Ah, welcome to DLL Hell. I totally want every crappy little application installing its own copy of system libraries with their own collection of security holes.
Gnome, bringing Linux the worst features of Windows since the late 20th Century.
Someone below posted a similar bug with a different model of SSD. 'Update the firmware' seems to be a regular occurrence once you start using SSDs; so far I've never had to update the firmware on a hard drive.
Or buy an Intel 310 (I think? it's the one I have in my home server) SSD which would randomly boot up claiming to be 8MB and require a secure wipe to recover.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- managing identity is a quintessential government function, and should be handled by the government online as well.
Oh, yes. Let's let a gang of psychopaths with guns own our online lives. They would never think of creating fake identities for themselves, selling our identity to others, or simply deleting or blocking our ID and preventing us from accessing anything.
I thought this would only be a problem for people who are afraid to muck around in their bios. The situation is that even tech-savy users can't turn this shit off?
1. That makes life painful for non-techies who want to install Linux and can currently just boot from a CD or USB installer with no BIOS changes. 2. As soon as Microsoft can demand that this be made compulsory, they will.
Oh, sorry, I forgot 'the slippery slope is a logical fallacy', so Microsoft couldn't possibly ever do that.
Without the full downside risk high frequency trading takea on an appearance of a club where the superrich bilk regular imvestors and tilt the playing field in theor own favor.
One of the things GTA and other open world games got wrong is that you screw up the pacing of the game when you give the player too much freedom and players end up getting seriously bored because the space between activities is long and usually tedious.
Uh, what?
The biggest problem with the GTA games is that they force you to do boring missions to unlocks the fun open world stuff. They need less boring missions that require you to fail six times before you pass and drive right across the map each time, and more fun stuff.
Yeah, because the US Air Force fighter that flies from fixed runways doesn't have to be designed into an airframe which is required to support a hugely complex fan and vectored thrust system for vertical landings on Marine carriers.
I believe you'll find that the F-35's design is largely driven by the Navy and Marine requirements, since pretty much the same airframe has to operate from land, traditional carriers and VTOL from small carriers.
Meanwhile, in the real world, beyond-visual-range fighting tends to be rare because rules of engagement generally require that you can be certain you're shooting at a bad guy.
Many of those countries 'use you as a proxy army' because the US government didn't want those countries to be military competitors post-WW2. While that may have been a sensible policy, you can hardly blame them for something the US government itself encouraged.
High income taxes are the primary means the rich use to eliminate competition; they are a huge barrier to anyone trying to raise enough capital to build a small business, while they have little impact on the rich because most of their income isn't classed as 'income'.
They rely on the 'tax the rich!' useful idiots such as yourself, then laugh behind your back at how you're supporting taxes they use to screw you.
The Saturn V was the most cost efficient heavy lift launch vehicle to fly.
That's like saying the new Ferrari will be the most cost-efficient Ferrari ever built. It's still expensive.
And, I suspect those numbers don't include the development cost, whereas SpaceX actually have to pay for developing their launcher as well as flying it. I did some quick sums based on numbers I found on the web including development costs and got a number closer to $20,000 a pound.
The problem with that approach is that the stack has to carry more fuel at takeoff which requires more engine power to lift the stack since it's heavier which requires more fuel to provide that power which requires bigger tanks... OTOH more efficient engines mean more payload delivered to orbit for the same amount of fuel and vehicle structure.
But at a higher cost. Fuel is cheap, fuel tanks are cheap, engines are expensive.
The F-1 is extremely inefficient compared to the SSME or even the J-2, but was used for the reason you state; an 'efficient' LOX/LH2 first stage would have been so large that it would have been difficult to build and operate using KSC infrastructure. Most of the potentially viable SSTO designs I've seen use LOX/Kerosene engines for similar reasons even though they're far less efficient than LOX/LH2.
Saturn V wasn't used to boost large payloads to LEO with the exception of Skylab. False comparison.
Uh, what do you think an Apollo mission was?
One supposes that it might be economical if it's properly mass produced and not required to be man-rated.
Yes. Now perhaps you can explain where all these 150 ton payloads are that need a mass-produced heavy lifter that will, at least initially, cost billions of dollars per flight?
Hint: they don't exist. There's no budgeted payload for this launcher.
Generally speaking, in rocket design, 'efficient' == 'expensive, temperamental, and hard to reuse'. Fuel is cheap, engines are expensive, so if you can throw more fuel at the problem you're usually better off than getting the last 10% efficiency out of the engine through complex design and materials.
Slashdot Mirror
I've tried Voice Search on Android. The results usually don't even vaguely resemble what I asked for.
You should read the two sentences preceding your quote as well. Existing laptops and desktops remain the primary focus.
Clearly not, since it's such a crappy interface for those devices.
Ah, welcome to DLL Hell. I totally want every crappy little application installing its own copy of system libraries with their own collection of security holes.
Gnome, bringing Linux the worst features of Windows since the late 20th Century.
last year is years ago?
Indeed. The drive didn't even exist 'years ago'.
Someone below posted a similar bug with a different model of SSD. 'Update the firmware' seems to be a regular occurrence once you start using SSDs; so far I've never had to update the firmware on a hard drive.
