Which is why an armored crew compartment isn't exactly a bad idea. A windowless sphere of solid ceramic and steel that in the event of a catastrophic failure will simply break away from the airframe around it, fall to a certain altitude, deploy numerous drogue chutes, slow down, and pop a dozen ballutes to bounce around like Pathfinder.
Even if the world was run by women, and women scientists, they'd STILL build rockets to look like giant penises, because let's face it, a penis is the best shape to plunge into the thick and friction-loaded environments demanded of it.
The problem with a maglev, especially in an atmosphere, is that you must EXCEED orbital velocity in a short distance (due to atmospheric friction). Say you've got 50 miles of track: you have to accelerate your spacecraft to over 18,000 miles per hour to ensure leaving orbit. Then, once the track stops propelling you, you immediately start losing speed.
Now a combined approach maybe? maglev acceleration up the side of the Andes (near the equator for maximum imparted rotational velocity) and kick in some rockets once you leave the track. Huge expense/energy cost in lifting. Better alternatives must be out there?
Are you kidding, look at how much money was spent upgrading the B52, the F14, the F15 (now on it's 5th iteration), and the Apache.
The difference is that A) every other program has volume to account for fixing and improving systems and B) the operating regime is significantly less hazardous than spaceflight.
And I'd bet that at least one H or G airframe is an older A or B airframe, since upgrades were given pretty much to the whole fleet. I could be wrong, many of the A airframes could have been sent to the boneyards as part of the START drawdowns in the 80's.
It's funny that you don't mention the nearly 50 year old B52, some of which (barring major war) will be nearly 100 before their useful life is deemed over to the U.S.S. Enterprise which is rapidly approaching her 50th birthday. Hell, the F14 is older than I am, and although there's talk about removing it from the inventory, there just isn't a replacement available that can carry the payload it can, and fight the fight it can. It's no longer top-dog of dog-fighting, but it still dropped a shitload of bombs on Baghdad.
The ceramic heat shielding and rocket engines of the shuttle are still state of the art. That the implementation is badly done in the case of the heat shielding, well, one reentry accident out of 106? Considering the flight envelope, I consider that fucking amazing. That an SSME that can chew through tonnes (metric or imperial) of fuel per second haven't disintegrated during flight (three per shuttle no less) is also short of fucking amazing.
Now, don't get me wrong, the shuttle is plagued by nasty design decisions (wings, tail, huge reentry cross section, solid rocket boosters, throw-away fuel tank) etc.
NASA hasn't been gunshy about designing a new shuttle. They had plans for years, first in the X33, and then when that looked doomed to the budget axe, the X38 crew return vehicle, which could have been pressed into service mated to a modified EELV like the Delta. Both of which were eventually killed by the Clinton/Bush changeover.
At least in the last cases, unlike all previous attempts (except the STS), they made it to flight test articles, and out of the wind tunnels...
I can attest to water from a broken AC condensor flooding our data center. Luckily there wasn't a rack directly underneath it, or we could have had a serious issue (from simple shorts to outright fire), and we only had water extinguishers, how nasty would THAT have been?
We actually had a cascade failure as one unit broke, then another as the system tried to pick up the slack. Now we had two puddles. Luckily this was on a weeknight, so we caught it before it could sit for a weekend. Putting liquid cooling in servers isn't all that nasty an idea.
The idea of a single database version is what gets me with subversion. The idea that project x could be checked in at revision 160, and project y 161-200, and then the next checkin to project x becomes 201 is confusing to say the least...
I've not yet put any large projects into subversion, but I'm curious how well branch management works with this...
Because that's part of the legal license agreements you signed to when you agreed to use their services. If you want to implement bitkeeper without using bitkeeper then so be it. Kind of like the Samba people staying away from Windows source code, the whole fruit of poisoned tree problem...
Long term asset cost alone does NOT make a balance sheet. Recurring expenses are where the real information sits. 90% of the dot-bombs weren't killed because of Aeron chairs, they were killed because they hired 100 workers to do the job of 20 at extortionist prices (although the Aeron chairs certainly didn't help).
The problem with webmail, is that it's accessed after the fact, with a password. It could already be tapped, and you'd have no idea of the fact. With newsgroups however... everyone gets them, and if you pick one remotely popular with traffic and spam. I don't trust web anonymizers to not keep logs, and I sure don't trust gmail not to keep logs, you need something that's surely going to be monitored, but where you'll fade into the noise with everyone else...
There are lots of good ways to move the data, but a lot of them are point to point and leave a trail of breadcrumbs straight back to you (or could).
In general, when stealing data, you don't EVER want it to send that data to a machine that can be directly traced to you. By throwing it on a newsgroup somewhere in spams, like comp.lang.c, or alt.binaries.erotica.natalie-portman with small bits of data encrypted in each message, you'll increase the noise floor of anyone trying to track you down.
By sending it to a server that can be tapped, well, that's just asking for guys in black helicopters to descend upon you while you sleep.
And I've yet to work anyplace (except perhaps banks), where outgoing http was at all restricted (except perhaps porn sites). Email was almost never restricted, and in many cases, nothing else was at all. So you could easily iterate through a number of mechanisms, falling backwards to least common denominator, http://groups.google.com.
