Unlike the US, there are still places in Europe where size, wealth and power don't provide immunity from prosecution when a corporation violates the law.
The thing is, in the US regulators are designed and tasked with protecting US companies from prosecution, as we've seen with the FAA, Boeing and the 737-MAX fiasco. This means they assume that everywhere else is the same. Its quite inconceivable to some Americans that the EU applies the same rules and regulations to EU companies as they do to foreign ones, ergo in order to quell the congnitive dissonance there must be an anti-US conspiracy.
It's hard to tell from the article, but Google is obviously running the game on PC's in the backend. It makes way more sense than Google modifying a bunch of consoles to stream games, wouldn't you say?
So you are running the PC version of the game, probably with display settings fixed, and simply receiving the display via video stream, and sending control commands back to the "PC" )probably some kind of virtual PC) that is streaming the game.
So how is this not PC gaming? In theory it would be easy to have access to any PC game this way, at a resolution and quality level maybe better than most people's local PC's could handle.
Because PC gamers own a PC, so will be running things locally because there is no input lag. Streaming services for PC's already exist and aren't being taken up in any great number. If you looked at the presentation, they aren't comparing it to an i7 with a 2080 GTX... they're comparing it to a PS4 and XB1.
If anything it's going to target casual gamers, not PC gamers. The kind of person why buys an Xbox or Playstation for FIFA (or insert $popularSportGameYYYY for your nation) and little else, maybe a bit of Call of Battlefare, XXXIV Rehashed edition. Ultimately, it will be the types of games that are hosted that will determine the type of player they'll attract.
Even then I doubt it's going to work as half a second input lag will see any controller hurled across the room with the power of Hercules, especially seeing as most casual games are twitch games where response times matter.
The problem with using NAS/SAN drives is pure economics.
A lot of people who require high end workstations will be doing work on consumer OS's. With GIS, it's Windows (ArcGIS). So this tends to throw a spanner in the works. The setup for an iSCSI over Ethernet connection requires a separate network (well it should if you're doing it properly) and If for any reason the drives are disconnected which is a problem on Windows desktop operating systems it costs a lot of money. So it becomes trivial to just say "throw a bunch of SSD's in there and RAID/JBOD them, then tell the GIS analyst to move the finished work SAN/NAS after they're done" which will be much smaller than the multitudes of datasets they're working with. Any roadblocks cost huge sums of money.
So in the economic sense, you'll have both because the amount of money you'll lose by being cheap isn't worth the potential savings. The simplicity of local storage is simply worth the additional cost. Given the low cost of SSD's these days, it can even be cheaper than remote storage.
I saw a comment on a hardware hacking blog a few years ago about a musician who used a repurposed server as his composing workstation. He wrote music for films, TV shows, entertainment and promotional work for a well-paid living.
His workstation/server had four 8-core Xeons so he could composite multiple channels of music in real-time and 512GB of RAM so he could keep several hundred GB of music samples in RAM as he worked. He reckoned the server paid for itself in time saved and delivery-to-customer scheduling with the first two projects. He had used high-end Apple kit before he moved to this solution but nothing out of Cupertino could match what he had built himself.
This.
I used to work for Geoscience and Geospatial companies. This is where you're trying to manipulate images in the 10's of gigabyte ranges (back in 2009). Only the HP and Sun workstations could even hope to match what you could custom build for the GIS and Remote Sensing analysts and the Sun ones only ran Solaris or Linux IIRC and both options were hideously expensive and I think they top out at $8000 odd. It was worth it to custom build as if a part broke, you'd just go buy a new one off the shelf (the time cost of waiting for an onsite repair was worth way more than $500). You could even buy tower case servers from Dell et al. and shove a graphics card in them. When you're charging out at $300+ an hour, this is entirely worth it, you can get a lot of server for $10,000... let alone $16,000.
This Apple workstation isn't for people who work, it's for people who have more money than sense. Then again, that pretty much sums up the entire Apple range so I'll give Cupertino points for consistency.
Most people will never need more than 16GB of RAM to play video games Sounds familiar to me. No comments, other than the famous "640K ought to be enough for anybody." is often attributed erroneously to Bill Gates.
With 256GB of RAM, you could run advanced AI processes or lease computing power to other people.. Of course, because both tasks are memory-bound, and not compute-bound/sarcasm.
The average user will not need 16 GB in the near future. Even gamers aren't RAM limited, my 12 GB is enough to make my graphics card the bottleneck.
I suspect they won't require 16 GB as a recommended amount for some time yet. We've been on 4GB for a while and the average user still isn't utilising all of that.
The only people who need a lot of RAM are people who are running very RAM intensive programs like databases, image processing, virtualisation, et al. where you need to keep huge volumes of data in memory. AI processes not so much as they are usually processes, not huge datasets.
However if you need to do any of that, you're absolutely daft to be buying a Mac when you can get a Dell (or insert other brand) x64 server of similar spec for half the cost, let alone build your own custom PC for less. Even the HP Z workstations top out at $8,000 and if anything goes wrong with that, HP comes to you.
This smells like a collusion between Boeing and the US Government (FAA) in order to rush through certification to be anti-competitive to the Airbus product that was ready for this area.
This is not new. The FAA has always been protectionist of US aircraft manufacturers. This is why other countries have distanced their aviation safety authorities from the US.
Not by enough either. The LAG restrictions need to die. Australia (CASA) has already removed them on domestic flights but can't on international ones. EASA (Europe) and CAA (UK) need to change it first, others will then follow suit.
Except in the 737 MAX it kind of does. The mode of the adjustments used by the autopilot and the stall avoidance system is by adjusting the aircraft trim by turning the rear horizontal stabilizer trim jack screw. Also, I'm told that the same sensors used by the autopilot, or at least some of them, are used by the stall avoidance system.
However, turning off the autopilot doesn't disengage the stall avoidance system. It keeps doing it's thing regardless.
