Probably about half the people who host their blog in 'The Cloud'. The other half think they're hosting it in America, but 'The Cloud' is actually in Europe and they're breaking various privacy laws without even realising.
Its not like you need to train on an ereader first before you buy a tablet. They're a fad , nothing more. In 10 years they'll be just another long forgotten footnote in tech history.
Tablets may be a fad, but they will still be here in ten years.
Oh, you meant e-readers? They exist because they're a fsck-load easier for most people to read on than a backlit LCD, and because losing a $60 e-ink Kindle when you leave it on your chair by the pool is much less disastrous than losing a $600 iPad where you stored all your login passwords.
Not only that, but before long e-ink e-readers will cost less than a hardback book. At that point they become pretty much disposable items.
Amazon is a search engine for stuff. You go there to search for stuff you want to buy and they arrange for you to buy it and take a percentage. They don't much care whether you buy a paperback or a laptop or a snow blower, or whether you buy direct from them or through a third party who sells through them. They just want a cut of all the money you spend on stuff.
Thinking of them as a traditional retailer is a mistake. They're not.
I like KDE myself but I can see why some people think it's too top heavy.
I prefer the term 'bloated pig'.
I tried KDE again recently because Canonical are about to obsolete the version of Ubuntu I'm running (the last with Gnome 2) and I took about a minute just to log in on an i5 system. A lot of that is probably loading the fancy graphics from disk rather than waiting for the CPU to do something, but I can live without fancy graphics.
A john's life destroyed? Hardly, especially not by an "employer" with half a brain.
You're going to employ someone with a history of hiring prostitutes, and risk a sexual harassment suit (real or made up) where they'll claim that it's all your fault because you hired this man knowing he had dubious morals and therefore you should pay them millions of dollars in damages?
This isn't exactly unusual when you have subs and surface ships in close proximity. If I remember correctly, the Royal Navy lost at least a couple of subs which sank after colliding with a surface vessel during anti-submarine training; admittedly decades ago when they had far less expensive electronic gadgetry to tell them where the other guy was.
Are you seriously claiming that you really, honestly believe that the majority of people want to be tracked by a zillion advertising sites all across the web, and only a minority object to that?
With a default of 'do not track', those who really want to be tracked can still turn it off.
They were paying for a lot of servers that were just idling because, per the GP, "it was best if a customer was within 50 miles of a data center."
If you need your servers to be within fifty miles of your customers for the service to be viable, you need a metric fsck-ton of servers installed all over the world, which completely defeats the point of a 'cloud' service.
That was actually a really good thing to do. Instead of profiteering, they tried to make the best of a bad situation for everyone.
Uh, no. It would be a really stupid thing to do.
Raising prices means that people who don't really need a drive right now wait for prices to drop, so the users who are willing to pay the higher prices to fulfill real needs can still buy theirs. Rationing means that a company which needs drives today in order to grow its business can't buy them because they're being sold below market price to Joe Sixpack who wants a bigger drive to store more downloaded pr0n.
Failure to reach the orbit that SpaceX claimed that they were going to put the satellite into is to me massive egg on the face of SpaceX and will make it harder to sell future flights unless they can provide some assurance that even the secondary payloads will be able to meet mission objectives.
Except it appears that the only reason for the 'failure to reach orbit' was that NASA said they couldn't restart the engine due to the possibility of hitting ISS if something went wrong. That only applies to flights to ISS, not to satellite launches.
As far as we know right now the engine didn't explode, and they have some blast shields to try to protect the other engines if it does. But I believe you're right about the failure rate calculations, you don't need a very high failure rate to have a reasonable chance to lose two engines out of ten.
On the other hand, I believe there's only one more flight using these rev C engines and the rev D will be flying soon. So it's quite possible that whatever caused this engine to fail won't affect the new ones anyway.
The astronauts could fly the Saturn V to orbit manually, though it was never done. They would probably get to a usable orbit, but I'd guess it was unlikely to be good enough to get to the Moon.
Apparently the second stage didn't hit the required orbit for NASA to allow them to restart it without risk of collision with ISS if something went wrong. So it looks like SpaceX could have restarted the stage but NASA didn't let them; it was a consequence of the first stage engine failure, not a second failure.
The Saturn V used a pitch and roll program early in the launch, then switched to closed-loop guidance. If I remember correctly, the digital computer calculated the ideal orientation to reach the desired orbit and an analogue computer tried to move the operational engines to achieve that. So the capability was limited, but it was there.
