Well, technically it's more of a SCUD missile, as it has no appreciable guidance. If you did put in GPS and terrain-following radar, then you'd have your cruise missile. And you'd be sure to get a visit from men in dark suits in the middle of the night...
Except that we have seen them fly in an atmosphere (Yavin, Hoth, Dagobah, etc.). You could chalk that up to having sufficient thrust to overcoming the need for wings, but even if the wings weren't actually aerodynamic, they would still be affected by aerodynamic forces. Even a sheet of plywood can fly, just not far and not well.
Even with the aluminum rods, however, there's the possibility of structural damage. We asked Andy about how he expected the flight to go: "it's likely we will have a structural failure in the wings, but we are hoping it will hold."
"R2, that stabilizer has broken free again... see if you can't lock it down...
While I applaud the effort, I have a bad feeling about this. If one of the four solid rocket motors fails to ignite or ignites early/late, you're going to have a 22 foot (or more) long pile of scrap wood and aluminum.
Shades of AOL/Time Warner, no? A little different, in that AOL was actually a money-making proposition, but I don't think Time-Warner knew exactly what it was going to do with AOL, save hook its star to it, place some of their content on the site, and watch the money roll in. Flash forward and now TIme-Warner looks pretty stupid.
Well, let's face it: your average eBay user probably does not know what Skype is, let alone that eBay bought it. Since eBay did little to integrate it into their offerings, this should not come as a shock. Also, eBay doesn't have the most sterling reputation, so you had to be wary that they'd poison the Skype pool somehow trying to make money out of it.
It's more than likely related to IP address than user agent. I used to work in web site metrics, and the number of fouled up user agents and spoofs was always staggering, but IP was a pretty good indicator of who was doing something. No doubt the bad guys have tracked the Google bot's IP over a long period of time and perhaps made some correlations to give them a pretty good idea if the site is being revisited by Google under an assumed user agent. I'm not sure, but it would seem to me that Google would have thought of spoofing it's IPs long ago, to avoid people being able to track them, though I can't say how you'd go about that.
It may not be a question of a single developer making changes, as much as a single developer (or group of them -- safety in numbers) divulging to certain third parties how the algorithms work in the page ranking system. It's very rare any company gives anyone production access to make changes, but then again I've seen that happen too, where something breaks, they give a developer access to patch it in a hurry before the hew and outcry set in, then forget to revoke his/her access. Of course Google is global, so any change would have to propagate through the system vis source control, so tracking it wouldn't be that hard. I doubt any developer, no matter how nefarious, would take the risk.
So they're not (at least they claim they're not) taking a "side" in the abortion issue, they just don't want to be associated with the issue at all.
But they're not associated with the issue, until they choose to not let people receive messages from NARAL, messages their users signed up to receive. If Verizon had wanted to stay out of the fray, they wouldn't have made the initial decision to block the messages in the first place. As usual, they are talking out of both sides of their mouth; they got called on it by the media and had to do a hasty retreat before a backlash occurred.
It isn't what information they are looking at but how. If they want the information and it will make the software better, fine, but do they really have to go about it in such a sneaky and under-handed way? Even Microsoft allows you to control how your system is updated (I never let it run automatically; I prefer to know what it's trying to put on my system.). As to the "fork" comment, while I thin the generic blogging community will be clueless and have no idea what this is all about, this will drive the OSS community to develop a better version and they will wish the phrase had never been uttered.
...is that IT departments are simply not hiring enough people to do all the work, even when the outsource overseas. We hear all the time how productivity in the United States keeps going up -- it has to! One person is expected to the work of three now, and nowhere is that more evident than in IT. Companies don't seem to realize that for a modest investment in extra staff up front, they can save the cost of projects running late and over budget, keep downtime to a minimum by having enough technical staff available to handle outages, and more importantly allow workers to have some quality of life that will make them more productive. My last job was killing me, only because for all the work that they wanted done, there were not enough resources and my having to bounce from one thing to another constantly caused me to constantly be behind, and as a result, the quality of my work suffered. Want to know why code is so buggy? Programmers working 60 hours a week when they don't have to and are not getting paid for the effort is a good place to start looking.
Well, you can certainly stop using the apps... It's the problem of a user becoming too invested in any one thing (OS, DB, etc.). Whenever you become a pundit, a die-heard fan, or even just a casual, everyday user, you buy the whole package, bugs and all. You not only accept that an app proves useful to you, but that it will contain flaws that may prove problematic. Everyone seems to accept that because it is Google, they write perfect code. No way. The quality of code today is such that flaws such as these are inevitable. This doesn't make Google bad, stupid, or irresponsible; it's just part of the business. They will fix these things and life will go on.