The problem here is that the aircraft is pretty much flyable even with the system malfunctioning, IF you understand what's happening and how to counter it. IF you don't understand what's happening though, the aircraft becomes unstable and your natural tendency is likely to do the wrong thing.
Except that isn't whats happening here.
The B737 MAX series has an inherent flaw in it's design. The CFM LEAP engines are too big to fit underwing on a 737, so they either had to raise the ground clearance making them unsuitable for some regional airports or move the engines higher. They chose to move the engines forward from the wing and higher. This means the thrust line now passes directly underneath the wing surface, instead of starting behind it. This has the unfortunate side effect of increasing pitch if not handled correctly.
Even this would have been OK if Boeing had of wanted to re-certify the type and pilots were to get retrained and rated on the new type but Boeing wanted to have the MAX series certified under the 737 NG certificate, this means that they had to be the same to fly. As they'd changed the thrust line this was impossible if they didn't implement a system that would make the plane behave the same to pilot input... This involved creating a system that overrides pilot control, they called it MCAS and the anti-stall system you mentioned is just a small part of it.
So the problem here is two fold.
1. The changes in engine position make the aircraft prone to increasing pitch faster without adjusting the elevators.
2. Boeing implemented a software control system that overrides the pilot.... WITHOUT telling the pilots.
I don’t know what the laws are like in Australia, but this seems to me like a clear case of it.
Not with Australia's current government. They keep flip-flopping between corporate apologist/stooge/protector and wannabe Trumpite popularists but with limited success in either attempt, not that there's much difference between their two stances.
Basically few Australians would know about this and the company wasn't big enough to make political donations, so no Australian politician would care.
Seriously, Uber is the Facebook of the ridesharing world.
So no matter how shitty they get, no matter how much bad press there is about their misdeeds... People won't stop using them.
Either that or you're saying that Facebook is losing hundreds of millions of dollars per quarter, I doubt Facebook is making a profit, but their costs aren't that great.
Partly, but that's only a small part of the bigger picture. It's primarily because he knows there's a storm coming, as soon as Trump is gone and Brexit isn't distracting every moment of British political discourse anymore, the genie he let out of the bottle of political interference is going to cause serious blowback in Russia when it's used back against them in kind.
This threat is already prevalent for him in some ways given that he tried the same tactic to get Le Penn in power in France, but didn't count on Macron turning up as a force of nature capable of capturing votes better than his propaganda campaigns ever could. I have no doubt French security services are already looking at ways to turn the tables under Macron's leadership therefore, given Macron himself was personally targeted by Putin. As soon as other big boys like America and the UK come on board, if their security services aren't already in spite of their inept national governance, Russia, is, frankly, fucked.
So the only thing Putin can do is try and enact laws and powers to control and shut down the internet to try and prevent that, but the irony is that in doing so he's only pissing off his own citizens even more and speeding up his inevitable demise.
If we weren't talking about Russia I'd say you'd have an exceptionally good point.
However Russia is not like the west, it doesn't matter how authoritarian Putin gets there will be no popular uprising as there wasn't against Stalin or subsequent communists. Right now enough Russians are singing Putin's praises that he doesn't need to worry about fixing elections or pesky term limits, a lot of Russians think that Putin has made Russia strong again. Many of these people are also willing to patrol the streets and report their neighbours for being unpatriotic citizens. Most Russians have never known any other life except under the heel of another Russian and as long as the foot in the boot on their neck is a Russian foot, they seem to be content to accept it.
Putin wants to keep the west destabilised as the west is pretty much the only threat to his dictatorship. I'm guessing he's hoping to well and truly be in power by the time Trump is gone and Brexit has been sorted.
What has Beto done in his life that makes him worthy of being president? He was a rich prep-school kid who started a failed rock band, did drugs, got arrested, married a rich wife, and failed at everything he tried.... until politics. And then he lost the vote.
So what you're saying is that this guy has lived a normal, flawed if not a little privileged American life... Doesn't that make him ideal? A person who's actually had to face and overcome failure, deal with disappointments in life, got a woman to say she liked him because she actually liked him, not for his money.
Surely the best person to understand the people is a person who's had to deal with the same trials and tribulations as ordinary people.
I never thought I'd see the day where Microsoft was the ethical choice.
I get the joke... But MS isn't evil by intent, it's evil as a matter of consequence.
MS just want more money, so their evil stems entirely from that. If they wanted to be truly evil they'd have all kinds of dastardly things like forcing us to use Sharepoint to access Exchange.
microsoft = software. amazon = marketing. some companies are smart because amazons IT will never compare to microsofts IT.
Errr, no.
The company I'm consulting with right now has done in-depth studies of AWS, Google, and Azure. They eventually want to have a setup where they can, at will, move their services between any of the big 3 providers.
They've been having all sorts of meetings with reps from all 3 trying to see what they can do, and I've no doubt that eventually they'll be able to do this (easily shift services from provider to provider).
In the most basic terms, this is the way things stand:
First off, in case you didn't know, AWS is IaaS - Infrastructure as a Service while Azure is PaaS - Platform as a Service. (No one knows what the fuck Google is yet.) These two approaches obviously have some serious implications as to how you deploy and manage your stuff, so you'll want to either know what the fuck you're doing or pay someone smart look at your operation and tell you which makes the most sense for you.
Almost, Azure is pure PaaS, they want to sell you OS as a service, database as a service, web hosting as a service. Amazon is both IaaS and PaaS, they'll sell you raw compute resource as well as database as a service et al.
I think de-clouding will become a thing in the near future. Cloud is just going to become part of the cycle of management fuckery like the old desktop -> terminal -> desktop cycle. Every now and then a CxO who came up through sales is told about how much money they'll save by going to the Cloud at the golf course. Sounds good up until they get the first bill combined with declining customer numbers (meaning declining bonus values) and race to get things back on premises.
