Here's a much better idea: just have the plane constantly online. The passengers will be happier anyway if they can access the internet from the 'comfort' of their seats, and the plane itself can log its location with HQ at any moment. Little telltale signs like, ohh, depressurisation, massive drops in altitude, etc. could immediately start a search and rescue operation, possibly before the impact has even taken place.
The technology is not only already there, it is in fact already installed on most planes anyway. The only thing missing is automatic and constant reporting of the planes' location.
Is anyone else noticing the political stance taken by the article that apparently "right-wing politics" and "trump supporter" are to be considered bad things?
Nobody seems to understand that those long console lifecycles were forced on the console manufacturers, not by a desire to provide a long life cycle (and thereby long-lasting value to the consumer), but by the need to recover the cost of developing the hardware in the first place. Now the situation is different: AMD is taking care of all the development, so the console manufacturers can simply refresh their consoles whenever they feel like. Compatibility is guaranteed because it is all PC hardware anyway. Now that the need for a long life cycle is gone, why would Sony or Microsoft sit idle while their hardware grows more obsolete by the minute?
XBox Two (would make sense, but that already disqualifies it)? XBox One-Two (also makes a little too much sense)? XBox 10 (would go nicely with Windows 10)? just "XBox" (reboot-style)?
After all the naming idiocy of the last few years I cannot wait to hear what madness they've come up with this time...
Disable javascript and CSS. Then disable the clipboard and the graphical environment. Then format your harddisk, take apart your PC, and throw every part into a fire. It will hurt as they burn, but at least you will be still alive.
Seriously, what sort of shitty advise is "disable javascript and CSS"? Might as well tell people to only ever browse with Lynx. Which basically means 'giving up on the world wide web as a whole'. That seems a rather drastic solution for working around a very, very minor problem in the first place. For one thing, if you run Windows none of this is a problem, so 99% of the worlds' population is already safe by default...
I think there is often a desire, rational or not, among programmers to want to redo things and make them "clean" (whatever that means)
Do you clean your house? Or are you living in a garbage belt? In quite a few people there is a desire, rational or not, not to have piles of garbage sitting around everywhere in their daily surroundings. The same is true for programmers, whether you have the skills to recognize that garbage or not. The problem here appears to be your complete lack of understanding of source code - as demonstrated by you needing to add "whatever that means".
Finally, the statement that "it's about correctly building a pipeline that won't be completely outdated in 10 years" seems to be pure wishful thinking.
Good luck with that- I doubt ANY development environment is going to survive for ten years. That's an eternity in the world of coding and development. Tools get outdated as capabilities and needs expand and mature. Hell, I doubt I'll even be using the same text editor in 10 years, let alone an entire development environment.
Funny that, I maintain a 20 year old system... Is it still running on the same development environment as 20 years ago? Of course not. It's a pretty damn clean piece of software, so it ports easily to anywhere I'd care to run it. Ooh, look, a _rational_ reason to want clean source code...
Well then, there's an easy solution. We (the public) should simply file copyright notices with youtube for every single piece of content uploaded by the offending parties, the moment it appears. Hot new movie trailer? Too bad, it's gone.
Fight them with their own weapons. Deny them access to the general public. And apologize afterwards with a shrug and "my bad, I thought I owned that copyright".
The 'hundreds' was merely to establish a sense of scale where I believe eradication is acceptable. In fact it's on the high side; I'm quite willing to get rid of some virus to save even a handful of people.
Doesn't anyone know how to explain this properly? An interface explains how you connect things together. It is a standard, meant to facilitate interaction between components from diverse parties. This particular interface facilitates interaction between java application programs on the one hand, and a java implementation on the other. (and that's why we call it an "Application Program Interface")
Everybody agrees that the java implementation is itself covered by copyright. The interface, however, is not, a fact established, I believe, explicitly by law, and by decades of historical precedent.
An interface is also clearly not the same as 'code'. An interface, all by itself, does not do anything - it cannot be compiled into an executable or a library. It is merely a set of agreements that the (copyrighted) implementation, and the application program, conform to, stated in such a way as to be readable and verifyable by a computer.
***Vimium***!? Look, if you want to use vi-style keys, just go all the way and use 'X' as your 'go back one page' key. Or switch the browser to 'browsing mode'. Or define a:back command to go back one page. Do whatever dumb shit makes you happy, but leave us out of it.
I've lost countless emails to shitty webmail deciding I really need focus somewhere unexpected, and returning me to the login page. It's way past time we got rid of this madness.