Why is it that airports have special significance? Seriously, think about it. There are many other places with large concentrations of people that we are not spending any money on for security that would be ideal terroristic locations.
Yes, but so far nothing has happened in any of those places in the United States. This is Boston, Logan airport, where part of the September 11th attack began, where lax security let men onto an airplane who crashed it into a building. It's the week after 9/11, the airport is busy, and here's someone with some unknown thing covered in wires with lights that could be a bomb or a video game and security doesn't have a lot of time to think about it. They did what they had to do and they'll take their lumps for "over-reacting." But I personally prefer them over-reacting that letting someone get on a plane with something that will potentially cut my life and the lives of my fellow passengers short. Do I think I'm likely to be the victim of a terrorist attack? No. I was in NYC on 9/11 and I think that's as close as I'll ever get. At least I hope so. In the meantime, I'd rather the security people at the airport were overcautious rather than lackadaisical.
To optimize power efficiency, the robot must be as light as possible - but to operate the coring drill, the vehicle also has to be massive enough to apply sufficient downward pressure on the drill and counter the torque of the rotating drill, Carnegie Mellon noted. It is estimated that Scarab must weigh at least 250 kilograms, or about 550 pounds.
The Apollo astronauts found out a hard truth about the surface of the Moon when the wen too drill deep core samples -- the Moon is pretty hard. Drilling required a lot of effort, even when they had appropriate equipment. Drills generated a lot of torque as they tried to penetrate the lunar hardpan. The lunar surface is apparently very compacted, unlike earthly soil which undergoes the action of weathering. I'm not sure 250 kilos will necessarily be enough unless they find an efficient method to hold the rover down to the surface as it drills.
...Dan Rather is making good use of his PH. D.'s in Materials Science and Molecular Chemistry when he says these things.
Really, Dan is just cranky after being outed by CBS for his lack of thorough background information checking, so he's taking it out on Boeing, probably because he had to wait for a flight at JFK.
Censorship is not possible on the Internet, period. Once information gets out into the wild, it will be copied and recopied (not to mention indexed by the major search engines) to the point that eliminating all copies would take inordinately large amounts of time and effort. Imagine if MediaDefender had to sue everyone who had a copy of even part of one of their emails on a server? Even Bill Gates doesn't have that kind of money! Not to mention, with so many of these copies being overseas, there's no guarantee they would win in any foreign court.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, technically it's more of a SCUD missile, as it has no appreciable guidance. If you did put in GPS and terrain-following radar, then you'd have your cruise missile. And you'd be sure to get a visit from men in dark suits in the middle of the night...
Always with you it cannot be done...
Except that we have seen them fly in an atmosphere (Yavin, Hoth, Dagobah, etc.). You could chalk that up to having sufficient thrust to overcoming the need for wings, but even if the wings weren't actually aerodynamic, they would still be affected by aerodynamic forces. Even a sheet of plywood can fly, just not far and not well.
"R2, that stabilizer has broken free again... see if you can't lock it down...
While I applaud the effort, I have a bad feeling about this. If one of the four solid rocket motors fails to ignite or ignites early/late, you're going to have a 22 foot (or more) long pile of scrap wood and aluminum.
If I read the article, I'd be well informed and able to make cogent comments... and that is strictly against Slashdot policy... ;)
One word: moron
One more word: lawsuit
Don't be surprised when they find this guy lying dead in his bed in his apartment, having been killed by whip-wielding maniac...
Shades of AOL/Time Warner, no? A little different, in that AOL was actually a money-making proposition, but I don't think Time-Warner knew exactly what it was going to do with AOL, save hook its star to it, place some of their content on the site, and watch the money roll in. Flash forward and now TIme-Warner looks pretty stupid.
Congratulations, GoogleBuyer, you are the new high bidder!
Current bid: $6.00
Maximum bid: $10.00
Well, let's face it: your average eBay user probably does not know what Skype is, let alone that eBay bought it. Since eBay did little to integrate it into their offerings, this should not come as a shock. Also, eBay doesn't have the most sterling reputation, so you had to be wary that they'd poison the Skype pool somehow trying to make money out of it.
...when you pry it from my cold, dead, mouse hand.
I for one welcome our cliché-generating overlords...
It's more than likely related to IP address than user agent. I used to work in web site metrics, and the number of fouled up user agents and spoofs was always staggering, but IP was a pretty good indicator of who was doing something. No doubt the bad guys have tracked the Google bot's IP over a long period of time and perhaps made some correlations to give them a pretty good idea if the site is being revisited by Google under an assumed user agent. I'm not sure, but it would seem to me that Google would have thought of spoofing it's IPs long ago, to avoid people being able to track them, though I can't say how you'd go about that.
