But then again, NASA wasn't building the earlier rockets either, was it? So what exactly is new in this endeavour?
Good points. I think the difference is that before NASA was saying "we want a bid for building a rocket with these exact properties / a moon lander to these specifications etc, and we will manage it and we will purchase it" it's now saying "we want a bid for a service to take these items from earth to the ISS"
I always half thought it was just a way of decreasing funds to NASA without acting like you're scaling it back ("oh we'll be more efficient now" / "oh it's private enterprise that isn't getting its act together"), but this mission is an impressive sign that it might work out.
But there's simplified routing due to no checksums or fragmentation. Plus 20 bytes isn't much compared to typical MTU sizes (and doesn't make a difference for low latency stuff).
Is it really plausible that networking standards groups would back a new protocol, released 20 years later than a protocol which preceded the modern internet, and that it would be worse overall?
The problem is that there should be more female developers. It doesn't matter whether they want to be developers or not; there should be more of them. This is about as serious a problem as it gets.
Why is it happening, the information is supposed to be properly secured, and the company is supposed to follow ISO standards, no?
Unless they outsourced to a company [...] I am without any ideas how this could happen.
Oh I envy your naivety.. I work for an ISO9001 company and it is terrifyingly insecure.
ISO9001 compliance has nothing to do with security, and frankly ISO9001 compliance doesn't even have very much to do with ISO9001 certification..
I think you might have a point. Just look at how vague and unspecific that diagram is.. Everyone was doing wireless LANs in 1993 after all, these guys are hopeless.
Cars / guns aren't really the best analogy.. It'd be more like a shipping service that ships 10% legal goods and 90% illegal goods. If they took action to cut out the illegal stuff there wouldn't be a problem.
They also took it a step further in how they paid people who got the most downloads and got people to subscribe. Even TPB keeps a degree of separation between themselves, the illegal content, and the way they make money, but megaupload was pretty much making money directly off people uploading illegal content and getting subscribers to pay to download it quickly.
Also no-one needs TPB to distribute their personally created music.. Even if your band can't afford the miniscule hosting fees you can just host the torrent file; the whole point of bittorrent is it doesn't need sites like TPB.
Fukushima had a total coolant failure, and didn't go critical, but it was certainly dangerous.
It is dangerous, but constructing hydroelectric dams, mining coal, porting LNG, etc, etc is dangerous too. Big energy is dangerous.
The question is how many people died? None as far as we know, from this incident. You can talk about statistical future cancer deaths etc, but even with those (~70, IIRC) nuclear is relatively very safe. The difference is a coal mine collapse in China, or someone dying of pneumonia from dust, isn't a newsworthy event.
Holding nuclear's design (e.g. reactor safety margins) to a higher safety standard makes perfect sense, but holding nuclear's track record (e.g. total deaths/year) to a higher safety standard doesn't make sense.
Generation 4 reactors are by definition still in the research phase. Gen III (and III+) are being rolled out now (which are safer and cheaper but not radically different in terms of fuel).
Is the concern that it won't actually turn out to be feasible? The science is pretty irrefutable; many experimental fast reactors were built in the nuclear honeymoon period.
Is the concern that they won't be used because it's cheaper to use high-grade fuel? That's a more legitimate concern, because fuel is so cheap, but if waste storage becomes too expensive that may tip the scale the other way.
All energy sources have their disadvantages. We can't afford to say "nuclear isn't perfect so we can't use it" because the alternatives (for base load generation) are likely worse.
Thanks for taking the time to do this, I went to a lecture given by someone who worked on the JET reactor and it was fascinating.
Given that fusion creates (shorter-lived) nuclear waste, the cost of it is unknown and the timeframe is unknown, how can you justify the relatively large amounts of money going towards fusion research reactors when so little goes towards fission research reactors?
I know that the economics of larger reactor = more economical are well known with tokomaks. Does this mean you have a good idea of the minimum cost / generating capacity of the first commercial reactors, and if so what do those numbers look like?