Cloud is the latest buzzword that non IT types use, but most people don't realise that cloud providers, especially Azure, are like low cost airlines. Very low cost of entry, but then they start charging you for every little "extra". Most cloud providers are 9 to 5, M thru F and if your business is different it's going to start costing more. It becomes a false economy like low cost airlines. Sure Norweigian can fly me London to LA for £350, but if I want a meal it's £50 more, if I want to pick a seat it's £50 again... so on and so forth. United on the other hand will fly me to LA for £400 which includes meal and seat selection. Budget airlines are fine when you fit into their rules but expensive if you want anything else. Cloud providers are the same, cheap if you fit into their rules, but want anything different and they'll have a bill in hand for it.
Any argument that we can't stop robo-calls because it's "too expensive" is just stupid. The cost of stopping them is miniscule compared to the cost of allowing them.
Cost of stopping them will have to be borne by the telco,.
Cost of allowing will by borne by you, not the telco.
So what would telco do?
I'd expect a telco to stop them... Or face fines that increment by the day.
The problem isn't that it would _cost_ the telco's too much money... the technology to do this has been in place for at least 20 years (when we changed from cell switched to packet switched exchanges). The problem is that the telco's are _making_ too much money from this. If you want to stop spammers, you have to make it cost less for the telco to not host them than they make from hosting them.
Case 2) As for the 737 MAX, at worst, MCAS should sound an alarm, it should *NOT* over-ride the pilot, and drive the plane nose-down into the ground. If the 737 MAX can't be easily flown by a competent pilot without the MCAS band-aid, the 737 MAX should have its airworthiness certificate revoked.
First off, exceptional post, apologies for cutting it short (for readability).
The thing about the 737 MAX MCAS is that its designed to make the MAX flying characteristic the same as the previous 737 NG to save on pilot retraining and type re-certification. This means that it will automatically adjust some control surfaces and override the pilots control to make it seem like the pilot was flying an older 737 NG. This is an issue because Boeing needed to move the engine forward of the wing to get enough ground clearance. The thrust line now goes under the wing, this is what makes it difficult to fly manually, it can increase the pitch ultimately leading to a stall. If the MCAS detects this it will use the elevators to push the nose down. It did this erroneously on the Lion Air flight out of Jakarta (JT610) causing that crash.
A pilot cant over-ride the MCAS, but can disable it. As Boeing didn't publish this (at least properly) most 737 MAX pilots didn't know about it. I've heard rumours that similar things have happened on 737 MAX's flying in the US but the pilots were trained to disable the system.
The 737 MAX has an engineering problem, not a software problem. You cant fix bad engineering with software.
This was published in november: https://christinenegroni.com/7...
By then it was already clear that Boeing had quietly added a new MCAS antistall mechanism to make the new plane somewhat act like the old plane and in this way allow pilots to switch from the old plane to the new plane without costs of retraining, and the FAA had let it pass.
Since then the MCAS documentation has been made available to the pilots but that is not enough. MCAS has been badly implemented.
The reason Boeing had added the MCAS system is because the new CFM International LEAP 1B engines were too big to fit with the 737's frames current ground clearance. If you look at the 737 NG engines you'll notice they are oval-shaped with flat bottoms because some of the parts had to be relocated to the side in order to fit them under the wings. As the LEAP engines are even bigger, Boeing had to move them forward of the wing and raise them. This had the nasty effect of putting the thrust line directly under the wing, changing the handling characteristics of the aircraft, particularly making it possible for the engines to increase the angle of attack.
Part of the MCAS system is the anti-stall measure which is designed to point the nose of the aircraft down by means of adjusting the elevators when it detects an angle of attack increasing to a point where a stall might be a possibility. The problem that caused the Lion Air flight JT610 was that it did this erroneously and pointed the nose of the plane towards the ground.
The problem that Boeing has is that software is too unreliable to fix the issue of bad engineering. The engines need to be moved back under the wing so that the thrust line is not going under the wing any more. This means either raising the ground clearance of the frame, or fitting smaller engines. Rushing out a software fix is likely to result in more bugs.
grounding all Boeing 737 MAX aircraft on March 13, citing new data
New data my ass. The planes have been grounded because all the countries worldwide were banning them, including China and the whole EU. Grounding them from the very first moment would have been much more sensible from Boeing.
Countries around the globe have been banning them because there has been 2 fatal accidents within six months within the first 2 years of the aircraft's operation.
The A380 has been operating for over 11 years and not a single fatal accident. Commercial aviation is that insanely safe because most aviation safety authorities around the world take any issue incredibly seriously.
In fact only one major authority was reluctant in grounding the 737 MAX fleet and that nation just happened to be the one that built them. No conflict of interest there. No siree. None what so ever.
There really is no "pretending". In many ways hybrids, and especially plug-in hybrids, are superior to all-electric.
The headline was inaccurate. It should be "Hopeless EV fanboy who runs a shitty little blog no-one cares about is having a whinge that Toyota is still selling a shitload of Priuses".
If people like journalism a lot they will pay for it. Start doing journalism that sells and that people will support.
Why should a new tax have to look after any normal "job"?
That's the problem.
They've spent so long printing crap that sells that none of them know how to practice real journalism. An investigative piece on an important issue gets buried down at page 78 between the personals and the classifieds because it isn't as gritty and hard hitting as the latest celeb sex scandal which makes the front page.
News agencies that have for so long been nothing but political mouthpieces for their owners (Murdoch, Rotherham, et al.) have made such a mockery of news, conflating opinion with fact that many people now cant tell the difference between the two. This has lead to Russia Today (A mouthpiece for the Putin govt, a modern day Pravda) being considered a factual and reliable news source. People simply cant think critically because papers have tried everything they can to prevent it. They want you angry, they want you to stop thinking because that is when you stop questioning their agenda and just start accepting lies.
