Or if the exponential increase in funding would actually result in more happening.
Trust me, throwing money at a problem doesn't, in of itself, solve that problem. Money is certainly necessary, but spending the correct amount of money and providing proper oversight of how that money is allocated and spent is essential. Otherwise we're back to the dotcom bubble again, where venture capitalists were throwing millions upon millions of dollars at people who had no effective ideas but managed to put up a good marketing website.
I want SpaceX to succeed. First they have to succeed in this important early step. Then they have to succeed with the same step several more times without failures. Then, they need to move on to the second step, a man-rated capsule, and repeat that step several more times too. Once that is achieved we can consider how we allocate more money to them, but we have to reward only success and to demand nothing less than success. That's been part of the problem of the old military/industrial complex, especially as it applies to cutting edge, it tends to throw more and more money at systems that are marginally effective or outright not effective. That has to stop.
Flaws in existing encryption techniques are found from time to time. Theoretical computer power doubles every eighteen months. Home computer owners sign up for distributed computing processing projects without really knowing what they're processing, essentially trusting the project leaders to use their computer power altruistically.
I'm sure that there are other possible vectors of attack that can break "unbreakable" encryption. Obviously a lot of information would go obsolete in time, like itineraries, plans that get carried out before encryption is broken, etc, but sometimes that information can be used to fill in pieces of who did something or planned something. Obviously longer-term plans or permanent or semi-permanent installations (like locations of sensitive materials) might still be relevant when encryption is finally broken.
Except we never had a true depressurization-only event. We had a failure at launch due to conditions that exceeded the design of a part that caused catastrophic destruction of the craft, and we had a re-entry failure due to damage to protective devices allowing the atmosphere to burn into a non-pressurized, structural part of the craft, which tore the craft to pieces due to friction.
I forgot nothing of the kind. I cited the removal of the latex coating from the external fuel tank. If you'd done your research, you'd know that this latex coating is what originally isolated the foam from the atmosphere as the tank flew through open air, and kept the foam from breaking off since it wouldn't condensate water from the air and wouldn't be directly subjected to such strong friction through the air.
On the other hand, false positive or real positive, one can possibly seek our medical insurance without having a documented pre-existing condition, and might actually qualify before the expensive regimen of drugs is prescribed to prolong life.
<singing>One of these things, is not like the others... One of these things, does not belong.</singing>
Seriously. A test is not a treatment. It's diagnostic procedure. Those should be fast-tracked if they're reasonably reliable, and so noninvasive as to not require a professional to accurately administer.
And, you could argue that the Soviet's space shuttle was superior to ours (USA). I remember watching a documentary on it and it's first flight was completely computer controlled.
And it also depressurized and had it been manned, the crew would have been killed.
It might have had some additional technology that ours lacked, but initially our shuttles all flew. Modifying from initial design parameters (ie, launching when too cold, removing the latex coating from the external fuel tank) is what killed our crews, and ultimately confidence in the program.
Yes, but he was not sent up for a telescope. He was sent up to negotiate with some hyperintelligent mice to trade the Answer for some new matter-antimatter propulsion technology to enable mankind to travel across the Eighth Dimension and retrieve the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch.
The shuttle as promised and the shuttle as delivered were not the same craft. The original idea was that it was a rocket-assist plane that could land and be turned around to fly again in a matter of days or weeks, and that shuttles would be constantly flying, likely more than one mission at a time.
There have also been discussions that American military/industrial/aerospace developments weren't really because we wanted to push the boundaries of what we could do, but that we wanted to get the Russians to try to do something that they couldn't afford. If you look at the idea of defensive platforms in space, coupled with the shuttle, the aerial laser, and other ideas, you have an extremely expensive set of tech to develop. Not so expensive that the US couldn't afford to expend resources in those directions, but that possibly the Russians couldn't but would try anyway, ultimately breaking their own economy in the process. Given the way the Soviet Union broke up, it arguably worked.
At least videos that manufacturers and marketers put up on Youtube, if they're good, can get a lot of attention. That Honda ad with Matthew Broderick, the Scion ad with the babes in bikinis eating donuts while one drives the new car doing donuts, etc... Plus the ads can be longer than fifteen, thirty, or sixty seconds, and if they're quality ads where they're amusing or informative beyond the normal "THIS IS OUR PRODUCT LOOK AT OUR PRODUCT" that you get in a minutes, they can be much more effective.