A virus is about as 'alive' as the average piece of computer software, and when it comes down to the choice of the death of hundreds of people, or the virus, the choice should be easy enough. That some people apparently have so much trouble with their moral compass that they believe there is in fact some kind of ethical trade off here scares me.
Not that size matters: I'm also happily in favor of fully eradicating other diseases and parasites, including multicellular ones. Anything that only causes untold grief and misery, and has no benefit other than its own miserable existence, I have no compunction removing from the planet.
Can it be reversed? How do you give back lost time, a stolen life? Letting someone walk free at age 70 after they were removed from society and locked in a box at age 20 is not "reversing the punishment", it is in fact making it a thousand times more bitter.
And as for the death penalty being more expensive, I'm not sure what creative accounting nets you that result, but it cannot possibly be true. Bullets are cheaper than housing and food for an entire human lifespan.
What "sound design practices" would those be? As far as I can tell, the choice is still either full denial (resulting in not being able to use the software), or the keys to the kingdom (based on whether you trust that the developer is kosher and his website has not been compromised). There is no middle ground - "install this, but keep it locked in a sandbox".
And Linux is just as bad. So what if the OS protects itself from the users? The OS has literally zero value; if it gets wiped, it's 30 minutes work to rebuild it from scratch, less if you made an image. It's the _data_ that is on the machine, completely unprotected by all those clever permission schemes, that will be lost if any compromised software is allowed to run. If you run "rm -rf/", you remove precisely all the files anyone cares about.
The Linux permission schema was designed when computers were hulking beasts that shared limited resources between many users that needed protection from each other. We then moved through personal (i.e. single user) computers where such protection is of limited use, to today's practice of having each application running in a container - providing data protection in the form of a kind of meta-OS, since the main OS is clearly just not capable enough.
The whole thing, whether in Windows or in Linux, is just one big clusterfuck of endless wasted effort solving entirely the wrong problem.
Last week I visited the monument of Che Guevara in Santa Clara, Cuba. And while I was making photos, I suddenly wondered: if this guy can get a monument, will Breivik get one in the future? After all, they both killed for ideological reasons. And while Breivik is currently in jail, the way the political winds are blowing in Europe, it is not impossible that he will be considered an early revolutionary a decade from now - with all the respect that comes with such a title.
Oh, I'll bite then. _How long_ is each offer made by your company open? And how long is the time delay any bidders can expect to incur while making that offer?
They may have been 'homegrown', but always children of recent islamic immigrants. One of the Belgian guys was not a 'common small time hood', he was a known terrorist nicknamed "the bomb maker", who was recently deported from Turkey, and had a warning issued about his terrorist activities by Turkey at that time (one wonders why he was out and about).
Whether or not they felt alienated is not known at this time, as is whether they were religious or not. They felt sufficiently religious, however, that blowing themselves up (and receiving the islamic reward of 72 virgins) was considered worthwhile by them. Finally, ISIS pays between $200 and $600 per month. Belgium social security is 834 euro/month ('leefloon alleenstaande'), so it is doubtful that financial concerns played into this.
High frequency traders do the ***exact same thing***: they place orders they have no intention whatsoever of following up on.
The stock market needs a simple rule: every offer, every transaction, needs to come with a 24h cooldown period. That will wipe out the lot of them, and restore some order and sanity to the market.
"On July 2009 NASA and ESA signed the Mars Exploration Joint Initiative, which proposed to utilize an Atlas rocket launcher instead of a Soyuz, which significantly altered the technical and financial setting of the ExoMars mission."
"Under the FY2013 Budget President Obama released on 13 February 2012, NASA terminated its participation in ExoMars due to budgetary cuts in order to pay for the cost overruns of the James Webb Space Telescope.[21][22] With NASA's funding for this project completely cancelled, most of these plans had to be restructured."
True. Although I should probably add I've already been working for twenty years; I'm not a student anymore, and I've had the opportunity to save money. The rest is simply balancing housing needs against income. Let's face it: the vast majority of people buy the biggest house they can (and a big car, and a giant flatscreen), and then complain about lacking money. Paying off debt of any kind is not an issue to them; they honestly believe the bank is doing them a favor by lending to them. If that's how you want to live your life, great, go for it, but don't come crying when others can fulfill their dreams...
Slashdot Mirror
And yet, you keep coming back to slashbot. I mean slashdot.
Here's a much better idea: just have the plane constantly online. The passengers will be happier anyway if they can access the internet from the 'comfort' of their seats, and the plane itself can log its location with HQ at any moment. Little telltale signs like, ohh, depressurisation, massive drops in altitude, etc. could immediately start a search and rescue operation, possibly before the impact has even taken place.