The fact remains that a pleasing lie sell and an uncomfortable truth is often rejected. Lies are almost always pleasing to someone and truths are almost always uncomfortable.
Journalism is almost dead, if Murdoch had his way we'd murder the last vestiges of it in the UK by shutting down the BBC. Its little wonder that the only newspaper with readership that isn't diminishing is the Private Eye, a satirical paper that is not meant to be taken seriously.
There's some jackass going around trying to convince everyone of that, and he's dedicated his life to eradicating all instances of "comprised of" from Wikipedia, and the shitty "news" articles that covered his efforts are almost assuredly why you "know" this "fact".
But that jackass is WRONG! The usage of "comprised of" is perfectly valid, and has been in standard usage for ages. It comes from the Latin comprehendere, and basically means to bring shit together (com) before (pre) taking it (hendere). Comprise means to collectively make up, form, or constitute.
3 books that comprise a volume are the 3 books comprising that volume, and that volume is comprised of (or by) those 3 books.
The thing I've discovered about pedants is that those who are most pedantic about something tend to be the ones who know the least about that subject. English language pedants doubly so. Over here a lot of people get hot under the collar if you say "can I get" despite it being perfectly cromulent. Same with using literally as hyperbole. Even the Oxford English Dictionary now literally lists the hyperbolic definition of literally.
People who actually know a lot about language (or other subjects) tend to be less pedantic about it because they're smart enough to know what you're on about.
So being a pedant just makes you look like an arse, to anyone who knows anything about the subject, it makes you look like dumb arse. Language pedants doubly so because languages are inherently irregular.
But take Hart Grammer Nazis, they're, there, their.
Which Egypt Air flight would that be? The incidents involve Lion (Singapore) and Ethiopian (Ethiopia). You don't even have the airline straight. Switching to manual trim control won't work - pressing the trim control button on the yoke will override the MCAS for five seconds before it will re-engage. You need to actually hit the MCAS disable switch on the centre console to stop it. If your training hasn't covered the MCAS properly, you very likely won't make the mental connection to realise this is what you need to do. The Ethiopian crash happened after six minutes in the air. Given the MCAS won't engage until flaps are raised, and optimistically assuming they raised flaps after two minutes airborne, that gives them four minutes maximum to have worked out what was going on and fix it. Evidently it wasn't enough.
Lion Air is an Indonesian airline, the flight in question, JT610 was taking off from Jakarta, Indonesia.
Singapore Airlines subsidiary, Silk Air operates 737 MAX 8's but Singapore was one of the first nations to ground them.
It's a critical safety system, required to obtain flight certification because of the larger, more powerful engines.
Without it, on full throttle, the aircraft doesn't have enough authority to bring the nose down once it goes up too high.
That's why only the MAX variants have this system, because they have larger engines.
Not quite.
The CFM International LEAP engines were too big to fit underwing like the current engines on the Classic and Next Generation (NG) airframes, so what Boeing did was put the engines forward of the wing and higher so that the thrust was now going directly under the wing which can cause the pitch to increase. Airliners keep their engines on underwing nacelles precisely to avoid that problem but the 737 MAX couldn't because it was too low to the ground. The anti-stall system is designed to compensate for this by automatically changing the elevators to reduce the Angle of Attack. The problem is the system is wrongly interpreting the actual Angle of Attack so it's erroneously pushing the nose of the plane towards the ground.
Rather than raise the 737 off the ground which was the logical option, Boeing tries to correct an inherent physical design flaw with software, software that has malfunctioned to cause a fatal incident twice in the last six months. Considering that air travel has become insanely safe, up to and including exploding engines and batteries with no fatalities on new models, two extremely fatal accidents in less than six months is a serious flaw.
The reason there's not anything compelling out of so many apps, is that Alexa is really the equivalent of the computer terminal for voice access of computers...
I'd actually say that the reason there are no compelling apps is because we've passed the age of apps. I've been steadily uninstalling apps from my phone and replacing them with shortcuts to the website. Most of my clubs and memberships have depreciated their apps and started redirecting people to their website.
Why? The websites work better than the apps. You don't need to maintain X number of codebases (X being the number of supported OS's), it works almost everywhere, suffers fewer bugs, can be easily used from multiple devices, not just mobile ones but also desktop and laptop machines. Doesn't break when the the user updates the OS, updates to the site do not break compatibility on older OS's.
We reached peak app years ago, now apps are in decline. My Krav Maga class had an app for years, it would alternate between the Iphone version being broken and the Android working or the Iphone version working and the Android version being broken.. Never did the two work together. It got so bad that no-one used the app any more. Fortunately at the end of the support contract last year they just wen't back to using a website as their booking/store application.
Same with my banks, my browser is advanced enough to comfortably use the desktop version of my banking websites which gives me all the features instead of the limited subset available in the app.
In the 1950s and 1960s we had several students in my school that had either enormous wealth or power or both. A teacher would be out of his blooming mind to not make certain these kids had really high grades as power and a telephone call could surely end a teacher's employment. I have no way to know if any contact or incentives between teachers and wealthy parents. I believe the system is such that things can happen without anyone ever speaking a word. I do know that our high school football team had one pro player as he tried to recruit me with mention of apartments and cars etc.. He was 21 years old.
What do you mean "comes round again"... It's always been this way. We just stopped caring in the 70's, 80's and 90's because of that whole "greed is good" bollocks. We're beginning to care now because we're starting to realise just how much the middle class is being squeezed now the economy isn't good.
There's an old joke about an oil Sheikh who sends his son to study at Oxford. His son writes to his father to thank him for the new Ferrari, saying all the other students arrived by train. The Sheikh writes back "Son, do not disgrace the family, go and buy a train".
Slashdot Mirror
Unlike the US, there are still places in Europe where size, wealth and power don't provide immunity from prosecution when a corporation violates the law.