Putting an ad video on Youtube (not as an ad, as a video) allows anyone to view it and allows references to it to be pushed through any number of means, not just through Facebook. This means more vectors for the ad to become "viral", and the more that see it, the better it is for the company.
I won't be impressed until they give the user the extended frequency possibilities of his visor. But, if one remembers how things looked when they showed his visor input to the bridge crew, it wasn't exactly Vision++...
Seriously, there was a day and age when "magnets = bad" was the mantra. What kind of problems should this guy actually see with his gear, long term, subjecting it to strong magnetism? Will this mess with the memory in the device? Will this accelerate problems like tin whiskers?
I would like to know how efficiently they're using what they've got, and from someone who isn't them or paid by them. A lot of companies build for new features and a rapid release schedule rather than for efficiency.
When did it change to where the government could get records from a private company about a private individual without a court-issued Warrant? Didn't the whole "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." part of the fourth amendment cover private data as effects, or as an electronic version of papers?
If law enforcement feels they need data on a person's whereabouts, and if there's a log of these whereabouts, they should fairly easily be able to make an argument to a judge that they need this information. If they can't find a judge that will grant them this data, then the checks and balances portion of the three-part government worked. It's not like the data is going anywhere if they don't get to it NOW...
I've driven B-series Ram Vans for a decade at work, along with various GM and Ford designs. The Ford Econoline is not as good and still has the twin-I-beam front end- the GM is a little better.
From a commercial standpoint, the sameness in the body is actually a good thing, as there are basically 30 years of vans that can all be upfitted the same. They may not be as desirable from a home buyer perspective, but if one's old van is finally worn out, all of the shelving and other upgrades can simply be moved into the new van.
I won't deny that the B-series needed an overhaul or a new model, for things like wider-opening back doors, lower load height, etc, but the Sprinter was much taller than the B-series, and far less suited to urban environments. They've attempted to take the Minivan into that realm, but it's not really rated to tow what a work van could be expected to tow, and they haven't made a real, solid-side cargo version since the very first generation of the minivan.
Last I checked, it's possible for Google's mail to use SMTP and POP3. Whether or not the institution chooses that is not the same as it being impossible or even difficult to implement. We use Google for our e-mail at work, with our own domain, etc, and we have SMTP and POP3 enabled.
As an employer there are laws on data retention, so faculty and staff e-mail has to be retained for legal purposes.
At this point I think it's foolish for students to expect e-mail at school to remain unarchived. Both free and paid private e-mail services are available all over the place.
As an employee I use work e-mail for only work-related purposes. Nothing private. In college this would be a good lesson for students to learn- use academia e-mail for "work" related purposes, as they'll have to do in their professional lives later.
No, but there are plenty of us looking for a unit that doesn't have an integrated display, capable of being used as a frontend for MythTV or some other kind of video on demand home system. PoE isn't essential, but could be handy in environments where there's already a lot of other devices hogging available power where the display resides.
The designers of the Raspberry Pi system are strongly considering PoE in their next incarnation. Depending on its capabilities it might do what I need, even if I have to fashion an enclosure for it.
I wouldn't be surprised if it can do X11 natively. I had an ancient HP Envizex i-series terminal that could, once it pulled its operating environment down off of an FTP server.
I guess I don't feel threatened; I've had a career installing, maintaining, and repairing the very machines that supposedly replace people, and I've observed that while there have been some labor reductions in some segments of the workforce because of automation technology, a whole lot of those jobs lost were really unpleasant to have anyway. I would rather we push an education initiative to actually teach our kids to do more with their lives than to just grab part X from assemblyline 3B, apply a bead of adhesive to it, and place it on assemblyline 4B.
There will probably always be a need for service people, so those truly unteachable will still be able to do something for an occupation. There certainly are tasks where it will never be cost effective to replace a person with a mechanical device, where every single task is different, or where machines can't be easily introduced into an environment relative to the simplicity of the task for humans.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, well, you don't have to be a Rocket Surgeon to figure that one out!
Or if the exponential increase in funding would actually result in more happening.
