Re: Small to invisible
Micrometric improvement?
Makes me wonder if Win10 to Win11 is Microsoft's vision of Sinclair's "quantum leap"?
1842 publicly visible posts • joined 21 Oct 2010
Had a similar issue reported with "stop start" technology on certain models in the UK.
Get caught in a traffic jam which moves occasionally. The car starts, pulls forward and cuts the engine after a few seconds exactly as designed. This particular model could not have auto-stop disabled which meant after an estimated 13 engine start stop cycles the battery died ... Wonderful in theory but implementation has to be correct for it to work well in real life.
The big hole left was, by definition, not full of anything apart from hole ...
The concrete was up to 2' thick, reinforced, refractory grade stuff and basically you can't buy better for that application.
Unfortunately the rocket, being the most powerful ever built, took one look and decided "Puny concrete! Hulk smash!" and dug out the crater (although, strangely, it may have started to produce a crater *first* which caused the pad to fail ...)
My concern are not the little things like windscreens but if the "1/3 nose" is a requirement then it becomes (a) a weight issue for an industry where weight costs money and (b) a size issue for access to ground facilities. In addition, if the top mounted engine set very low in the fuselage is a design requirement that becomes a capacity restriction.
So, it's quiet, quick and looks great but as a significant passenger vehicle will be too big for terminals and have a low passenger capacity, therefore would at best be developed as a billionaires' private jet ...
I wonder when "authorities" will start demanding car data to evidence basic driving violations - speeding, not indicating before a turn, splashing through a puddle and soaking a pedestrian, wearing incorrectly coloured trousers whilst driving ... If the data is there, either by direct data logs from speedometers etc or via footage recorded by camera or audio devices, if can only be a matter if time.
Not sure how this changes things apart from potentially increasing the probability of an id hit on an individual when there is more than one partial print available.
They have not said that prints are matched between individuals, but a sample size of 60,000 is tiny in this context, assuming standard practice of having five appendages and two hands that's only 6000 individuals ... Be interesting to see what happens if it is run against a big database to see if the pattern matching happens between more individuals. If it turns out that 1 in 10000 are matched, how does that impact security of conviction based on fingerprint evidence alone (if that's a thing)?
Excellent that the BE4 apparently performed well. Just got to prove their reliability and the ability of BO to produce them now ...
Only obvious issue I can see for ULA is using BE4+SRB on first stage and RL10 on second stage. The big advantage (at the moment) for SpaceX is that Merlins are used on both first and second stage so economies of scale both for engine manufacture and system integration can be applied. ULA will not have that benefit which probably means they will always be chasing financially, even if they can develop some measure of first stage reusability. Perhaps the economic problem is insignificant if ULA can rely on having enough military payloads where the military will just pay, whatever the cost ...
... and in the event that the registered keeper (UK) or owner (US) declares the driver to be "the self driving software" then that should be the party that is liable (fines, making the company boss liable for jail time etc)
This will do two things :-
1) make more sense of current rules and regulations without them sinking in a mire of political poop and
2) make self-driver software companies log what they are doing to demonstrate the infallibility of their systems.
All that would then be required is to implement a general limit as to how many independent incidents are required before that software has to be recalled/withdrawn and be recertified for road use.
1) Get rid of the 2G and 3G kit, buy replacement kit at a significant capital cost
or
2) Wait for a bit, declare that 2G and 3G are to be removed from the BT system imminently, dump now redundant hardware and have no capital outlay.
Now, let's look at the declared future of 2G and 3G delivery and ask ourselves, why would they even bother replacing the kit?
turning off 2g and 3g where there's no decent 4g let alone 5g is a recipe for disaster. I'm sitting here now with barely a signal registering on a 2g phone so I use phone semaphore most of the time but it's nice to know that, as it's also used as an emergency phone with the best signal, when 2g is completely turned off we'll be totally buggered ...
Basic premise of any system replacement is to install the replacement before killing the existing service to customers. So much for that idea.
money isn't a consideration here - perceived security implications in public services are. If the Government says jump, the councils will have to jump. The question I posed is whether the Government will give that instruction or decide that all council data is "secure enough" and let them keep the hardware?
How terrible are the autocratic states that surveille and censor their citizens to clamp down on material the State dissaproves of!
And, by the way, it is ok for us to mandate surveillance and censorship of our own citizens because we're a nice state not a nasty one and we'll only look for material the state disapproves of ...
1984 here we go ...
Free software ...
"Oh, my £100m company has an issue with it's free software that throws an error, I'll just phone the free support line and get then to raise the issue with the obviously free developer."
I see nothing wrong with that as a completely sustainable system of "slaveryware" - or perhaps you'd prefer to throw them a half-gnawed bone occasionally and only call it "serfdomware"?
How were most of the "features" listed in KB5033375 in any way related to "security"? It really annoys me when I'm basically told I have to install a patch to get legitimate security updates only to find that most of it is MS bloat-cack.
Is it just me or can I hear the pitter-patter of tiny Linux feet heading towards my machine ...?
"begging for subsidies" and trying to get a nose in the taxpayer-funded troughs are two different things and always have been. trying to get something when you have little is "begging", trying to get more when you have plenty is called capitalism - or "democracy" in the USA.