What is the main technological challenge you're facing? Is it containing the neutron flux, getting the waste products out, separating the tritium,...? Are there major surprises which come up or is it all working on a few well known problems for a long time?
Before the AGPL came out a BSD-licensed project of mine, webdiplomacy, was used to build a fork site.
They apparently forgot to credit us, are closed source, and didn't even include the BSD license until they were discovered. Instead of sharing code back they're quite bitter rivals, holding their site hostage for donations and having premium accounts.
Since the AGPL came out there are several other fork sites that have sprung up, but we all pool code changes, and they all market themselves to different niches (e.g. variants or different languages). Many of them are for-profit and host large communities, but we all share code and benefit from it.
I'd say the bigger question is how would it compete on price when the Xbox 360 is subsidized by game sales, and produced in huge bulk, while Steam offers games cheap and couldn't risk producing huge numbers of them.
OTOH I own a Windows phone and really like the metro interface, and I think you'll see the design philosophy adopted more and more on the web. I also think ribbons are great, making a huge improvement to Office 2007+.
So the next Windows combines two great UI innovations into the OS itself? Sounds like a recipe for success to me (and I can't wait for a decent Windows tablet).
Slashdot Mirror
But then again, NASA wasn't building the earlier rockets either, was it? So what exactly is new in this endeavour?
Good points. I think the difference is that before NASA was saying "we want a bid for building a rocket with these exact properties / a moon lander to these specifications etc, and we will manage it and we will purchase it" it's now saying "we want a bid for a service to take these items from earth to the ISS"
I always half thought it was just a way of decreasing funds to NASA without acting like you're scaling it back ("oh we'll be more efficient now" / "oh it's private enterprise that isn't getting its act together"), but this mission is an impressive sign that it might work out.
How dare you call our little island cold!
Oh thank you tqk for pointing out that we use fiat currencies, we have truly been hoodwinked. What a revelation!
What form of currency do you use, to avoid being hoodwinked? Or do you just sit alone hoodwinking all day?
So, I guess greed is what really made it possible.
Not your greed though; you were just a harmless middle manager.
But there's simplified routing due to no checksums or fragmentation. Plus 20 bytes isn't much compared to typical MTU sizes (and doesn't make a difference for low latency stuff).
Is it really plausible that networking standards groups would back a new protocol, released 20 years later than a protocol which preceded the modern internet, and that it would be worse overall?
Here, or here. They qualify it a bit more accurately now, for obvious reasons, but people really did claim immunity.
The problem is that there should be more female developers. It doesn't matter whether they want to be developers or not; there should be more of them. This is about as serious a problem as it gets.
Why is it happening, the information is supposed to be properly secured, and the company is supposed to follow ISO standards, no?
Unless they outsourced to a company [...] I am without any ideas how this could happen.
Oh I envy your naivety.. I work for an ISO9001 company and it is terrifyingly insecure.
ISO9001 compliance has nothing to do with security, and frankly ISO9001 compliance doesn't even have very much to do with ISO9001 certification..
(Either that or Yo-Ho, if someone finds a reliable way to pirate games on to the console)
I agree, the logic is simple:
I can't see any flaws in the above reasoning.
So now I just refuse to pay for PC games. If it's good it'll get cracked. [...] I'm not going to put up with being treated like a criminal
Good for you! I'm not a criminal either, but I'm going to steal their work until they :
I don't want to get their content for free, I'm a good person who has no problem paying, but they leave me no choice with their draconian ways.
Granted, it was an entirely different beast than 802.11, but you just said "wireless LANs"
With air-tight arguments like that you would have got CSIRO thrown out of court in no time. The manufacturer group must be kicking themselves.
"Go read their patents." So you have nothing.
I think you might have a point. Just look at how vague and unspecific that diagram is.. Everyone was doing wireless LANs in 1993 after all, these guys are hopeless.
These guys need hire some scientists instead of lawyers.. It's called innovation guys!
