AQAP, ISIS, and Boko Haram are organized to survive and attack another day.
The Australia attack was clearly ISIS inspired, they guy even wanted an ISIS flag during the hostage negotiation. The media keeps calling him a lone wolf but that really isn't the case, maybe the communication only went in one direction ISIS->Gunman in the form of propaganda but that is still a kind of loose organization.
Its true we are always going to have "I just know they put a microchip in my butt therefore I have to blow up a federal building" crazies out there. There will also be the occasional individual who picks up a bible or a copy of Catcher in the Rye for that matter and decides he has been called to cleanse the earth; its going to happen! Militant Islam is different though. There are no Christian secs with significant populations advocating mass murders, there absolutely are Islamist groups who have large numbers of followers, control of state apparatus, significant military assets, and probably more important than any of that money and talent to get the word out.
There is a difference between advocating attacking people with guns and actually doing it. Its a very subtle difference, I admit.
The problem is its all a matter of perspectives when you talk about advocating attacking people with guns.
For instance ISIS considers itself a nation state. I imagine they consider the US Army's recruitment site as advocating people join an organization to attack them with guns. I am not saying that is a reasonable opinion but I'd wager many ISIS guys would agree with it if you asked them.
anti-CSRF all require some kind of authorized session, or authentication on the request itself, in the case of REST.
The grandparent was suggesting the router have no authentication. CSRF attack take advantage of the fact the client may repeat authorization/authentication headers, and things like session cookies whenever it connects to a resource in a realm its previously connected with. The attacker is able to forge request because he does not have to gain access to the authentication secrets or the session secret, he merely needs to induce the request.
If the router is not going to authenticate the session in the first place, it would be possible for the attacker to simply script out establishing the session, and then follow it with whatever requests he likes.
I suppose that is a pure XSS attack and no longer CSRF in that you can't 'forge' an anonymous request. CSRF is a vulnerability that might exist on these things anyway, but generally isn't probably a huge concern because people don't spend all day logged into their routers. Assuming there is at least a semi-sane session timeout the risk is probably low.
The risk still stands though, if the only form of authentication is the request came form an RFC1918 address owning the router from the outside will be a trivial to exploit using allowed behavior of client web browsers.
So in order to protect the rights of others to freely express opinions they are going to silence people expressing the opinion that certain opinions should not be expressed.
This is all getting a little to meta for me.
Right because its completely impossible you could ever visit a site with some malicious site that runs a little JS to build a form on the fly and submit forged request to your internal router if it were completely unauthenticated.
Don't be stupid, while its a good control to only allow these things to be managed from the inside, and you probably don't need to go overboard you DO need at least a username and password and you DO need to change the defaults!
modern web sites goes to content
Sites maybe. Applications on the other hand stand to gain considerably. Watch some "modern" application sit there and make 100's of ajax requests for 14 lines of JSON and get back to me. For something web based trying to show any real-time information those headers can be 30% of the traffic.
As far as tooling I am not that worried, there will be plenty of accepted widely used tools available to dump web headers if the protocol went binary. I have never had anyone question if tcpdump is decoding ether frames properly. Once a few good libraries for C/Java/Ruby/Perl/Python are written stuff will just use them and all our tools will just get a point release.
Bandwidth is bigger and cheaper than ever. So why?
In places where its being delivered by cable to the edge or damn near to the edge yes. The rest of the world not so much.
Think about. Anywhere dense enough AND stable enough pretty is pretty well covered for highspeed Internet access.
The problem is everywhere else, is being more and more covered by Cellular. There is only so much spectrum, there are laws of physics that place caps on just how much information can be sent there.
So you have trouble on both ends. You have very high population places, us westerners might think of as slums where people want to run lots of cellular radios. You can only get so far with micro cells and wifi. After all the micro-cell or wifi have to connect to something. If the cell is to small you could have just pulled the cable or fiber in.
Ditto for sparsely populated areas. You again get lots of people on one tower there as well (but using more TX power) again because its only economical and practical to put so much density in. Satellites have essentially the limitations.
We are approaching the point were many of high bandwidth have nots are likely to remain have nots pretty no matter what policy well meaning pols come up with it; because at some point basic economic reality slaps you in the face. Yes there is still plenty of USA to cover, we got just about everyone power and phone 60+ years ago, fast Internet will get there too but it will take time.