"Even King Charles gets a mention – and criticism for failing to mention CMA reform in his (government written) speech at November's opening of Parliament."
How can you criticise someone for doing their job correctly? If the King changed the speech *in any way* from that written by the incumbent Government it would be in direct conflict with our process of Parliamentary democracy and result in constitutional mayhem.
Criticising those who write the speech, or the parliamentary process itself, is fair game but don't shoot the messenger.
'Redmond notes the Preview Pane is not an attack vector itself:"
Thank makes a refreshing change
"The attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a specially crafted email which triggers automatically when it is retrieved and processed by the Outlook client. This could lead to exploitation BEFORE the email is viewed in the Preview Pane." '
Deep s*it! Exploitation just by receiving an email! I hope the military don't use Outl ... oh dear ...
"Granted they weren't tall like a rocket so less of a balance issue, but way way harder to do it on another planet where you don't get second chances"
"Balance" isn't a thing - moments of inertia, center of gravity and thrust control are which can sometimes make a landing rocket easier to control than a roughly spherical lander. The major problem you neglect to mention is that a lander generally does it once with a single burn of the engines, a launcher has to do it a lot of times reliably (otherwise there's no point) and, in Falcon 9's case, with multiple engine ignition sequences per landing.
Also, last time I checked, if a booster doesn't land properly on the Earth it didn't get much of a second chance either ... the terms "kaaboom" and "enormous kaaboom" spring to mind.
Blimey! I found a hole in my sock this morning and, having read this thread, I believe like everything else it appears to have been a direct result of Musky's manufacturing practices and capitalist attitudes.
What's next? Is my tea going to cool by radiative heat transfer to his cold, cold heart? ... It is! It is! Scientific proof!
Question: does this phone run hotter or cooler than a Cray love-seat?
If you had one phones in each back pocket, things may feel surprisingly familiar. And, being more powerful than a Cray, modern phone love-seats can, in real time and without using vector arithmetic, control a vibration interface :-)
"the unimpeded transfer of US technology to China is one of the largest contributors to China's emergence as one of the world's premier scientific and technological powers,"
and, the unimpeded transfer of US technology to China to provide dirt cheap manufacturing capacity and maximise profits is one of the largest contributors to the US being one of the world's premier scientific and technological powers ...
Glass houses and stones I feel.
"He expects other employees to spend at least 40 hours/week in an office/on a worksite,"
I believe you demonstrate either a fundamental lack of understanding or simple jealousy here.
One of the basic benefits of owning a company is that a person decides how much to work whilst writing job descriptions that state how much their employees should work and what their wage will be.
If a person wants to have their nose in ten troughs (like many executives and politicians) that's between them (and possibly the boards of the companies*).
Welcome to capitalism 101.
*I exclude voters having any say in what their representatives do as "an employee of the State" because the entire system seems corrupt.
That's only nearly completely wrong by only referencing "people".
I, for instance, have a lot of barely in focus pictures that in themselves and to most sane people are completely useless. However, referenced together with other pictures taken at the same time, it turns out that they actually contain key insect id information (a leg or a wing for instance). Without them the rest of the set has much less scientific value.
I'm also currently searching for a grave - the *only* reference I have to it is a faded black and white photo of a flower-covered internment from the early 60's. No name or clues to who is buried there but important enough to be worth taking a photo of at the time. Completely irrelevant to anyone apart from my family (possibly) but may form a part of my family history or could be where the family silver is buried ...
Basically you cannot predict what *may* be important to a future historian without actually being one ...
If I want to look at the Doomsday Book, I basically can. It's historic and tangible and readable by anyone with the correct public hardware (eyes), public software (language) and access to the datastore (library shelf or whatever). A reference to Guam the Testiculate of Goth and the enormous size of his vegetable plot may be inscribed there forever.
Nowadays, a little titbit of information about the size of Horatio Pugh's allotment in 2003 and registered by Boring County Council, is found under a glacier of "more popular, irrelevant but sponsored hits" on page 83 of a Google search - if you are lucky. More likely, that reference is encoded in some kind of inaccessible archived database format which is never going to be interrogated by a search engine so it will never to see the light of day again, even if you could find something to read a .p34R format file, and under GDPR shouldn't data that old be deleted anyway?
In essence, as more and more contemporaneous information piles in, the old information evaporates away, unnoticed, into the information aether. The similarity to an information black hole is significant.
The earlier contract was for two years and a "hyperscale cloud service". Which I assume is access to everything it may ever need in a hyperscaling sort of way ...
This one is "£450,281,369 to be precise [and] runs for three years" - so I assume it's whatever is bigger than "hyperscale" ... more than everything ... Marketing Hyperbole scale? Government twaddle-speak scale? Backhander scale?
Be interesting to see what the Government actually gets from this that makes it worth almost 10x the price of a "hyperscale" system.
The media is full of "pump this with Botox", "Fill it with collagen", "suck it out", "whiten it with bleach", "you're not orange enough!", "have as bigger bum", "have a smaller bum", "whatever size it it, it's wrong ..." and has been for many, many years. There were court case against magazines (remember those?) back in the day about the unnatural portrayal of women promoting eating disorders.
So why is Meta any different?