The technology is not only already there, it is in fact already installed on most planes anyway. The only thing missing is automatic and constant reporting of the planes' location.
Is anyone else noticing the political stance taken by the article that apparently "right-wing politics" and "trump supporter" are to be considered bad things?
Nobody seems to understand that those long console lifecycles were forced on the console manufacturers, not by a desire to provide a long life cycle (and thereby long-lasting value to the consumer), but by the need to recover the cost of developing the hardware in the first place. Now the situation is different: AMD is taking care of all the development, so the console manufacturers can simply refresh their consoles whenever they feel like. Compatibility is guaranteed because it is all PC hardware anyway. Now that the need for a long life cycle is gone, why would Sony or Microsoft sit idle while their hardware grows more obsolete by the minute?
XBox Two (would make sense, but that already disqualifies it)? XBox One-Two (also makes a little too much sense)? XBox 10 (would go nicely with Windows 10)? just "XBox" (reboot-style)?
After all the naming idiocy of the last few years I cannot wait to hear what madness they've come up with this time...
Disable javascript and CSS. Then disable the clipboard and the graphical environment. Then format your harddisk, take apart your PC, and throw every part into a fire. It will hurt as they burn, but at least you will be still alive.
Seriously, what sort of shitty advise is "disable javascript and CSS"? Might as well tell people to only ever browse with Lynx. Which basically means 'giving up on the world wide web as a whole'. That seems a rather drastic solution for working around a very, very minor problem in the first place. For one thing, if you run Windows none of this is a problem, so 99% of the worlds' population is already safe by default...
I think there is often a desire, rational or not, among programmers to want to redo things and make them "clean" (whatever that means)
Do you clean your house? Or are you living in a garbage belt? In quite a few people there is a desire, rational or not, not to have piles of garbage sitting around everywhere in their daily surroundings. The same is true for programmers, whether you have the skills to recognize that garbage or not. The problem here appears to be your complete lack of understanding of source code - as demonstrated by you needing to add "whatever that means".
Finally, the statement that "it's about correctly building a pipeline that won't be completely outdated in 10 years" seems to be pure wishful thinking.
Good luck with that- I doubt ANY development environment is going to survive for ten years. That's an eternity in the world of coding and development. Tools get outdated as capabilities and needs expand and mature. Hell, I doubt I'll even be using the same text editor in 10 years, let alone an entire development environment.
Funny that, I maintain a 20 year old system... Is it still running on the same development environment as 20 years ago? Of course not. It's a pretty damn clean piece of software, so it ports easily to anywhere I'd care to run it. Ooh, look, a _rational_ reason to want clean source code...
Well then, there's an easy solution. We (the public) should simply file copyright notices with youtube for every single piece of content uploaded by the offending parties, the moment it appears. Hot new movie trailer? Too bad, it's gone.
Fight them with their own weapons. Deny them access to the general public. And apologize afterwards with a shrug and "my bad, I thought I owned that copyright".
The 'hundreds' was merely to establish a sense of scale where I believe eradication is acceptable. In fact it's on the high side; I'm quite willing to get rid of some virus to save even a handful of people.
Doesn't anyone know how to explain this properly? An interface explains how you connect things together. It is a standard, meant to facilitate interaction between components from diverse parties. This particular interface facilitates interaction between java application programs on the one hand, and a java implementation on the other. (and that's why we call it an "Application Program Interface")
Everybody agrees that the java implementation is itself covered by copyright. The interface, however, is not, a fact established, I believe, explicitly by law, and by decades of historical precedent.
An interface is also clearly not the same as 'code'. An interface, all by itself, does not do anything - it cannot be compiled into an executable or a library. It is merely a set of agreements that the (copyrighted) implementation, and the application program, conform to, stated in such a way as to be readable and verifyable by a computer.
***Vimium***!? Look, if you want to use vi-style keys, just go all the way and use 'X' as your 'go back one page' key. Or switch the browser to 'browsing mode'. Or define a :back command to go back one page. Do whatever dumb shit makes you happy, but leave us out of it.
I've lost countless emails to shitty webmail deciding I really need focus somewhere unexpected, and returning me to the login page. It's way past time we got rid of this madness.
A virus is about as 'alive' as the average piece of computer software, and when it comes down to the choice of the death of hundreds of people, or the virus, the choice should be easy enough. That some people apparently have so much trouble with their moral compass that they believe there is in fact some kind of ethical trade off here scares me.