It may not be a question of a single developer making changes, as much as a single developer (or group of them -- safety in numbers) divulging to certain third parties how the algorithms work in the page ranking system. It's very rare any company gives anyone production access to make changes, but then again I've seen that happen too, where something breaks, they give a developer access to patch it in a hurry before the hew and outcry set in, then forget to revoke his/her access. Of course Google is global, so any change would have to propagate through the system vis source control, so tracking it wouldn't be that hard. I doubt any developer, no matter how nefarious, would take the risk.
I was kind of hoping they'd hit the wall hard enough for it to fall down and bury them in the rubble... but that's just me.
Perhaps the folks in the patent office need to hire some first-year CS students to help them figure it out?
Two words: racial profiling.
So they're not (at least they claim they're not) taking a "side" in the abortion issue, they just don't want to be associated with the issue at all.
But they're not associated with the issue, until they choose to not let people receive messages from NARAL, messages their users signed up to receive. If Verizon had wanted to stay out of the fray, they wouldn't have made the initial decision to block the messages in the first place. As usual, they are talking out of both sides of their mouth; they got called on it by the media and had to do a hasty retreat before a backlash occurred.
It isn't what information they are looking at but how. If they want the information and it will make the software better, fine, but do they really have to go about it in such a sneaky and under-handed way? Even Microsoft allows you to control how your system is updated (I never let it run automatically; I prefer to know what it's trying to put on my system.). As to the "fork" comment, while I thin the generic blogging community will be clueless and have no idea what this is all about, this will drive the OSS community to develop a better version and they will wish the phrase had never been uttered.
...is that IT departments are simply not hiring enough people to do all the work, even when the outsource overseas. We hear all the time how productivity in the United States keeps going up -- it has to! One person is expected to the work of three now, and nowhere is that more evident than in IT. Companies don't seem to realize that for a modest investment in extra staff up front, they can save the cost of projects running late and over budget, keep downtime to a minimum by having enough technical staff available to handle outages, and more importantly allow workers to have some quality of life that will make them more productive. My last job was killing me, only because for all the work that they wanted done, there were not enough resources and my having to bounce from one thing to another constantly caused me to constantly be behind, and as a result, the quality of my work suffered. Want to know why code is so buggy? Programmers working 60 hours a week when they don't have to and are not getting paid for the effort is a good place to start looking.
Esperanto anyone?
Well, you can certainly stop using the apps... It's the problem of a user becoming too invested in any one thing (OS, DB, etc.). Whenever you become a pundit, a die-heard fan, or even just a casual, everyday user, you buy the whole package, bugs and all. You not only accept that an app proves useful to you, but that it will contain flaws that may prove problematic. Everyone seems to accept that because it is Google, they write perfect code. No way. The quality of code today is such that flaws such as these are inevitable. This doesn't make Google bad, stupid, or irresponsible; it's just part of the business. They will fix these things and life will go on.
Yes, but so far nothing has happened in any of those places in the United States. This is Boston, Logan airport, where part of the September 11th attack began, where lax security let men onto an airplane who crashed it into a building. It's the week after 9/11, the airport is busy, and here's someone with some unknown thing covered in wires with lights that could be a bomb or a video game and security doesn't have a lot of time to think about it. They did what they had to do and they'll take their lumps for "over-reacting." But I personally prefer them over-reacting that letting someone get on a plane with something that will potentially cut my life and the lives of my fellow passengers short. Do I think I'm likely to be the victim of a terrorist attack? No. I was in NYC on 9/11 and I think that's as close as I'll ever get. At least I hope so. In the meantime, I'd rather the security people at the airport were overcautious rather than lackadaisical.
Bottom line: she was an idiot.
The Apollo astronauts found out a hard truth about the surface of the Moon when the wen too drill deep core samples -- the Moon is pretty hard. Drilling required a lot of effort, even when they had appropriate equipment. Drills generated a lot of torque as they tried to penetrate the lunar hardpan. The lunar surface is apparently very compacted, unlike earthly soil which undergoes the action of weathering. I'm not sure 250 kilos will necessarily be enough unless they find an efficient method to hold the rover down to the surface as it drills.
...Dan Rather is making good use of his PH. D.'s in Materials Science and Molecular Chemistry when he says these things.
Really, Dan is just cranky after being outed by CBS for his lack of thorough background information checking, so he's taking it out on Boeing, probably because he had to wait for a flight at JFK.
Censorship is not possible on the Internet, period. Once information gets out into the wild, it will be copied and recopied (not to mention indexed by the major search engines) to the point that eliminating all copies would take inordinately large amounts of time and effort. Imagine if MediaDefender had to sue everyone who had a copy of even part of one of their emails on a server? Even Bill Gates doesn't have that kind of money! Not to mention, with so many of these copies being overseas, there's no guarantee they would win in any foreign court.