Cars / guns aren't really the best analogy.. It'd be more like a shipping service that ships 10% legal goods and 90% illegal goods. If they took action to cut out the illegal stuff there wouldn't be a problem.
They also took it a step further in how they paid people who got the most downloads and got people to subscribe. Even TPB keeps a degree of separation between themselves, the illegal content, and the way they make money, but megaupload was pretty much making money directly off people uploading illegal content and getting subscribers to pay to download it quickly.
Also no-one needs TPB to distribute their personally created music.. Even if your band can't afford the miniscule hosting fees you can just host the torrent file; the whole point of bittorrent is it doesn't need sites like TPB.
Biometric auth perhaps? .. Not perfect of course..
Fukushima had a total coolant failure, and didn't go critical, but it was certainly dangerous.
It is dangerous, but constructing hydroelectric dams, mining coal, porting LNG, etc, etc is dangerous too. Big energy is dangerous.
The question is how many people died? None as far as we know, from this incident. You can talk about statistical future cancer deaths etc, but even with those (~70, IIRC) nuclear is relatively very safe. The difference is a coal mine collapse in China, or someone dying of pneumonia from dust, isn't a newsworthy event.
Holding nuclear's design (e.g. reactor safety margins) to a higher safety standard makes perfect sense, but holding nuclear's track record (e.g. total deaths/year) to a higher safety standard doesn't make sense.
Can you name a single such site ?
Generation 4 reactors are by definition still in the research phase. Gen III (and III+) are being rolled out now (which are safer and cheaper but not radically different in terms of fuel).
Is the concern that it won't actually turn out to be feasible? The science is pretty irrefutable; many experimental fast reactors were built in the nuclear honeymoon period.
Is the concern that they won't be used because it's cheaper to use high-grade fuel? That's a more legitimate concern, because fuel is so cheap, but if waste storage becomes too expensive that may tip the scale the other way.
All energy sources have their disadvantages. We can't afford to say "nuclear isn't perfect so we can't use it" because the alternatives (for base load generation) are likely worse.
Oh and how does it feel to be working on something which you probably will never see come to fruition in your lifetime?
Thanks for taking the time to do this, I went to a lecture given by someone who worked on the JET reactor and it was fascinating.
...? Are there major surprises which come up or is it all working on a few well known problems for a long time?
Given that fusion creates (shorter-lived) nuclear waste, the cost of it is unknown and the timeframe is unknown, how can you justify the relatively large amounts of money going towards fusion research reactors when so little goes towards fission research reactors?
I know that the economics of larger reactor = more economical are well known with tokomaks. Does this mean you have a good idea of the minimum cost / generating capacity of the first commercial reactors, and if so what do those numbers look like?
What is the main technological challenge you're facing? Is it containing the neutron flux, getting the waste products out, separating the tritium,
Thanks again.
Sounds a little boren.
Before the AGPL came out a BSD-licensed project of mine, webdiplomacy, was used to build a fork site.
They apparently forgot to credit us, are closed source, and didn't even include the BSD license until they were discovered. Instead of sharing code back they're quite bitter rivals, holding their site hostage for donations and having premium accounts.
Since the AGPL came out there are several other fork sites that have sprung up, but we all pool code changes, and they all market themselves to different niches (e.g. variants or different languages). Many of them are for-profit and host large communities, but we all share code and benefit from it.
Or maybe the missiles being fired into their civilian buildings and people getting blown up on buses?
I'd say the bigger question is how would it compete on price when the Xbox 360 is subsidized by game sales, and produced in huge bulk, while Steam offers games cheap and couldn't risk producing huge numbers of them.
OTOH I own a Windows phone and really like the metro interface, and I think you'll see the design philosophy adopted more and more on the web. I also think ribbons are great, making a huge improvement to Office 2007+.
So the next Windows combines two great UI innovations into the OS itself? Sounds like a recipe for success to me (and I can't wait for a decent Windows tablet).