Everyone's ignoring the important fact that you don't NEED an AP. You just need a sympathetic individual to plug this in at your target, and the device will transmit to YOUR AP, attached to the roof of your car outside.:-)
No AP, nothing to see in the logs, no firewalls/proxies to deal with, no ip addresses to be consumed... a stealth tap. Perfect. Insidious.
I too had this problem... Take a good Tai Chi class from someone who actually studied in China. Learn how to relax. I'm an anxious wreck, but I routinely manage to fall asleep within minutes, anywhere I so choose. The Red Cross nurses certainly don't like it when you fall asleep on their cots while giving blood... But it was so relaxing...:-)
Actually, that is not true. IE can be used as an attack vector to attack another service and gain privileged access. For instance, slammer didn't work through firewalls, but someone could repackage slammer into some of the recent IE exploits and negate the presence of your firewall.
A real PITA, not yet seen in the wild (AFAIK), but possible. Just noting that your statement is correct that IE itself cannot cause privilege elevation.
Not if you're running IEplorer as a separate process, it doesn't. This hasn't been true since the Win9x/Me branch died out. (Certainly not true on any NT platform.)
No, windows millennium was a stopgap that forced most software vendors into realising that the end of the road for perfect DOS support was coming, and coming fast. The few home owners who got that piece of shit made it real clear real fast that things had to change. The fact that most vendors didn't adopt Millennium for long drove home the point just a little quicker. Time to evolve. The days of not functioning on an NT core are coming to a close.
What is sad is that I had to support that monstrosity. Thankfully, not many WindowsME machines made it into the wild, and most are quickly and violently disappearing under the influx of XP Home. (THANK GOD).
Microsoft cannot evolve the platform fast enough anymore. All their innovations (evolutions) will be done in the backoffice. Desktop is not going to change that much.
It'd be horrible irony if Microsoft ends up having to continue Windows development simply to keep their business running when no one else is using it anymore...:-)
But I like Windows, almost as much as I like SuSE 9.2. In fact, I'm running every version of Windows since 3.1 in a VMware session on Workspace 5. Well, not all at the same time.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Which is why an armored crew compartment isn't exactly a bad idea. A windowless sphere of solid ceramic and steel that in the event of a catastrophic failure will simply break away from the airframe around it, fall to a certain altitude, deploy numerous drogue chutes, slow down, and pop a dozen ballutes to bounce around like Pathfinder.
Even if the world was run by women, and women scientists, they'd STILL build rockets to look like giant penises, because let's face it, a penis is the best shape to plunge into the thick and friction-loaded environments demanded of it.
The problem with a maglev, especially in an atmosphere, is that you must EXCEED orbital velocity in a short distance (due to atmospheric friction). Say you've got 50 miles of track: you have to accelerate your spacecraft to over 18,000 miles per hour to ensure leaving orbit. Then, once the track stops propelling you, you immediately start losing speed.
Now a combined approach maybe? maglev acceleration up the side of the Andes (near the equator for maximum imparted rotational velocity) and kick in some rockets once you leave the track. Huge expense/energy cost in lifting. Better alternatives must be out there?
Are you kidding, look at how much money was spent upgrading the B52, the F14, the F15 (now on it's 5th iteration), and the Apache.
The difference is that A) every other program has volume to account for fixing and improving systems and B) the operating regime is significantly less hazardous than spaceflight.
By the time the B52 is retired, it is possible that there will not be a human alive who was alive when it first flew.
Not likely, but possible.
And I'd bet that at least one H or G airframe is an older A or B airframe, since upgrades were given pretty much to the whole fleet. I could be wrong, many of the A airframes could have been sent to the boneyards as part of the START drawdowns in the 80's.
Ah, but an Israeli F15 can lose nearly 100% of a wing and still fly... :-)
http://www.f-16.net/varia_article8.html
It's funny that you don't mention the nearly 50 year old B52, some of which (barring major war) will be nearly 100 before their useful life is deemed over to the U.S.S. Enterprise which is rapidly approaching her 50th birthday. Hell, the F14 is older than I am, and although there's talk about removing it from the inventory, there just isn't a replacement available that can carry the payload it can, and fight the fight it can. It's no longer top-dog of dog-fighting, but it still dropped a shitload of bombs on Baghdad.
The ceramic heat shielding and rocket engines of the shuttle are still state of the art. That the implementation is badly done in the case of the heat shielding, well, one reentry accident out of 106? Considering the flight envelope, I consider that fucking amazing. That an SSME that can chew through tonnes (metric or imperial) of fuel per second haven't disintegrated during flight (three per shuttle no less) is also short of fucking amazing.
Now, don't get me wrong, the shuttle is plagued by nasty design decisions (wings, tail, huge reentry cross section, solid rocket boosters, throw-away fuel tank) etc.
NASA hasn't been gunshy about designing a new shuttle. They had plans for years, first in the X33, and then when that looked doomed to the budget axe, the X38 crew return vehicle, which could have been pressed into service mated to a modified EELV like the Delta. Both of which were eventually killed by the Clinton/Bush changeover.