Or buy an Intel 310 (I think? it's the one I have in my home server) SSD which would randomly boot up claiming to be 8MB and require a secure wipe to recover.
Hopefully the firmware update fixed that one.
Google makes Android hardware, why isn't anyone complaining about that?
Because Google don't have an established history of wiping out their 'partners'?
Recall the Linux on netbook failure for evidence.
Didn't Microsoft have to start giving Windows to netbook OEMs for free so they'd stop shipping Linux?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- managing identity is a quintessential government function, and should be handled by the government online as well.
Oh, yes. Let's let a gang of psychopaths with guns own our online lives. They would never think of creating fake identities for themselves, selling our identity to others, or simply deleting or blocking our ID and preventing us from accessing anything.
Entanglement communication is far more interesting. Spooky, distant, simultaneous communication? Yes please.
Just a shame there's no actual communication involved, and no way to send information.
Yes, because Microsoft would never, ever, even possibly ever imagine thinking of making it compulsory on x86.
I thought this would only be a problem for people who are afraid to muck around in their bios. The situation is that even tech-savy users can't turn this shit off?
1. That makes life painful for non-techies who want to install Linux and can currently just boot from a CD or USB installer with no BIOS changes.
2. As soon as Microsoft can demand that this be made compulsory, they will.
Oh, sorry, I forgot 'the slippery slope is a logical fallacy', so Microsoft couldn't possibly ever do that.
God forbid in this day of malware, server breaches, and root kits, someone should be triumphing that over usability.
Indeed. If only people would dump Windows and run Linux, we'd all be better off.
Don't worry, someone will be along in a second to tell you that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy, so that could never, ever happen.
I wonder how any government can think this kind of "trading" (more like gambling) does any good to the world.
Because the banks donate large amounts to their election campaigns.
Without the full downside risk high frequency trading takea on an appearance of a club where the superrich bilk regular imvestors and tilt the playing field in theor own favor.
Like the rest of the stock market, you mean?
One of the things GTA and other open world games got wrong is that you screw up the pacing of the game when you give the player too much freedom and players end up getting seriously bored because the space between activities is long and usually tedious.
Uh, what?
The biggest problem with the GTA games is that they force you to do boring missions to unlocks the fun open world stuff. They need less boring missions that require you to fail six times before you pass and drive right across the map each time, and more fun stuff.
That's STOVL, not VTOL. Big difference.
Yeah, because the US Air Force fighter that flies from fixed runways doesn't have to be designed into an airframe which is required to support a hugely complex fan and vectored thrust system for vertical landings on Marine carriers.
Oh, wait...
I believe you'll find that the F-35's design is largely driven by the Navy and Marine requirements, since pretty much the same airframe has to operate from land, traditional carriers and VTOL from small carriers.
Meanwhile, in the real world, beyond-visual-range fighting tends to be rare because rules of engagement generally require that you can be certain you're shooting at a bad guy.
Many of those countries 'use you as a proxy army' because the US government didn't want those countries to be military competitors post-WW2. While that may have been a sensible policy, you can hardly blame them for something the US government itself encouraged.
High income taxes are the primary means the rich use to eliminate competition; they are a huge barrier to anyone trying to raise enough capital to build a small business, while they have little impact on the rich because most of their income isn't classed as 'income'.
They rely on the 'tax the rich!' useful idiots such as yourself, then laugh behind your back at how you're supporting taxes they use to screw you.
The Saturn V was the most cost efficient heavy lift launch vehicle to fly.
That's like saying the new Ferrari will be the most cost-efficient Ferrari ever built. It's still expensive.
And, I suspect those numbers don't include the development cost, whereas SpaceX actually have to pay for developing their launcher as well as flying it. I did some quick sums based on numbers I found on the web including development costs and got a number closer to $20,000 a pound.
The problem with that approach is that the stack has to carry more fuel at takeoff which requires more engine power to lift the stack since it's heavier which requires more fuel to provide that power which requires bigger tanks... OTOH more efficient engines mean more payload delivered to orbit for the same amount of fuel and vehicle structure.
But at a higher cost. Fuel is cheap, fuel tanks are cheap, engines are expensive.
The F-1 is extremely inefficient compared to the SSME or even the J-2, but was used for the reason you state; an 'efficient' LOX/LH2 first stage would have been so large that it would have been difficult to build and operate using KSC infrastructure. Most of the potentially viable SSTO designs I've seen use LOX/Kerosene engines for similar reasons even though they're far less efficient than LOX/LH2.
Saturn V wasn't used to boost large payloads to LEO with the exception of Skylab. False comparison.
Uh, what do you think an Apollo mission was?
One supposes that it might be economical if it's properly mass produced and not required to be man-rated.
Yes. Now perhaps you can explain where all these 150 ton payloads are that need a mass-produced heavy lifter that will, at least initially, cost billions of dollars per flight?
Hint: they don't exist. There's no budgeted payload for this launcher.
Generally speaking, in rocket design, 'efficient' == 'expensive, temperamental, and hard to reuse'. Fuel is cheap, engines are expensive, so if you can throw more fuel at the problem you're usually better off than getting the last 10% efficiency out of the engine through complex design and materials.