The thing is, in the US regulators are designed and tasked with protecting US companies from prosecution, as we've seen with the FAA, Boeing and the 737-MAX fiasco. This means they assume that everywhere else is the same. Its quite inconceivable to some Americans that the EU applies the same rules and regulations to EU companies as they do to foreign ones, ergo in order to quell the congnitive dissonance there must be an anti-US conspiracy.
This isn't PC gaming.
It's hard to tell from the article, but Google is obviously running the game on PC's in the backend. It makes way more sense than Google modifying a bunch of consoles to stream games, wouldn't you say?
So you are running the PC version of the game, probably with display settings fixed, and simply receiving the display via video stream, and sending control commands back to the "PC" )probably some kind of virtual PC) that is streaming the game.
So how is this not PC gaming? In theory it would be easy to have access to any PC game this way, at a resolution and quality level maybe better than most people's local PC's could handle.
Because PC gamers own a PC, so will be running things locally because there is no input lag. Streaming services for PC's already exist and aren't being taken up in any great number. If you looked at the presentation, they aren't comparing it to an i7 with a 2080 GTX... they're comparing it to a PS4 and XB1.
If anything it's going to target casual gamers, not PC gamers. The kind of person why buys an Xbox or Playstation for FIFA (or insert $popularSportGameYYYY for your nation) and little else, maybe a bit of Call of Battlefare, XXXIV Rehashed edition. Ultimately, it will be the types of games that are hosted that will determine the type of player they'll attract.
Even then I doubt it's going to work as half a second input lag will see any controller hurled across the room with the power of Hercules, especially seeing as most casual games are twitch games where response times matter.
The problem with using NAS/SAN drives is pure economics. A lot of people who require high end workstations will be doing work on consumer OS's. With GIS, it's Windows (ArcGIS). So this tends to throw a spanner in the works. The setup for an iSCSI over Ethernet connection requires a separate network (well it should if you're doing it properly) and If for any reason the drives are disconnected which is a problem on Windows desktop operating systems it costs a lot of money. So it becomes trivial to just say "throw a bunch of SSD's in there and RAID/JBOD them, then tell the GIS analyst to move the finished work SAN/NAS after they're done" which will be much smaller than the multitudes of datasets they're working with. Any roadblocks cost huge sums of money. So in the economic sense, you'll have both because the amount of money you'll lose by being cheap isn't worth the potential savings. The simplicity of local storage is simply worth the additional cost. Given the low cost of SSD's these days, it can even be cheaper than remote storage.
I saw a comment on a hardware hacking blog a few years ago about a musician who used a repurposed server as his composing workstation. He wrote music for films, TV shows, entertainment and promotional work for a well-paid living.
His workstation/server had four 8-core Xeons so he could composite multiple channels of music in real-time and 512GB of RAM so he could keep several hundred GB of music samples in RAM as he worked. He reckoned the server paid for itself in time saved and delivery-to-customer scheduling with the first two projects. He had used high-end Apple kit before he moved to this solution but nothing out of Cupertino could match what he had built himself.
This.
I used to work for Geoscience and Geospatial companies. This is where you're trying to manipulate images in the 10's of gigabyte ranges (back in 2009). Only the HP and Sun workstations could even hope to match what you could custom build for the GIS and Remote Sensing analysts and the Sun ones only ran Solaris or Linux IIRC and both options were hideously expensive and I think they top out at $8000 odd. It was worth it to custom build as if a part broke, you'd just go buy a new one off the shelf (the time cost of waiting for an onsite repair was worth way more than $500). You could even buy tower case servers from Dell et al. and shove a graphics card in them. When you're charging out at $300+ an hour, this is entirely worth it, you can get a lot of server for $10,000... let alone $16,000.
This Apple workstation isn't for people who work, it's for people who have more money than sense. Then again, that pretty much sums up the entire Apple range so I'll give Cupertino points for consistency.
Most people will never need more than 16GB of RAM to play video games Sounds familiar to me. No comments, other than the famous "640K ought to be enough for anybody." is often attributed erroneously to Bill Gates.
With 256GB of RAM, you could run advanced AI processes or lease computing power to other people.. Of course, because both tasks are memory-bound, and not compute-bound /sarcasm.
The average user will not need 16 GB in the near future. Even gamers aren't RAM limited, my 12 GB is enough to make my graphics card the bottleneck.
I suspect they won't require 16 GB as a recommended amount for some time yet. We've been on 4GB for a while and the average user still isn't utilising all of that.
The only people who need a lot of RAM are people who are running very RAM intensive programs like databases, image processing, virtualisation, et al. where you need to keep huge volumes of data in memory. AI processes not so much as they are usually processes, not huge datasets.
However if you need to do any of that, you're absolutely daft to be buying a Mac when you can get a Dell (or insert other brand) x64 server of similar spec for half the cost, let alone build your own custom PC for less. Even the HP Z workstations top out at $8,000 and if anything goes wrong with that, HP comes to you.
This smells like a collusion between Boeing and the US Government (FAA) in order to rush through certification to be anti-competitive to the Airbus product that was ready for this area.
This is not new. The FAA has always been protectionist of US aircraft manufacturers. This is why other countries have distanced their aviation safety authorities from the US.
Not by enough either. The LAG restrictions need to die. Australia (CASA) has already removed them on domestic flights but can't on international ones. EASA (Europe) and CAA (UK) need to change it first, others will then follow suit.
Auto pilot has nothing to do with this.
Except in the 737 MAX it kind of does. The mode of the adjustments used by the autopilot and the stall avoidance system is by adjusting the aircraft trim by turning the rear horizontal stabilizer trim jack screw. Also, I'm told that the same sensors used by the autopilot, or at least some of them, are used by the stall avoidance system.
However, turning off the autopilot doesn't disengage the stall avoidance system. It keeps doing it's thing regardless.