Apollo 6 lost two engines and, AFAIR, suffered partial breakup of the SLA panels covering the lunar module due to pogo. Apollo 13 lost one engine, which was fortunate because pogo had grown so bad that the Saturn V was on the verge of structural failure. If the engine hadn't failed, they'd have been parachuting back to Earth soon after.
I'm thinking that's because the orbiter was bolted onto the side of the launch vehicle.
To a large extent it's because it had wings. If you need wings to land and they fall off, you die.
Surviving a launch accident in a winged rocket is very hard, because you have to get from flying vertically to flying horizontally at supersonic speed without anything falling off. Normally the best you can do is fit ejection seats and cross your fingers as you pull the handle.
The X-20 with an escape rocket below the spacecraft was probably the closest to being survivable and the tests for that looked pretty hairy.
When the Saturn V lost an engine, that engine just turned off. This engine exploded.
1. As far as is known, this engine did not explode. 2. Apollo 13 pogo was within a few seconds of causing structural breakup of the Saturn V when the affected engine shut down.
Slashdot Mirror
No-one gives a crap about how much it cost to build, other than Microsoft. What matters is how much people are willing to pay for it.
Charging iPad prices for a Windows tablet makes about as much sense as charging Ferrari prices for a Ford Fiesta.
Or, if Microsoft is so good for (medical equipment) developers to base products on, than why can't the software be upgraded to support Windows 7 or 8?
My guess is: certifying medical software on a new OS costs about a gigazillion dollars and no-one is willing to pay for it.
Oh look, yet another vulnerability caused by allowing web pages to start random applications on your system.
Who ever thought that was a good idea?
How hard is it to manually count attendance? You have a degree in education but you cannot to the occasional headcount?
Education degrees don't teach you to count.
Obviously it's primarily about funding in this case. But it also provides documented evidence of whether kids are in class or not.
When I was at school, the kids would have loved this. No need to turn up, just get a friend to carry your RFID tag.
Probably about half the people who host their blog in 'The Cloud'. The other half think they're hosting it in America, but 'The Cloud' is actually in Europe and they're breaking various privacy laws without even realising.
Sounds like classic PEBKAC to me since the full KDE suite loads faster than that on my 1Ghz netbook.
Ah, good old 'blame the user'. I install KDE fresh from Ubuntu and it takes forever to load and therefore it's my fault.
And it takes nearly as long on my 1.6GHz netbook with an SSD running some different version of Ubuntu, so that would strongly suggest it's not.
Its not like you need to train on an ereader first before you buy a tablet. They're a fad , nothing more. In 10 years they'll be just another long forgotten footnote in tech history.
Tablets may be a fad, but they will still be here in ten years.
Oh, you meant e-readers? They exist because they're a fsck-load easier for most people to read on than a backlit LCD, and because losing a $60 e-ink Kindle when you leave it on your chair by the pool is much less disastrous than losing a $600 iPad where you stored all your login passwords.
Not only that, but before long e-ink e-readers will cost less than a hardback book. At that point they become pretty much disposable items.
Amazon is a search engine for stuff. You go there to search for stuff you want to buy and they arrange for you to buy it and take a percentage. They don't much care whether you buy a paperback or a laptop or a snow blower, or whether you buy direct from them or through a third party who sells through them. They just want a cut of all the money you spend on stuff.
Thinking of them as a traditional retailer is a mistake. They're not.
I like KDE myself but I can see why some people think it's too top heavy.
I prefer the term 'bloated pig'.
I tried KDE again recently because Canonical are about to obsolete the version of Ubuntu I'm running (the last with Gnome 2) and I took about a minute just to log in on an i5 system. A lot of that is probably loading the fancy graphics from disk rather than waiting for the CPU to do something, but I can live without fancy graphics.
And you're willing to risk a multi-million dollar law suit when you could just hire someone with no record instead?
A john's life destroyed? Hardly, especially not by an "employer" with half a brain.
You're going to employ someone with a history of hiring prostitutes, and risk a sexual harassment suit (real or made up) where they'll claim that it's all your fault because you hired this man knowing he had dubious morals and therefore you should pay them millions of dollars in damages?
