That was looming!
3335 posts • joined 19 May 2010
Maybe trying to land on a floating deck which is moving about all over the place - despite thrusters and stabilizers etc - is just a step too far.
Even if the control of the rocket is perfect, you can still end up being smacked in the face by the landing platform.
I know that's not the apparent primary cause of this RUD (lol) but it surely is a factor.
Hopefully not too similar: the “Jade Rabbit” lander dispatched on Chang'e-3 experienced a mechanical control abnormality and then broke down completely after only a couple of months' operations.
Given that the Jade Rabbit was China's first attempt, I find the tone of the above a bit strange. "broke down completely after only a couple of months" seems to suggest this was somehow a failure.
When you look at how many NASA landers and probes failed to function at all, the fact that Jade Rabbit lasted a couple of months seems to me to be worthy of praise, not condemnation.
Yep, you should use the paddles at arm's length, and make damn sure no part of the patient can possibly touch you even if they move when you shock them.
I've had a partial shock once, whilst attempting to cardiovert someone on wet grass when I was kneeling next to them, It bloody hurts!
Thanks to two factor authentication my bank knows exactly who I am. Thanks to the wonders of encryption I can be fairly sure that no prying eyes can read the contents of my transmissions.
Maybe they're trying to implement a secure solution without using encryption - after all, encryption = terrist, doesn't it?
Well it isn't a proper server, but I'm still running a Mesh Pentium 90 Desktop from 1995-ish which is now used as a NAS at home. It's got 96MB RAM, and a PCI Sata Raid card with two 250GB Drives, and runs the Linux Free-Nas software distro booted off a LiveCD.
The motherboard, processor and RAM are all the original items though, so they're doing pretty well for being 20 years old.
Larger enterprise users are not eligible for Windows 10 upgrades, so don’t receive the GWX nagware that’s been plaguing Home and Professional Edition users for six months.
It was originally my understanding that if you ran Windows 7 joined to a domain, then GWX would ignore you, however this seems not to be the case anymore, as I've had to play whack-a-mole on a number of my domain member desktops recently.
GWX certainly bears all the hallmarks of professionally built malware with hidden processes and unauthorised registry changes, even using obfuscated folder names ($WINDOWS.~BT) for the download.
For Fucks sake, what is the point of posting your stupid Linux crap as a reply to my post?
The point I was making is that although Microsoft are trying to push users to Install Server Core, in fact to carry out useful workloads, you have to install the GUI anyway.
In what way does your post help or enlarge on that point?
Oh, and just FYI I administer both Linux and Windows servers, depending on the requirements of the business, and the needs of our clients, and they are definitely not interchangeable for all cases.
PowerShell is critical to Microsoft's plans for Windows Server. The company is trying to persuade admins to install Windows Server without a GUI shell at all, where possible, making PowerShell essential
Yeah, except for some of the commonly used roles, (File Server, IIS Server, SQL Server etc) there are things that you still have to use the GUI for, which are not accessible in PowerShell, which makes a nonsense of the whole thing.
Surely the last thing needed is a bunch of IT - savvy users.
Oh Gods! There is nothing worse than a user who thinks they are IT - savvy,
They will wilfully ignore advice or instructions, as they think they know better, and swear blind they never touched anything, when it's obvious they have.
Such a move would allow patients staying in hospital to self-monitor their conditions using apps and reduce admin time for doctors and nurses
A difficult decision: spend 1bn on wages to employ doctors and nurses to provide proper care, or spend it on allowing patients to try and care for themselves instead.
How many people must die before the general public comes to understand that the world is now engaged in a war against terrorism that is likely to last for eternity?
You do know that San Bernardino was a mass-shooting incident, like Houston, or Platt, or Roseburg, with no compelling evidence of terrorist links?
How many people have died as a result of mass shootings in the US in 2015?
There have been 353 reported incidents, in which 446 people have died.
Which is the more worrying thing, mass-shootings, or "terrorism"?
"Bags and backpacks with many pockets are not helpful,"
Maybe not, if you're an exhibition organiser...
However, if you're a typical exhibition attendee, then just throwing your laptop, fondleslab, phone, and 30 different USB dongles and chargers into a mesh shopping bag is probably sub-optimal...
Lister: We don't LIKE muffins around here! We want no muffins, no toast, no teacakes, no buns, baps, baguettes or bagels, no croissants, no crumpets, no pancakes, no potato cakes and no hot-cross buns and DEFINITELY no smegging flapjacks!
Toaster: Aah, so you're a waffle man!
I wonder, is there anywhere which shows just how many outages Google's services have suffered this year?
Oh, the irony, a quick bit of googling produces these figures:
Feb 18 Google Compute engine down about 1 hour
Mar 9 Google Compute engine down about 45 min
May 3 Google Play, Hangouts, Mail down about 3 hours
Jun 19 Google App Engine down about 4 hours
Aug 14 Google Compute Storage 11 hours of brownouts
Aug 27 Google Cloud Storage down for 9 hours
Oct 9 Google Apps, Docs down for 5 hours
Dec 8 Google Container Engine loss of services for 21 hours
Dec 17 Google App Engine authenication failures for 17 hours
I make that 71 hours and 45 minutes of outages this year.
How many nines is that?
She said the company had wanted to inform customers of the breach sooner, but had been advised by police not to do so. "One of the most difficult periods was the first 36 hours of the attack," she said. The company had received a ransom demand and had informed the police. "The next day it was very clear there was a real risk material number of customers data stolen."
She said: "I was clear by lunchtime [the next day] that the sensible thing to do to warn customers, that would make them safer. For understandable reasons, advice received from the police was not to warn our customers."
If you can manage to unscramble the nonsense above and turn it into reasonable English, it still remains complete bollocks.
The ransom demand received was pertaining to the DDOS attacks, and there is no possible way that a DDOS can, on its own, cause a loss of customer data, although obviously it can be used to screen other attacks.
That makes a nonsense of the statement "The next day it was very clear there was a real risk [ of a ] material number of customers data [ being ] stolen"
Why would that be very clear? And why would the police have anything to do with that breach, when what they were investigating was a ransom note pertaining to further a DDOS?
The DDOS had nothing to do with the loss of data, and to conflate the two as Dido has, just shows the total lack of grasp she has on the whole affair. It's no wonder they are unable to tell what data is missing yet, when they clearly have no idea what occured.
This whole statement is as confused now as her original outpourings were when the incident happened.
They do not see every packet and therefore can't track individual connections, what seems to be required by the proposed legislation is deep-packet inspection (as they want seem to want to examine the protocol and payload for URI logging) on every packet. I suspect politicians have seen some graphs of traffic classified by type, put 2 and 2 together and made 5.
The politicians have been trying to sell this on the basis that "well the ISPs already collect this traffic, we just want to legislate the retention of the data", but in fact NO ISP does routine DPI on every single connection, currently.
This will require a load of infrastructure changes and a massive amount of new equipment to implement, and if they really want to extend this to any company which provides connectivity then a lot of the small ISPs will be out of business.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019