The problem here is that the aircraft is pretty much flyable even with the system malfunctioning, IF you understand what's happening and how to counter it. IF you don't understand what's happening though, the aircraft becomes unstable and your natural tendency is likely to do the wrong thing.
Except that isn't whats happening here.
The B737 MAX series has an inherent flaw in it's design. The CFM LEAP engines are too big to fit underwing on a 737, so they either had to raise the ground clearance making them unsuitable for some regional airports or move the engines higher. They chose to move the engines forward from the wing and higher. This means the thrust line now passes directly underneath the wing surface, instead of starting behind it. This has the unfortunate side effect of increasing pitch if not handled correctly.
Even this would have been OK if Boeing had of wanted to re-certify the type and pilots were to get retrained and rated on the new type but Boeing wanted to have the MAX series certified under the 737 NG certificate, this means that they had to be the same to fly. As they'd changed the thrust line this was impossible if they didn't implement a system that would make the plane behave the same to pilot input... This involved creating a system that overrides pilot control, they called it MCAS and the anti-stall system you mentioned is just a small part of it.
So the problem here is two fold.
1. The changes in engine position make the aircraft prone to increasing pitch faster without adjusting the elevators.
2. Boeing implemented a software control system that overrides the pilot.... WITHOUT telling the pilots.
I don’t know what the laws are like in Australia, but this seems to me like a clear case of it.
Not with Australia's current government. They keep flip-flopping between corporate apologist/stooge/protector and wannabe Trumpite popularists but with limited success in either attempt, not that there's much difference between their two stances.
Basically few Australians would know about this and the company wasn't big enough to make political donations, so no Australian politician would care.
Seriously, Uber is the Facebook of the ridesharing world.
So no matter how shitty they get, no matter how much bad press there is about their misdeeds... People won't stop using them.
Either that or you're saying that Facebook is losing hundreds of millions of dollars per quarter, I doubt Facebook is making a profit, but their costs aren't that great.
Partly, but that's only a small part of the bigger picture. It's primarily because he knows there's a storm coming, as soon as Trump is gone and Brexit isn't distracting every moment of British political discourse anymore, the genie he let out of the bottle of political interference is going to cause serious blowback in Russia when it's used back against them in kind.
This threat is already prevalent for him in some ways given that he tried the same tactic to get Le Penn in power in France, but didn't count on Macron turning up as a force of nature capable of capturing votes better than his propaganda campaigns ever could. I have no doubt French security services are already looking at ways to turn the tables under Macron's leadership therefore, given Macron himself was personally targeted by Putin. As soon as other big boys like America and the UK come on board, if their security services aren't already in spite of their inept national governance, Russia, is, frankly, fucked.
So the only thing Putin can do is try and enact laws and powers to control and shut down the internet to try and prevent that, but the irony is that in doing so he's only pissing off his own citizens even more and speeding up his inevitable demise.
If we weren't talking about Russia I'd say you'd have an exceptionally good point.
However Russia is not like the west, it doesn't matter how authoritarian Putin gets there will be no popular uprising as there wasn't against Stalin or subsequent communists. Right now enough Russians are singing Putin's praises that he doesn't need to worry about fixing elections or pesky term limits, a lot of Russians think that Putin has made Russia strong again. Many of these people are also willing to patrol the streets and report their neighbours for being unpatriotic citizens. Most Russians have never known any other life except under the heel of another Russian and as long as the foot in the boot on their neck is a Russian foot, they seem to be content to accept it.
Putin wants to keep the west destabilised as the west is pretty much the only threat to his dictatorship. I'm guessing he's hoping to well and truly be in power by the time Trump is gone and Brexit has been sorted.
What has Beto done in his life that makes him worthy of being president? He was a rich prep-school kid who started a failed rock band, did drugs, got arrested, married a rich wife, and failed at everything he tried .... until politics. And then he lost the vote.
So what you're saying is that this guy has lived a normal, flawed if not a little privileged American life... Doesn't that make him ideal? A person who's actually had to face and overcome failure, deal with disappointments in life, got a woman to say she liked him because she actually liked him, not for his money.
Surely the best person to understand the people is a person who's had to deal with the same trials and tribulations as ordinary people.
I never thought I'd see the day where Microsoft was the ethical choice.
I get the joke... But MS isn't evil by intent, it's evil as a matter of consequence. MS just want more money, so their evil stems entirely from that. If they wanted to be truly evil they'd have all kinds of dastardly things like forcing us to use Sharepoint to access Exchange.
microsoft = software. amazon = marketing. some companies are smart because amazons IT will never compare to microsofts IT.
Errr, no.
The company I'm consulting with right now has done in-depth studies of AWS, Google, and Azure. They eventually want to have a setup where they can, at will, move their services between any of the big 3 providers.
They've been having all sorts of meetings with reps from all 3 trying to see what they can do, and I've no doubt that eventually they'll be able to do this (easily shift services from provider to provider).
In the most basic terms, this is the way things stand:
First off, in case you didn't know, AWS is IaaS - Infrastructure as a Service while Azure is PaaS - Platform as a Service. (No one knows what the fuck Google is yet.) These two approaches obviously have some serious implications as to how you deploy and manage your stuff, so you'll want to either know what the fuck you're doing or pay someone smart look at your operation and tell you which makes the most sense for you.
Almost, Azure is pure PaaS, they want to sell you OS as a service, database as a service, web hosting as a service. Amazon is both IaaS and PaaS, they'll sell you raw compute resource as well as database as a service et al.
I think de-clouding will become a thing in the near future. Cloud is just going to become part of the cycle of management fuckery like the old desktop -> terminal -> desktop cycle. Every now and then a CxO who came up through sales is told about how much money they'll save by going to the Cloud at the golf course. Sounds good up until they get the first bill combined with declining customer numbers (meaning declining bonus values) and race to get things back on premises.
