Not necessarily. There is nothing to say that there has to be one observer per UAV in the air. For example, an airport could have a chase plane on observation duty to keep an eye on all UAV's within its airspace.
Although the article talks about "automated" unmanned vehicles, the only way that any of the vehicles mentioned in this article are fully automated is in systems responsible for gathering data, *not* navigation or maneuvering. In fact, an FAR clarification notice posted a few years ago http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/uas/reg/media/frnotice_uas.pdf states that the only way that an unmanned vehicle is allowed to fly in the United States is if it is in control (albeit remotely) by a human pilot-in-command, and under constant watch by a human observer, "either
through line-of-sight on the ground or in the air by means of a chase aircraft". In controlled airspace, there must also be "communication between the PIC and Air Traffic Control (ATC)".
What kind of moron spends 3 years breaking into government computers and doesn't know how to do a screen capture or see the importance of saving what he's doing.
The kind of moron who is under investigation by U.S. and U.K. authorities, and realizes that whatever he says could potentially implicate himself.
"Files? Uh, no! Didn't save any. Didn't know how. Nope, nooooo files here, no sir."
No, the database is not "compromised". If you actually read about how BlueFrog actually works, you should know that the list containing users' e-mail addresses is *public*. The whole point of the system is to make spammers agree not to send unsolicited e-mail to anybody on BlueSecurity's list, or face the consequences.
Just because Oracle is looking to purchase MySQL doesn't mean that the product is "enterprise-ready": it just means that Oracle is aware of the market share that could be gleaned by moving MySQL users into its empire. Don't confuse market savvy with technical proficiency; I could cite a list of acquisitions by large companies of companies with inferior product lines, just to capture an additional market segment -- and some of these purchases were made by Oracle itself.
Any Java object is allowed to have a public *attribute* without getters and setters, but a Java Bean *property* is a specific part of the Java Bean design pattern that requires get and/or set methods -- but that's neither here nor there. You can decare public attributes all you want, but in doing so, you are knowingly violating data encapsulation (and therefore, good object-oriented design) by allowing other objects access your data directly.
This is yet another example of how junior programmers will blame something on a language (in this case, Java) that is actually a symptom of how one designs or implements. I've used getters and setters in Perl and C++ applications in the past -- certainly not because either language mandated their use, but because it was a *good idea*.
It might if the stream included advertisements, or if they made users watch ads prior to downloading episodes. Advertising revenue is what fuels broadcast television: why not make it work for downloadable TV?
I agree with that -- and it holds true for XEmacs as well (the branch Zawinskian version). Plus, I have yet to find a text-editor in an IDE that's as full-featured or customizable as Emacs. However, I have yet to find a decent JSP mode for it, so I use a combination of XEmacs and NetBeans.
The article mentions that, since the telescope would ideally be kept at temperatures near absolute zero, mercury would not be used at all. Instead, far lighter hydrocarbons (e.g. ethane or methane) that exist as liquids at those temperatures with light metals (e.g. aluminum) would most likely be used.
"But so-called primary spontaneous pneumothorax happens in the absence of an underlying disease, typically striking tall, thin, male smokers."
So with enough bass, you could wipe out half the kids at any emo concert.
The problem with this argument (and a problem I've seen with every argument in favor of tech outsourcing, in fact) lies with the logistics involved in management of IT resources, and the complexity of tasks performed within this industry.
The example you gave regarding natural resource harvesting and production involves laborers performing a simple task (i.e. digging, harvesting, etc.) that requires little specialized training, little oversight, and arguably little collaboration (my apologies to any diggers, harvesters, or other menial laborers here who feel differently). In this scenario, geographic distance between laborers and management is of minor importance because the management tasks involved are minimal.
Compare this with a typical software project; engineers are frequently required to have training and experience in several technologies, requirements or designs are often ambiguous, production timelines are short, and collaboration between workers is essential. Here, clear and constant communication between the business and the workers involved is critically important. Technology has mitigated this communications gap between remote sites somewhat, but differences in timezones, languages, and cultures are still formidable -- and often crippling to a poorly managed project.
As someone who has managed a team of offshore developers (I'm in San Francisco, my team was in Bangalore), I can write you a book of reasons and examples of how outsourcing a project can cost *more* in the long run than keeping it onsite. The bottom line, though, is that any business that bases a decision based solely on how much people cost "there" as opposed to "here" is ignoring many factors that will probably bite them in the arse -- and sooner or later, I think the industry will eventually come around to the same conclusion.
NASA has barely enough money to keep the shuttle program *running*, let alone the funds to move and house the shuttles in a different location. Housing and maintenance facilities at Kennedy alone cost $3 billion a year.
Nobody said this yet? C'mon
on
Banana Power!
·
· Score: 1
"Is that a banana in your power plant, or are you just happy to see me?"
"Karma-whoring"? If you agree that the RIAA is "fucking up normal citizens' lives" and that it's actions are driven by "a failing business model", then what exactly is your problem with people taking a stance against the RIAA?
The way to fight a corporation (or in this case, a conglomerate of corporations) is to hit them where they live: their pocketbooks. The only way to get the RIAA to stop attacking the average Joe is to get them to realize that it will cost more to fight the filesharing paradigm than it does to adapt to it. But that won't happen as long as they continue to get a steady revenue stream from apathetic consumers who think it doesn't matter whether they support them or not.
Slashdot Mirror
If this is the level of Slashdot humor now, I can only pray that there's never a NASA mission to Uranus.
Not necessarily. There is nothing to say that there has to be one observer per UAV in the air. For example, an airport could have a chase plane on observation duty to keep an eye on all UAV's within its airspace.
