Re: The reason that the Max series need MCAS
Simply put, the systems operate in various "Laws" or modes whereby the systems will attempt to protect the aircraft from being flown outside its envelope.
The Laws of Aerobotics?
1957 posts • joined 16 Jul 2011
Have you thought it through?
The primary purpose of the military is not, actually, to kill people. It is to stop people from killing (hurting, stealing from, etc.) you. Note for example, the justification for the US military in the Constitution: "to provide for the common defense".
The best military technology prevents conflict by either allowing you to avoid it or by convincing your enemy to avoid you. So there is real justification for wanting to support your military by providing that type of technology, while not wanting to work on projects with specific goals of "lethality".
Now, fair play to anyone who wants to respond with "that's not how the US (or the UK or any even slightly Imperialist power) have used their military", but I see that more as a failure of command (i.e, the governments involved) rather than an argument for a different definition of the ideal purpose of a military.
...whose friends and admirers can spare the time (off work? not working?) to attend the hearing and make obscene comments, but not to sit down with Mr. Love and advise him to seek legal counsel.
What does the nature of his friends have to do with the merits of his case?
"Guilt by association" seems an all-too-relevant description of your argument here...
"Users need to have greater control over the data their extensions can access,"
It's SUPER-simple to give users full control over the data their extensions can access without changing your API.
Just add a new page to settings with a dropdown of extensions and a list of every class of data, with checkboxes. Have the API fail gracefully for any unchecked combination of extension/data. Problem solved.
Or do you really mean "Chrome needs to be able to restrict the data extensions can access 'on behalf of' users, making their decisions for them in a way which is, of course completely impartial and has no ulterior motive whatsoever."
Normal people won't cope with asymmetric ciphers. But they understand the concept of key sharing.
You don't spend much time with normal people, do you? Normal people don't really get the concept of encryption keys, period, let alone key sharing. It's not because they're incapable, mind. It's because they couldn't give a flying fuck.
Encryption, for normal people, is stuff the techies are supposed to sort out.
Oracle is pushing for costs not normally considered in legal cases.
Take this example:
"Full time as in not half time?"
This question requires a specific quantity of time (you cannot assuredly have half of an indeterminate amount). That specific quantity would be "full time", and more than that would be "more than full time". For illustration, consider a standard working week in the US. Full time is normally 40 hours per week, half time 20 hours per week, and more than 40 would be "overtime." Oracle's interpretation of "full" in this context would allow up to 168 hours per week as "full time.", simply because that time exists within a week, even though it is not part of the customary definition.
Or take the "full parking lot" as one with no free parking spaces. Oracle's argument, essentially, would be that such a lot is NOT full because you CAN cram more cars into it (by filling up the driving lanes, stacking cars on top of each other, etc.) But such an interpretation would ruin the functional definition of a parking lot, being a place to temporarily place vehicles to be readily removed for use later.
I've got to agree with the other commentards here. Wikipedia has the following sentence in the "Mitigation" section of its article on RowHammer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Row_hammer#Mitigation)
Tests show that simple ECC solutions, providing single-error correction and double-error detection (SEC DED) capabilities, are not able to correct or detect all observed disturbance errors because some of them include more than two flipped bits per memory word.:8:32
That particular sentence has been in place, unmodified, since March of 2015. And as for published papers, those are referenced in the original Wiki article.
At best, these researchers can claim a repeatable demonstration of already known limitations of ECC under laboratory conditions.
The Register asked the Department of Defense if anyone cared to elaborate on the criteria for being added to the non-existent list. We've not heard back.
It's super simple:
1. You must be a non-US competitor to one or more US companies.
2. Said US companies need to have
bought appealed to a sufficient number and combination of US lobbyists, politicians, and civil servants.
The EU also suffers if there is no workable agreement made.
True, but you cannot say with a straight face that the EU will suffer as much as the UK, or that they will suffer as much as they would if there were not the framework which allows them to renegotiate trade with those who choose to leave.