At least in the last cases, unlike all previous attempts (except the STS), they made it to flight test articles, and out of the wind tunnels...
I can attest to water from a broken AC condensor flooding our data center. Luckily there wasn't a rack directly underneath it, or we could have had a serious issue (from simple shorts to outright fire), and we only had water extinguishers, how nasty would THAT have been?
We actually had a cascade failure as one unit broke, then another as the system tried to pick up the slack. Now we had two puddles. Luckily this was on a weeknight, so we caught it before it could sit for a weekend. Putting liquid cooling in servers isn't all that nasty an idea.
I take exception to that. I paid for vuescan, three copies of SuSE Professional and vmware.
The idea of a single database version is what gets me with subversion. The idea that project x could be checked in at revision 160, and project y 161-200, and then the next checkin to project x becomes 201 is confusing to say the least...
I've not yet put any large projects into subversion, but I'm curious how well branch management works with this...
Because that's part of the legal license agreements you signed to when you agreed to use their services. If you want to implement bitkeeper without using bitkeeper then so be it. Kind of like the Samba people staying away from Windows source code, the whole fruit of poisoned tree problem...
Expenses still show up as liabilities on the balance sheet.
So your example:
$99,000 == $1000 + $10,000 + $88,000 owner equity.
Long term asset cost alone does NOT make a balance sheet. Recurring expenses are where the real information sits. 90% of the dot-bombs weren't killed because of Aeron chairs, they were killed because they hired 100 workers to do the job of 20 at extortionist prices (although the Aeron chairs certainly didn't help).
The problem with webmail, is that it's accessed after the fact, with a password. It could already be tapped, and you'd have no idea of the fact. With newsgroups however... everyone gets them, and if you pick one remotely popular with traffic and spam. I don't trust web anonymizers to not keep logs, and I sure don't trust gmail not to keep logs, you need something that's surely going to be monitored, but where you'll fade into the noise with everyone else...
There are lots of good ways to move the data, but a lot of them are point to point and leave a trail of breadcrumbs straight back to you (or could).
In general, when stealing data, you don't EVER want it to send that data to a machine that can be directly traced to you. By throwing it on a newsgroup somewhere in spams, like comp.lang.c, or alt.binaries.erotica.natalie-portman with small bits of data encrypted in each message, you'll increase the noise floor of anyone trying to track you down.
By sending it to a server that can be tapped, well, that's just asking for guys in black helicopters to descend upon you while you sleep.
And I've yet to work anyplace (except perhaps banks), where outgoing http was at all restricted (except perhaps porn sites). Email was almost never restricted, and in many cases, nothing else was at all. So you could easily iterate through a number of mechanisms, falling backwards to least common denominator, http://groups.google.com.
Everyone's ignoring the important fact that you don't NEED an AP. You just need a sympathetic individual to plug this in at your target, and the device will transmit to YOUR AP, attached to the roof of your car outside. :-)
No AP, nothing to see in the logs, no firewalls/proxies to deal with, no ip addresses to be consumed... a stealth tap. Perfect. Insidious.
Not if it sent it to an obscure IRC channel
#asdf1231029-p29abc12
?
Or via newsgroups, encrypted?
I save the gutting like pigs routine for rapists and child abusers...
:-)
But I would have gloated as they got the steel bracelets put on and walked out to the waiting jailcabs...
I too had this problem... Take a good Tai Chi class from someone who actually studied in China. Learn how to relax. I'm an anxious wreck, but I routinely manage to fall asleep within minutes, anywhere I so choose. The Red Cross nurses certainly don't like it when you fall asleep on their cots while giving blood... But it was so relaxing... :-)
Maybe he's got a bladder the size of Rhode Island?
Actually, that is not true. IE can be used as an attack vector to attack another service and gain privileged access. For instance, slammer didn't work through firewalls, but someone could repackage slammer into some of the recent IE exploits and negate the presence of your firewall.
A real PITA, not yet seen in the wild (AFAIK), but possible. Just noting that your statement is correct that IE itself cannot cause privilege elevation.
Not if you're running IEplorer as a separate process, it doesn't. This hasn't been true since the Win9x/Me branch died out. (Certainly not true on any NT platform.)
No, windows millennium was a stopgap that forced most software vendors into realising that the end of the road for perfect DOS support was coming, and coming fast. The few home owners who got that piece of shit made it real clear real fast that things had to change. The fact that most vendors didn't adopt Millennium for long drove home the point just a little quicker. Time to evolve. The days of not functioning on an NT core are coming to a close.
What is sad is that I had to support that monstrosity. Thankfully, not many WindowsME machines made it into the wild, and most are quickly and violently disappearing under the influx of XP Home. (THANK GOD).
Microsoft cannot evolve the platform fast enough anymore. All their innovations (evolutions) will be done in the backoffice. Desktop is not going to change that much.
It'd be horrible irony if Microsoft ends up having to continue Windows development simply to keep their business running when no one else is using it anymore... :-)
:-)
But I like Windows, almost as much as I like SuSE 9.2. In fact, I'm running every version of Windows since 3.1 in a VMware session on Workspace 5. Well, not all at the same time.