I don't think we should let trying to keep bandwidth requirements held to a minimum stand in the way of solving real problems and doing new things, but I also don't think its a good or fair idea to just completely say "fuck it" with regard to something like protocol overhead.
Right the airlines are not operating what is the model of an efficient market. They are actually trying to take advantage of inefficiency. As you say these 'unbundled' items are not really items at all. They have no value or even meaning outside the context of the other product.
A hour of content is an hour of content, independent of what transport protocol gets it to my display. Leg room on a flight to Dallas no so much.
The airline game is really about reducing your access to information and making it harder to price compare. So when you go to the travel website and see Airline A wants $200 and airline B wants $220 a ticket you can't immediately determine which is the better deal, because you first have to find out if they charge for checked bags, how much, is the first bag free, etc.
Unbundling cable has the opposite effect it will make it perfectly clear where you money goes (ESPN). Without the cross subsidy will the hangers on have the pricing power to be profitable. My guess is no, but really nothing of value will be lost.
Set up a VPN, Limit the list of allowed IPs
If all you want is to allow SSH there is no good reason to do this, and if you want alot more than SSH there is still probably no good reason to do this.
SSH is probably the most mature, robust VPN solutions out there with probably the among the best over all security records to boot. SSH can do port forwarding but it can also do point-to-point tunnels. Certainly if you only want to access a single host SSH should be your VPN, and even if you want to access multiple hosts across the tunnel, SSH + some shell scripts to setup routing is probably among your best options.
Should you use netfilter or pfsense to limit source ips that can connect, sure why not can't hurt; but I trust sshd with a listing port that gets Internet traffic way more than I trust BobsOMGPoniesVPNd to do it.
Okay, Islamist imperialism which was often violent had effectively cut off the route between European Christians and the holy land. Christians saw the need to preserve both a route of passage to the holy land and to provide Christians in the region relief from the very real abuses they were suffering at the hands of their Islamic occupiers. A war broke out on which both sides committed atrocities.
Islam is no more and no less to blame for the crusades than the Christan kingdoms.
and not blame an entire reliegon of 1.2 billion people for a handful of incidents, and fringe groups.
No I am tired of that argument it might have been legit 20 years ago but history in the mean time has proven its horse shit.
You be real. One religion in recent history has been responsible for the vast vast majority of religious inspired violence. Essentially two mainstream religions feature a scripture that preaches violence against its enemies, the Islamic and Jewish faiths. The latter does not have any prevailing interpretations advocating violence outside a small patch of land.
Christianity has the New Testament which is supreme over the Old and is very consistent in its advocacy of nonviolence. Where violence is "called for" the specified actor is nearly always God who will be doing the damning, smiting, cutting down of, etc.. Its not up to the individual. Generally this pretty compatible with modern society. They up the road can hope as much as he likes God will strike me down, as long as he does take the initiative himself I am not especially concerned. One can be a practicing Christian using most main line interpretations without doing much direct harm to anyone else.
Islam on the other hand host lots of prevailing interpretations that very much do require followers to attack others. Its not socially compatible at all. When polled you actually find quite a lot of support for groups like ISIS and Boko Haram from "western" faithful (ignorant teenagers anyway) even if they are not about to take up arms themselves.
These might be "fringe groups" but its a pretty damn large fringe compared to the fringes of other major religions.
I am not saying governments ought to step in an stop people from practicing their faith but I do think the rest of society might do well to express a little less religious tolerance and acceptance. A little social exclusion would probably lead lots of younger folks to drop it, and maybe after a generation or two most followers who remain won't bring it up often at all and will boil it down to a few annual excuses for naked commercialism.
Deficits don't matter, as Reagan proved
Reagan proved nothing of the sort. Reagan proved nothing of the sort. He proved short term deficits are okay if anything and we pretty much always knew that.
Reagan's spending was in the context of a very different world. There was literally no economy or currency that could provide the secure wealth store the US and dollar offered at the time. Today there is plenty of mostly safe sovereign debt to buy out there. There was no possibility of the first world trading oil in anything but the dollar; while still along way off its imaginable today. Most importantly however there was a definable end in sight, eventually the USSR would be defeated at which time some of the most expensive weapons efforts could be scaled back, after which the budget would balance.