Although the article talks about "automated" unmanned vehicles, the only way that any of the vehicles mentioned in this article are fully automated is in systems responsible for gathering data, *not* navigation or maneuvering. In fact, an FAR clarification notice posted a few years ago http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/uas/reg/media/frnotice_uas.pdf states that the only way that an unmanned vehicle is allowed to fly in the United States is if it is in control (albeit remotely) by a human pilot-in-command, and under constant watch by a human observer, "either through line-of-sight on the ground or in the air by means of a chase aircraft". In controlled airspace, there must also be "communication between the PIC and Air Traffic Control (ATC)".
Agreed. Once they realize that they're the ones who have to put their lifeforms through college, they'll be changing their tune.
Lots of Westerners will probably go -- just not Americans.
The kind of moron who is under investigation by U.S. and U.K. authorities, and realizes that whatever he says could potentially implicate himself.
"Files? Uh, no! Didn't save any. Didn't know how. Nope, nooooo files here, no sir."
No, the database is not "compromised". If you actually read about how BlueFrog actually works, you should know that the list containing users' e-mail addresses is *public*. The whole point of the system is to make spammers agree not to send unsolicited e-mail to anybody on BlueSecurity's list, or face the consequences.
Just because Oracle is looking to purchase MySQL doesn't mean that the product is "enterprise-ready": it just means that Oracle is aware of the market share that could be gleaned by moving MySQL users into its empire. Don't confuse market savvy with technical proficiency; I could cite a list of acquisitions by large companies of companies with inferior product lines, just to capture an additional market segment -- and some of these purchases were made by Oracle itself.
Any Java object is allowed to have a public *attribute* without getters and setters, but a Java Bean *property* is a specific part of the Java Bean design pattern that requires get and/or set methods -- but that's neither here nor there. You can decare public attributes all you want, but in doing so, you are knowingly violating data encapsulation (and therefore, good object-oriented design) by allowing other objects access your data directly. This is yet another example of how junior programmers will blame something on a language (in this case, Java) that is actually a symptom of how one designs or implements. I've used getters and setters in Perl and C++ applications in the past -- certainly not because either language mandated their use, but because it was a *good idea*.
Is there any news about this from a more reputable and slightly less biased source than, say, a press release on the company's website?
It might if the stream included advertisements, or if they made users watch ads prior to downloading episodes. Advertising revenue is what fuels broadcast television: why not make it work for downloadable TV?
Of course, if you do, you can always download Limewire using Limewire...
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of quintuple core machines...
I agree with that -- and it holds true for XEmacs as well (the branch Zawinskian version). Plus, I have yet to find a text-editor in an IDE that's as full-featured or customizable as Emacs. However, I have yet to find a decent JSP mode for it, so I use a combination of XEmacs and NetBeans.
Or if James Bond had a "License To Clone".
The article mentions that, since the telescope would ideally be kept at temperatures near absolute zero, mercury would not be used at all. Instead, far lighter hydrocarbons (e.g. ethane or methane) that exist as liquids at those temperatures with light metals (e.g. aluminum) would most likely be used.
Expect NASA shuttle launches from now on to take 12 hours longer in order to avoid infringing upon Amazon's new "one click launching" patent.
This would also explain all the e-mail I get from the .kp domain promising "VIAGR4 FOR CHEAP!!!11"
If I wanted to meet people in my neighborhood, I wouldn't be on the Internet all the time.
"But so-called primary spontaneous pneumothorax happens in the absence of an underlying disease, typically striking tall, thin, male smokers." So with enough bass, you could wipe out half the kids at any emo concert.
The example you gave regarding natural resource harvesting and production involves laborers performing a simple task (i.e. digging, harvesting, etc.) that requires little specialized training, little oversight, and arguably little collaboration (my apologies to any diggers, harvesters, or other menial laborers here who feel differently). In this scenario, geographic distance between laborers and management is of minor importance because the management tasks involved are minimal.
Compare this with a typical software project; engineers are frequently required to have training and experience in several technologies, requirements or designs are often ambiguous, production timelines are short, and collaboration between workers is essential. Here, clear and constant communication between the business and the workers involved is critically important. Technology has mitigated this communications gap between remote sites somewhat, but differences in timezones, languages, and cultures are still formidable -- and often crippling to a poorly managed project.
As someone who has managed a team of offshore developers (I'm in San Francisco, my team was in Bangalore), I can write you a book of reasons and examples of how outsourcing a project can cost *more* in the long run than keeping it onsite. The bottom line, though, is that any business that bases a decision based solely on how much people cost "there" as opposed to "here" is ignoring many factors that will probably bite them in the arse -- and sooner or later, I think the industry will eventually come around to the same conclusion.
NASA has barely enough money to keep the shuttle program *running*, let alone the funds to move and house the shuttles in a different location. Housing and maintenance facilities at Kennedy alone cost $3 billion a year.
"Is that a banana in your power plant, or are you just happy to see me?"
At that point, I think it would be called "V'Ger" instead.
"Karma-whoring"? If you agree that the RIAA is "fucking up normal citizens' lives" and that it's actions are driven by "a failing business model", then what exactly is your problem with people taking a stance against the RIAA? The way to fight a corporation (or in this case, a conglomerate of corporations) is to hit them where they live: their pocketbooks. The only way to get the RIAA to stop attacking the average Joe is to get them to realize that it will cost more to fight the filesharing paradigm than it does to adapt to it. But that won't happen as long as they continue to get a steady revenue stream from apathetic consumers who think it doesn't matter whether they support them or not.