Trust me, throwing money at a problem doesn't, in of itself, solve that problem. Money is certainly necessary, but spending the correct amount of money and providing proper oversight of how that money is allocated and spent is essential. Otherwise we're back to the dotcom bubble again, where venture capitalists were throwing millions upon millions of dollars at people who had no effective ideas but managed to put up a good marketing website.
I want SpaceX to succeed. First they have to succeed in this important early step. Then they have to succeed with the same step several more times without failures. Then, they need to move on to the second step, a man-rated capsule, and repeat that step several more times too. Once that is achieved we can consider how we allocate more money to them, but we have to reward only success and to demand nothing less than success. That's been part of the problem of the old military/industrial complex, especially as it applies to cutting edge, it tends to throw more and more money at systems that are marginally effective or outright not effective. That has to stop.
Flaws in existing encryption techniques are found from time to time. Theoretical computer power doubles every eighteen months. Home computer owners sign up for distributed computing processing projects without really knowing what they're processing, essentially trusting the project leaders to use their computer power altruistically.
I'm sure that there are other possible vectors of attack that can break "unbreakable" encryption. Obviously a lot of information would go obsolete in time, like itineraries, plans that get carried out before encryption is broken, etc, but sometimes that information can be used to fill in pieces of who did something or planned something. Obviously longer-term plans or permanent or semi-permanent installations (like locations of sensitive materials) might still be relevant when encryption is finally broken.
Quality Engineer: "Sir! This entire batch, tens of thousands of units! If we put them into normal conditions they'll blow with overcurrent!"
Senior VP: "Oh hell, what are we going to do? The board'll have our asses!"
Marketing: "I have an idea! We'll market these as self-destructable chips!"
Senior VP: "BRILLIANT!"
Except we never had a true depressurization-only event. We had a failure at launch due to conditions that exceeded the design of a part that caused catastrophic destruction of the craft, and we had a re-entry failure due to damage to protective devices allowing the atmosphere to burn into a non-pressurized, structural part of the craft, which tore the craft to pieces due to friction.
I forgot nothing of the kind. I cited the removal of the latex coating from the external fuel tank. If you'd done your research, you'd know that this latex coating is what originally isolated the foam from the atmosphere as the tank flew through open air, and kept the foam from breaking off since it wouldn't condensate water from the air and wouldn't be directly subjected to such strong friction through the air.
On the other hand, false positive or real positive, one can possibly seek our medical insurance without having a documented pre-existing condition, and might actually qualify before the expensive regimen of drugs is prescribed to prolong life.
A drug, a treatment, and a swab test.
<singing>One of these things, is not like the others... One of these things, does not belong.</singing>
Seriously. A test is not a treatment. It's diagnostic procedure. Those should be fast-tracked if they're reasonably reliable, and so noninvasive as to not require a professional to accurately administer.
And it also depressurized and had it been manned, the crew would have been killed.
It might have had some additional technology that ours lacked, but initially our shuttles all flew. Modifying from initial design parameters (ie, launching when too cold, removing the latex coating from the external fuel tank) is what killed our crews, and ultimately confidence in the program.
Hipsters don't buy anything. That's for other people. They were in to buying things before everyone was doing it.
Yes, but he was not sent up for a telescope. He was sent up to negotiate with some hyperintelligent mice to trade the Answer for some new matter-antimatter propulsion technology to enable mankind to travel across the Eighth Dimension and retrieve the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch.
Swear to god!
The shuttle as promised and the shuttle as delivered were not the same craft. The original idea was that it was a rocket-assist plane that could land and be turned around to fly again in a matter of days or weeks, and that shuttles would be constantly flying, likely more than one mission at a time.
There have also been discussions that American military/industrial/aerospace developments weren't really because we wanted to push the boundaries of what we could do, but that we wanted to get the Russians to try to do something that they couldn't afford. If you look at the idea of defensive platforms in space, coupled with the shuttle, the aerial laser, and other ideas, you have an extremely expensive set of tech to develop. Not so expensive that the US couldn't afford to expend resources in those directions, but that possibly the Russians couldn't but would try anyway, ultimately breaking their own economy in the process. Given the way the Soviet Union broke up, it arguably worked.
Mmhmm...
At least videos that manufacturers and marketers put up on Youtube, if they're good, can get a lot of attention. That Honda ad with Matthew Broderick, the Scion ad with the babes in bikinis eating donuts while one drives the new car doing donuts, etc... Plus the ads can be longer than fifteen, thirty, or sixty seconds, and if they're quality ads where they're amusing or informative beyond the normal "THIS IS OUR PRODUCT LOOK AT OUR PRODUCT" that you get in a minutes, they can be much more effective.