That brings us to the late Bush and Clinton economic boom, what was one of the characteristics of that, oh yes the budget nearly balanced, and if you did some really fucking creative accounting with lots of spin could even claim a surplus! So if anything Reagan might have proven deficits DO matter.
Well, then it's a good thing there's only two of them.
I think the bean counters might deserve some credit though. Don't you think somebody asked "what happens to our business if things go wrong at TSMC?" and the answer was well our chief competition also uses them so there will probably be little impact to our market share, they won't be able to supply anyone with chips either.
Oh yes before you say anything. I realize we still have the underlying integer representation. So if we know ahead of time we need to keep that, there is an out.
Now do you want to explain to the PHP how (14205????) 23:59:59 is a time and that 142057???? + 1 is also 23:59:59 but its really a second later. Sounds like a long meeting to me.
It does, B runs when A says its finished. So now we are looking at the logs, and B has logged a start time before A logged its end time. What does this mean? Does it mean there is a bug in A that caused it to release the lock B was waiting for prematurely? Was everything just fine, but it happen to be clock change night? We can't tell.
23:59:60 being its on distinctly represent second would make what transpired perfectly clear, calling the next second by the same identifier 23:59:59 cases us to lose information.
How are they bitten exactly. Neither one of them can get chips. There is therefore no real competitive disadvantage. They only way I see them getting bitten is if Intel decides they really want a slice of the high end GPU market; ups their game on the design side AND allocates their 14nm facilities to GPUs in favor of cranking out more CPUs.
DST isn't so much a problem because if you are doing things right, mostly you store time in UTC and apply the timezone when you display it or convert human inputs from it. Well really some library does this for you using the published tzdata but you get the idea. This gives monotone time, in that its always increasing. Your proposal actually makes things harder because you will end up with two events that logically can't coincide having potentially the same timestamps or even timestamps that appear in the wrong order depending on resolution.
Suppose Job A is suppose to run at 23:59:59.00
Job B uses the output of Job A and is an event triggered completion of job B
Job A logs that it started at 23:59:59.01
Job A logs it completed at 23:59:59.97 (it took less than a second to run)
Now we insert our leap second by resting the clock to 23:59:59.00 again
Job B runs and logs its start time at 23:59:59.02 (this should be impossible! A isn't finished yet)
And really most of the time logs of least concern, but you would create problems for all kinds of systems that interact with each other and make time based decisions.
The driver seat is a nice place to be but there isn't always car to ride in. I know a few guys who do things like RPG and PL/I and you know what they set they own rate and make a tonne of bank when someone needs them. The operative clause is 'when someone needs them' most of the time, they are out looking for someone who needs them.
There is plenty of funding in the area of identifying dense portal energy sources with low ecological impact.
We need/want that for all sorts of things. When someone comes up with something truly new, like working fusion or something we can than explore if its adaptable to space travel.
Until there I don't see much value coming from our continued efforts in space. We have no way to recover in any useful quantity anything we might find out there. Knowing how the earth got its water does not advance or materially improve the quality of life for any human, etc. It just isn't important. We have limited resources if we are going to invest in basic research (and I think we should) we should at least invest in more immediately useful stuff.
Doing more climate science for instance (which might mean pointing a spectrometer or two at the sun) won't lead directly to products but might help us set policy and or plan our future. As to looking at the sun well you don't for the most part need to go to space to do that, get much closer than we already are and you can't escape its gravity or will be irradiated. There certainly is some value in getting out of atmosphere to look at stuff like that, good thing we already have an orbital science station.
Conclusion not only is there no causal relationship between the availability of guns and violent crime, but either no relationship at all or greater availability of guns assault rifles in particular at least correlate with lower rates of violent crime.
Gun control advocates need to find something better to do with their time. The public would be better served if they all went to work on something productive like improving traffic safety.
Better yet we could cut those weapons programs and use the savings to fill in existing budget holes and just reduce the deficit.