Not that size matters: I'm also happily in favor of fully eradicating other diseases and parasites, including multicellular ones. Anything that only causes untold grief and misery, and has no benefit other than its own miserable existence, I have no compunction removing from the planet.
Can it be reversed? How do you give back lost time, a stolen life? Letting someone walk free at age 70 after they were removed from society and locked in a box at age 20 is not "reversing the punishment", it is in fact making it a thousand times more bitter.
And as for the death penalty being more expensive, I'm not sure what creative accounting nets you that result, but it cannot possibly be true. Bullets are cheaper than housing and food for an entire human lifespan.
the Pokemon universe and game play translates the very best to an MMO.
And as you know, they wanna be the very best, like no one ever was.
What "sound design practices" would those be? As far as I can tell, the choice is still either full denial (resulting in not being able to use the software), or the keys to the kingdom (based on whether you trust that the developer is kosher and his website has not been compromised). There is no middle ground - "install this, but keep it locked in a sandbox".
And Linux is just as bad. So what if the OS protects itself from the users? The OS has literally zero value; if it gets wiped, it's 30 minutes work to rebuild it from scratch, less if you made an image. It's the _data_ that is on the machine, completely unprotected by all those clever permission schemes, that will be lost if any compromised software is allowed to run. If you run "rm -rf /", you remove precisely all the files anyone cares about.
The Linux permission schema was designed when computers were hulking beasts that shared limited resources between many users that needed protection from each other. We then moved through personal (i.e. single user) computers where such protection is of limited use, to today's practice of having each application running in a container - providing data protection in the form of a kind of meta-OS, since the main OS is clearly just not capable enough.
The whole thing, whether in Windows or in Linux, is just one big clusterfuck of endless wasted effort solving entirely the wrong problem.
Last week I visited the monument of Che Guevara in Santa Clara, Cuba. And while I was making photos, I suddenly wondered: if this guy can get a monument, will Breivik get one in the future? After all, they both killed for ideological reasons. And while Breivik is currently in jail, the way the political winds are blowing in Europe, it is not impossible that he will be considered an early revolutionary a decade from now - with all the respect that comes with such a title.
I was thinking about "Space Launch System/d" ;-)
Freedom _would_ be free if there were a GNU/Launch. Let's show them how it's done! Who is with me?
That's a local word, right? I don't know what it means but it sounds bad!
Oh, I'll bite then. _How long_ is each offer made by your company open? And how long is the time delay any bidders can expect to incur while making that offer?
Go on, I'll wait...
They may have been 'homegrown', but always children of recent islamic immigrants. One of the Belgian guys was not a 'common small time hood', he was a known terrorist nicknamed "the bomb maker", who was recently deported from Turkey, and had a warning issued about his terrorist activities by Turkey at that time (one wonders why he was out and about).
Whether or not they felt alienated is not known at this time, as is whether they were religious or not. They felt sufficiently religious, however, that blowing themselves up (and receiving the islamic reward of 72 virgins) was considered worthwhile by them. Finally, ISIS pays between $200 and $600 per month. Belgium social security is 834 euro/month ('leefloon alleenstaande'), so it is doubtful that financial concerns played into this.
So much for your 'facts', then...
High frequency traders do the ***exact same thing***: they place orders they have no intention whatsoever of following up on.
The stock market needs a simple rule: every offer, every transaction, needs to come with a 24h cooldown period. That will wipe out the lot of them, and restore some order and sanity to the market.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"On July 2009 NASA and ESA signed the Mars Exploration Joint Initiative, which proposed to utilize an Atlas rocket launcher instead of a Soyuz, which significantly altered the technical and financial setting of the ExoMars mission."
"Under the FY2013 Budget President Obama released on 13 February 2012, NASA terminated its participation in ExoMars due to budgetary cuts in order to pay for the cost overruns of the James Webb Space Telescope.[21][22] With NASA's funding for this project completely cancelled, most of these plans had to be restructured."
True. Although I should probably add I've already been working for twenty years; I'm not a student anymore, and I've had the opportunity to save money. The rest is simply balancing housing needs against income. Let's face it: the vast majority of people buy the biggest house they can (and a big car, and a giant flatscreen), and then complain about lacking money. Paying off debt of any kind is not an issue to them; they honestly believe the bank is doing them a favor by lending to them. If that's how you want to live your life, great, go for it, but don't come crying when others can fulfill their dreams...
Correct ;-) No kids either.