Putting an ad video on Youtube (not as an ad, as a video) allows anyone to view it and allows references to it to be pushed through any number of means, not just through Facebook. This means more vectors for the ad to become "viral", and the more that see it, the better it is for the company.
I won't be impressed until they give the user the extended frequency possibilities of his visor. But, if one remembers how things looked when they showed his visor input to the bridge crew, it wasn't exactly Vision++...
Seriously, there was a day and age when "magnets = bad" was the mantra. What kind of problems should this guy actually see with his gear, long term, subjecting it to strong magnetism? Will this mess with the memory in the device? Will this accelerate problems like tin whiskers?
I would like to know how efficiently they're using what they've got, and from someone who isn't them or paid by them. A lot of companies build for new features and a rapid release schedule rather than for efficiency.
When did it change to where the government could get records from a private company about a private individual without a court-issued Warrant? Didn't the whole "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." part of the fourth amendment cover private data as effects, or as an electronic version of papers?
If law enforcement feels they need data on a person's whereabouts, and if there's a log of these whereabouts, they should fairly easily be able to make an argument to a judge that they need this information. If they can't find a judge that will grant them this data, then the checks and balances portion of the three-part government worked. It's not like the data is going anywhere if they don't get to it NOW...
I've driven B-series Ram Vans for a decade at work, along with various GM and Ford designs. The Ford Econoline is not as good and still has the twin-I-beam front end- the GM is a little better.
From a commercial standpoint, the sameness in the body is actually a good thing, as there are basically 30 years of vans that can all be upfitted the same. They may not be as desirable from a home buyer perspective, but if one's old van is finally worn out, all of the shelving and other upgrades can simply be moved into the new van.
I won't deny that the B-series needed an overhaul or a new model, for things like wider-opening back doors, lower load height, etc, but the Sprinter was much taller than the B-series, and far less suited to urban environments. They've attempted to take the Minivan into that realm, but it's not really rated to tow what a work van could be expected to tow, and they haven't made a real, solid-side cargo version since the very first generation of the minivan.
I could also purchase a PoE injector for the telecom rack if I only had one.
Last I checked, it's possible for Google's mail to use SMTP and POP3. Whether or not the institution chooses that is not the same as it being impossible or even difficult to implement. We use Google for our e-mail at work, with our own domain, etc, and we have SMTP and POP3 enabled.
As an employer there are laws on data retention, so faculty and staff e-mail has to be retained for legal purposes.
At this point I think it's foolish for students to expect e-mail at school to remain unarchived. Both free and paid private e-mail services are available all over the place.
As an employee I use work e-mail for only work-related purposes. Nothing private. In college this would be a good lesson for students to learn- use academia e-mail for "work" related purposes, as they'll have to do in their professional lives later.
No, but there are plenty of us looking for a unit that doesn't have an integrated display, capable of being used as a frontend for MythTV or some other kind of video on demand home system. PoE isn't essential, but could be handy in environments where there's already a lot of other devices hogging available power where the display resides.
The designers of the Raspberry Pi system are strongly considering PoE in their next incarnation. Depending on its capabilities it might do what I need, even if I have to fashion an enclosure for it.
I wouldn't be surprised if it can do X11 natively. I had an ancient HP Envizex i-series terminal that could, once it pulled its operating environment down off of an FTP server.
God I hope not... I don't think even my 22AWG Cat6a drops will be adequate...
(yes, I did get the reference)
I guess I don't feel threatened; I've had a career installing, maintaining, and repairing the very machines that supposedly replace people, and I've observed that while there have been some labor reductions in some segments of the workforce because of automation technology, a whole lot of those jobs lost were really unpleasant to have anyway. I would rather we push an education initiative to actually teach our kids to do more with their lives than to just grab part X from assemblyline 3B, apply a bead of adhesive to it, and place it on assemblyline 4B.
There will probably always be a need for service people, so those truly unteachable will still be able to do something for an occupation. There certainly are tasks where it will never be cost effective to replace a person with a mechanical device, where every single task is different, or where machines can't be easily introduced into an environment relative to the simplicity of the task for humans.