This isn't exactly unusual when you have subs and surface ships in close proximity. If I remember correctly, the Royal Navy lost at least a couple of subs which sank after colliding with a surface vessel during anti-submarine training; admittedly decades ago when they had far less expensive electronic gadgetry to tell them where the other guy was.
DNT=1 needs to be set by the user to be useful.
Are you seriously claiming that you really, honestly believe that the majority of people want to be tracked by a zillion advertising sites all across the web, and only a minority object to that?
With a default of 'do not track', those who really want to be tracked can still turn it off.
That "stunt", which maybe it was, resulted in driving a lot of advances in microelectronics that led directly to the cool toys we have today.
No, it didn't. ICs existed before Apollo, and the primary benefit was ramping up production and pushing for improved reliability.
We would have gotten here without the space race, but it would have taken longer.
Indeed. We might still be using Core 2s. Not a big deal in the grand scheme of technology when most i5s and i3s spend most of their time idle.
Examples are many, but I'll just mention: GPS, Communication and Weather Satellites, The Internet and Xtube.
None of which have anything to do with Apollo. It was a great achievement with the technology of its time, but the 'spinoff' arguments are just bogus.
They were paying for a lot of servers that were just idling because, per the GP, "it was best if a customer was within 50 miles of a data center."
If you need your servers to be within fifty miles of your customers for the service to be viable, you need a metric fsck-ton of servers installed all over the world, which completely defeats the point of a 'cloud' service.
That was actually a really good thing to do. Instead of profiteering, they tried to make the best of a bad situation for everyone.
Uh, no. It would be a really stupid thing to do.
Raising prices means that people who don't really need a drive right now wait for prices to drop, so the users who are willing to pay the higher prices to fulfill real needs can still buy theirs. Rationing means that a company which needs drives today in order to grow its business can't buy them because they're being sold below market price to Joe Sixpack who wants a bigger drive to store more downloaded pr0n.
Failure to reach the orbit that SpaceX claimed that they were going to put the satellite into is to me massive egg on the face of SpaceX and will make it harder to sell future flights unless they can provide some assurance that even the secondary payloads will be able to meet mission objectives.
Except it appears that the only reason for the 'failure to reach orbit' was that NASA said they couldn't restart the engine due to the possibility of hitting ISS if something went wrong. That only applies to flights to ISS, not to satellite launches.
As far as we know right now the engine didn't explode, and they have some blast shields to try to protect the other engines if it does. But I believe you're right about the failure rate calculations, you don't need a very high failure rate to have a reasonable chance to lose two engines out of ten.
On the other hand, I believe there's only one more flight using these rev C engines and the rev D will be flying soon. So it's quite possible that whatever caused this engine to fail won't affect the new ones anyway.
The astronauts could fly the Saturn V to orbit manually, though it was never done. They would probably get to a usable orbit, but I'd guess it was unlikely to be good enough to get to the Moon.
Apparently the second stage didn't hit the required orbit for NASA to allow them to restart it without risk of collision with ISS if something went wrong. So it looks like SpaceX could have restarted the stage but NASA didn't let them; it was a consequence of the first stage engine failure, not a second failure.
The Saturn V used a pitch and roll program early in the launch, then switched to closed-loop guidance. If I remember correctly, the digital computer calculated the ideal orientation to reach the desired orbit and an analogue computer tried to move the operational engines to achieve that. So the capability was limited, but it was there.
News to me. Details anyone?
Apollo 6 lost two engines and, AFAIR, suffered partial breakup of the SLA panels covering the lunar module due to pogo.
Apollo 13 lost one engine, which was fortunate because pogo had grown so bad that the Saturn V was on the verge of structural failure. If the engine hadn't failed, they'd have been parachuting back to Earth soon after.
I'm thinking that's because the orbiter was bolted onto the side of the launch vehicle.
To a large extent it's because it had wings. If you need wings to land and they fall off, you die.
Surviving a launch accident in a winged rocket is very hard, because you have to get from flying vertically to flying horizontally at supersonic speed without anything falling off. Normally the best you can do is fit ejection seats and cross your fingers as you pull the handle.
The X-20 with an escape rocket below the spacecraft was probably the closest to being survivable and the tests for that looked pretty hairy.
When the Saturn V lost an engine, that engine just turned off. This engine exploded.
1. As far as is known, this engine did not explode.
2. Apollo 13 pogo was within a few seconds of causing structural breakup of the Saturn V when the affected engine shut down.