Cloud is the latest buzzword that non IT types use, but most people don't realise that cloud providers, especially Azure, are like low cost airlines. Very low cost of entry, but then they start charging you for every little "extra". Most cloud providers are 9 to 5, M thru F and if your business is different it's going to start costing more. It becomes a false economy like low cost airlines. Sure Norweigian can fly me London to LA for £350, but if I want a meal it's £50 more, if I want to pick a seat it's £50 again... so on and so forth. United on the other hand will fly me to LA for £400 which includes meal and seat selection. Budget airlines are fine when you fit into their rules but expensive if you want anything else. Cloud providers are the same, cheap if you fit into their rules, but want anything different and they'll have a bill in hand for it.
Any argument that we can't stop robo-calls because it's "too expensive" is just stupid. The cost of stopping them is miniscule compared to the cost of allowing them.
Cost of stopping them will have to be borne by the telco,.
Cost of allowing will by borne by you, not the telco.
So what would telco do?
I'd expect a telco to stop them... Or face fines that increment by the day.
The problem isn't that it would _cost_ the telco's too much money... the technology to do this has been in place for at least 20 years (when we changed from cell switched to packet switched exchanges). The problem is that the telco's are _making_ too much money from this. If you want to stop spammers, you have to make it cost less for the telco to not host them than they make from hosting them.
Case 2) As for the 737 MAX, at worst, MCAS should sound an alarm, it should *NOT* over-ride the pilot, and drive the plane nose-down into the ground. If the 737 MAX can't be easily flown by a competent pilot without the MCAS band-aid, the 737 MAX should have its airworthiness certificate revoked.
First off, exceptional post, apologies for cutting it short (for readability). The thing about the 737 MAX MCAS is that its designed to make the MAX flying characteristic the same as the previous 737 NG to save on pilot retraining and type re-certification. This means that it will automatically adjust some control surfaces and override the pilots control to make it seem like the pilot was flying an older 737 NG. This is an issue because Boeing needed to move the engine forward of the wing to get enough ground clearance. The thrust line now goes under the wing, this is what makes it difficult to fly manually, it can increase the pitch ultimately leading to a stall. If the MCAS detects this it will use the elevators to push the nose down. It did this erroneously on the Lion Air flight out of Jakarta (JT610) causing that crash.
A pilot cant over-ride the MCAS, but can disable it. As Boeing didn't publish this (at least properly) most 737 MAX pilots didn't know about it. I've heard rumours that similar things have happened on 737 MAX's flying in the US but the pilots were trained to disable the system.
The 737 MAX has an engineering problem, not a software problem. You cant fix bad engineering with software.
This was published in november: https://christinenegroni.com/7...
By then it was already clear that Boeing had quietly added a new MCAS antistall mechanism to make the new plane somewhat act like the old plane and in this way allow pilots to switch from the old plane to the new plane without costs of retraining, and the FAA had let it pass.
Since then the MCAS documentation has been made available to the pilots but that is not enough. MCAS has been badly implemented.
The reason Boeing had added the MCAS system is because the new CFM International LEAP 1B engines were too big to fit with the 737's frames current ground clearance. If you look at the 737 NG engines you'll notice they are oval-shaped with flat bottoms because some of the parts had to be relocated to the side in order to fit them under the wings. As the LEAP engines are even bigger, Boeing had to move them forward of the wing and raise them. This had the nasty effect of putting the thrust line directly under the wing, changing the handling characteristics of the aircraft, particularly making it possible for the engines to increase the angle of attack.
Part of the MCAS system is the anti-stall measure which is designed to point the nose of the aircraft down by means of adjusting the elevators when it detects an angle of attack increasing to a point where a stall might be a possibility. The problem that caused the Lion Air flight JT610 was that it did this erroneously and pointed the nose of the plane towards the ground.
The problem that Boeing has is that software is too unreliable to fix the issue of bad engineering. The engines need to be moved back under the wing so that the thrust line is not going under the wing any more. This means either raising the ground clearance of the frame, or fitting smaller engines. Rushing out a software fix is likely to result in more bugs.
Stock will drop to a more realistic P/E, then I will pile in and pick up some bargains. BA is not going anywhere. Long BA.
Not sure what British Airways has to do with this... but if they aren't going anywhere they wont be in business long.
grounding all Boeing 737 MAX aircraft on March 13, citing new data
New data my ass. The planes have been grounded because all the countries worldwide were banning them, including China and the whole EU. Grounding them from the very first moment would have been much more sensible from Boeing.
Countries around the globe have been banning them because there has been 2 fatal accidents within six months within the first 2 years of the aircraft's operation.
The A380 has been operating for over 11 years and not a single fatal accident. Commercial aviation is that insanely safe because most aviation safety authorities around the world take any issue incredibly seriously.
In fact only one major authority was reluctant in grounding the 737 MAX fleet and that nation just happened to be the one that built them. No conflict of interest there. No siree. None what so ever.
There really is no "pretending". In many ways hybrids, and especially plug-in hybrids, are superior to all-electric.
The headline was inaccurate. It should be "Hopeless EV fanboy who runs a shitty little blog no-one cares about is having a whinge that Toyota is still selling a shitload of Priuses".
If people like journalism a lot they will pay for it.
Start doing journalism that sells and that people will support.
Why should a new tax have to look after any normal "job"?
That's the problem.
They've spent so long printing crap that sells that none of them know how to practice real journalism. An investigative piece on an important issue gets buried down at page 78 between the personals and the classifieds because it isn't as gritty and hard hitting as the latest celeb sex scandal which makes the front page.
News agencies that have for so long been nothing but political mouthpieces for their owners (Murdoch, Rotherham, et al.) have made such a mockery of news, conflating opinion with fact that many people now cant tell the difference between the two. This has lead to Russia Today (A mouthpiece for the Putin govt, a modern day Pravda) being considered a factual and reliable news source. People simply cant think critically because papers have tried everything they can to prevent it. They want you angry, they want you to stop thinking because that is when you stop questioning their agenda and just start accepting lies.