Lets face it, geek love of space aside NASA isn't really a very good use of the public's resources. We have done a lot and learned a lot its time to put it back on self for a while until we solve some big energy problems.
All that stuff about astroid mining and such is at this time ridiculous because of the energy inputs required. When someone figures out a potential energy source that isn't a million dollars worth of ecologically destructive chemicals that can both get something out of earths gravity and power useful activity once its out there it will be time to go back to space. Building a slightly better can to put people and things in is the easy part, we can do that whenever.
Until there is a eco-friendly, sustainable way to generate hydrogen
I would think a handful of Nuclear generating plants around the country could be build with their output going to simply cracking water.
We seem to get by with a handful of oil refineries today. So it seems reasonably a small number of large multi reactor facilities could provide adequate resilience while limiting the ecological impact to just those sites. Without going down the usual Slashdot nuclear discussion rabbit hole, if these facilities were specifically designed to have a long operation life 100+ years and were breeders the outputs could be almost nothing besides the H2 gas we want and whatever impurities existed in the input water; some of which might be desirable itself such as salt.
echoes a similar move by electric car maker Tesla in 2014, when Chief Executive Elon Musk made Tesla patents available to all, hoping to spur innovation in the electric vehicle world (and, perhaps, to draw publicity.) Toyota has similar goals for the fuel-cell car market. 'At Toyota, we believe that when good ideas are shared, great things can happen,'
While I think its good of them to do this I am not so sure Toyota or Tesla really have many options. They want to sell a product, cars, that depend on certain infrastructure namely filling/charging stations. Unless they want to be forever in the business of operating those themselves they have to make it attractive for others to do so.
First they can't really expect people to pay to a risk investing in supporting their product, so extracting fees from would be station operators would only make it less like anyone will step forward. Which in turn makes it less likely they can sell cars to the public.
At the same time they really need their competitors to embrace 'their' technology as a kind of standard, for pretty much the same reasons. If they want the infrastructure to spring up there needs to be a critical mass of vehicles out there to make money supporting. If they want to sell vehicles beyond the boutique space Tesla currently operates in they need the infrastructure built out.
Yet Concord no longer flies. They had a damn good safety record too. Its a little tough to compare because there were really only two airline operating them through most of there service life, but there was one major crash! One!
If anything the crash, made everyone wake up and realize the youngest of those birds was more than 30 years old. Which is pretty well EOL for airliners.
They stopped building them and they were only flying them because they had them, a sunk cost. The airlines recognized there in fact were not really enough rich people to sell tickets to such that they could be operated profitably if they had to pay for their own depreciation to enable purchase of a new bird. Either that or they figured if the charged what they would really need to not even the rich would bother.
No it was not safety that killed the Concord, it was cost and it was dead bird flying a long time before the accident in 2000.
Oh I am sure this is the case, to a degree. I was just pointing out that their statement was basically meaningless.
To your point however, Netflix has more incentive to comply than the ISP did/do. In the case of the content industry vs. ISPs:
The ISPs just need to do enough to avoid legal responsibility. They had basically two options, they could claim to be common carriers and just say "we don't wiretap" so we don't know and are not responsible for what's on our network. Doing so would have limited their future opportunity to monetize all the marketing intel they get now by responding to bogus DNS lookups and other sniffing, ad injection etc.
Instead the block a torrent site once in a great while and send a few toothless nastygrams to customers that are so abusive its hard not to notice. That keeps them from being accused of interference content industry license agreements and similar legal attacks.
Netflix vs. Content industry:
All the same considerations the ISPs have but also they are a direct counter party to negotiations with those content providers. If the MPAA is unhappy with a big ISP they can't do much unless they have a legal challenge. Its not like Disney is going to make their site unavailable to anyone coming from an Comcast IP or something. It would do them more harm.
Netflix on the other hand, needs the content more than the content needs Netflix. Big Content has lots of distribution outlets. They could decide not to license their content to Netflix if they don't think Netflix is playing by the rules they agreed to follow, or they might charge them more if they think Netflix is cannibalizing revenue from the other distribution outlets.
So yes they pick their poison. There is optimizing to be done though. It might be more profitable to cut loose a few thousand customers outside their service regions in order to keep the licensing costs for the content they need to retain their other customers down.