The fact remains that a pleasing lie sell and an uncomfortable truth is often rejected. Lies are almost always pleasing to someone and truths are almost always uncomfortable.
Journalism is almost dead, if Murdoch had his way we'd murder the last vestiges of it in the UK by shutting down the BBC. Its little wonder that the only newspaper with readership that isn't diminishing is the Private Eye, a satirical paper that is not meant to be taken seriously.
WRONG!
There's some jackass going around trying to convince everyone of that, and he's dedicated his life to eradicating all instances of "comprised of" from Wikipedia, and the shitty "news" articles that covered his efforts are almost assuredly why you "know" this "fact".
But that jackass is WRONG! The usage of "comprised of" is perfectly valid, and has been in standard usage for ages. It comes from the Latin comprehendere, and basically means to bring shit together (com) before (pre) taking it (hendere). Comprise means to collectively make up, form, or constitute.
3 books that comprise a volume are the 3 books comprising that volume, and that volume is comprised of (or by) those 3 books.
The thing I've discovered about pedants is that those who are most pedantic about something tend to be the ones who know the least about that subject. English language pedants doubly so. Over here a lot of people get hot under the collar if you say "can I get" despite it being perfectly cromulent. Same with using literally as hyperbole. Even the Oxford English Dictionary now literally lists the hyperbolic definition of literally.
People who actually know a lot about language (or other subjects) tend to be less pedantic about it because they're smart enough to know what you're on about.
So being a pedant just makes you look like an arse, to anyone who knows anything about the subject, it makes you look like dumb arse. Language pedants doubly so because languages are inherently irregular.
But take Hart Grammer Nazis, they're, there, their.
Which Egypt Air flight would that be? The incidents involve Lion (Singapore) and Ethiopian (Ethiopia). You don't even have the airline straight. Switching to manual trim control won't work - pressing the trim control button on the yoke will override the MCAS for five seconds before it will re-engage. You need to actually hit the MCAS disable switch on the centre console to stop it. If your training hasn't covered the MCAS properly, you very likely won't make the mental connection to realise this is what you need to do. The Ethiopian crash happened after six minutes in the air. Given the MCAS won't engage until flaps are raised, and optimistically assuming they raised flaps after two minutes airborne, that gives them four minutes maximum to have worked out what was going on and fix it. Evidently it wasn't enough.
Lion Air is an Indonesian airline, the flight in question, JT610 was taking off from Jakarta, Indonesia.
Singapore Airlines subsidiary, Silk Air operates 737 MAX 8's but Singapore was one of the first nations to ground them.
It's a critical safety system, required to obtain flight certification because of the larger, more powerful engines.
Without it, on full throttle, the aircraft doesn't have enough authority to bring the nose down once it goes up too high.
That's why only the MAX variants have this system, because they have larger engines.
Not quite.
The CFM International LEAP engines were too big to fit underwing like the current engines on the Classic and Next Generation (NG) airframes, so what Boeing did was put the engines forward of the wing and higher so that the thrust was now going directly under the wing which can cause the pitch to increase. Airliners keep their engines on underwing nacelles precisely to avoid that problem but the 737 MAX couldn't because it was too low to the ground. The anti-stall system is designed to compensate for this by automatically changing the elevators to reduce the Angle of Attack. The problem is the system is wrongly interpreting the actual Angle of Attack so it's erroneously pushing the nose of the plane towards the ground.
Rather than raise the 737 off the ground which was the logical option, Boeing tries to correct an inherent physical design flaw with software, software that has malfunctioned to cause a fatal incident twice in the last six months. Considering that air travel has become insanely safe, up to and including exploding engines and batteries with no fatalities on new models, two extremely fatal accidents in less than six months is a serious flaw.
The reason there's not anything compelling out of so many apps, is that Alexa is really the equivalent of the computer terminal for voice access of computers...
I'd actually say that the reason there are no compelling apps is because we've passed the age of apps. I've been steadily uninstalling apps from my phone and replacing them with shortcuts to the website. Most of my clubs and memberships have depreciated their apps and started redirecting people to their website.
Why? The websites work better than the apps. You don't need to maintain X number of codebases (X being the number of supported OS's), it works almost everywhere, suffers fewer bugs, can be easily used from multiple devices, not just mobile ones but also desktop and laptop machines. Doesn't break when the the user updates the OS, updates to the site do not break compatibility on older OS's.
We reached peak app years ago, now apps are in decline. My Krav Maga class had an app for years, it would alternate between the Iphone version being broken and the Android working or the Iphone version working and the Android version being broken.. Never did the two work together. It got so bad that no-one used the app any more. Fortunately at the end of the support contract last year they just wen't back to using a website as their booking/store application.
Same with my banks, my browser is advanced enough to comfortably use the desktop version of my banking websites which gives me all the features instead of the limited subset available in the app.
In the 1950s and 1960s we had several students in my school that had either enormous wealth or power or both. A teacher would be out of his blooming mind to not make certain these kids had really high grades as power and a telephone call could surely end a teacher's employment. I have no way to know if any contact or incentives between teachers and wealthy parents. I believe the system is such that things can happen without anyone ever speaking a word. I do know that our high school football team had one pro player as he tried to recruit me with mention of apartments and cars etc.. He was 21 years old.
What do you mean "comes round again"... It's always been this way. We just stopped caring in the 70's, 80's and 90's because of that whole "greed is good" bollocks. We're beginning to care now because we're starting to realise just how much the middle class is being squeezed now the economy isn't good.
There's an old joke about an oil Sheikh who sends his son to study at Oxford. His son writes to his father to thank him for the new Ferrari, saying all the other students arrived by train. The Sheikh writes back "Son, do not disgrace the family, go and buy a train".