There are two eventual conclusion to this situation, one where there are 2 winner and one where there are 2 losers.
It's not quite that simple. There is a spectrum of possible outcomes. It is possible for the EU to negotiate agreements which benefit them and harm the UK, just not very likely (although if UK.gov is convinced that the harm of such an agreement is less that the harm they'll incur if they don't agree, it becomes more likely.) It is also possible for the UK to do the opposite, though even less likely. Most likely is that both lose some out of this deal.
I have to disagree with your representation of the 2-winner conclusion as worthy of inclusion as one of the two major possible conclusions. Brexit is already imposing considerable costs and complexity on the EU-UK relationship on both sides, and the purported regulatory and social freedoms are largely ephemeral. The 2-winner scenario is the least likely of all of the conclusions to this.
would have thought there'd be . . ." a get-out clause / provision, with a fully workable formula, agreed, openly discussed and regularly updated by all member states...
There is: Article 50. It's what allowed Brexit. It's also what allows the EU to say "Fuck You" to any and all requests for equal or special treatment from countries who decide to leave. EU members did think that some might want to go it alone, and they made sure that the EU would not suffer from such selfish behaviour.
What you're actually complaining about is that there isn't a get-out clause / provision that lets your country get out of the responsibilities of being in the EU while still keeping all of the benefits. Well, I'm sorry, but the rest of the world doesn't exist solely for your benefit. Get over yourself.
Clearly this "Robert Baptiste" is a puppet for the liberal elite. That's why he's posting on Twitter under a different name.
Donald Daters is a great site - the best site. It's absolutely not an attempt to sucker already proven rubes into giving away their personal details.
This article is nothing but a deep blue state smear campaign. Sad.
Chen has done the sums, and, apparently, after two months that will work out to being ten times cheaper.
That sounded dodgy to me, so I read the paper. He has done the math, and it doesn't say what you said it says.
It's not the entire cost which is 10x cheaper, but the monthly costs alone (on a monthly plan). That makes 2 months the break-even point, not the point at which the total cost is 10x less.
The point at which the cost of running your own system as opposed to renting is 10x less (again based the monthly plan and figures given) is about 14 months.
Seriously. Why more than one public IP per household, and maybe a dozen or so on average per organization?
Because most people have more than one device, and most organizations have more than a dozen or so devices.
Most people do not have eve ONE device which needs to be publicly accessible. That's why most ISPs only provide one IP address per consumer connection; you have to use a NATing router (some ISPs even NAT you again internally). Have you got a consumer-grade WiFi router at home? Then you're almost certainly using NAT and getting private IP addresses for devices on your home network -- probably 192.168.x.x but possibly 10.x.x.x.
I don't know of any organization which does not use NAT to hide all non-public machines. Yes, you'll need an IP address for your webserver (but not a dedicated one if you use shared hosting), e-mail server (ditto on the shared hosting) and any edge routers you have (except those for private WAN routing) but for most companies that comes to well below a dozen IPs. Those few who need more are likely using the internet to allow tunneling VPN access to or between physical locations. This should average out to, as I said, fewer than a dozen per organization.
Yep, whats worse tho, an outage that microsoft spends it's time fixing or one you do?
One Microsoft spends its time fixing. Because they "fix" it by deploying an untested update which prolongs the pain. Did you even read the article?
Power goes out, how long does your UPS last, bro?
Til my generator kicks in. Which works until the issue is over or until the secondary site is brought up. That's what happens when you properly plan business continuity solutions, instead of chasing buzzwords.
Enjoy being bad at computers tho.
Right back at you, bro.
1. What's hard to understand about GNU Image Manipulation Program? It's a Program to Manipulate Images, brought to you by GNU. Makes sense to me.
2. Neither Adobe PhotoShop nor JASC PaintShop Pro allow you to sell or buy photos or paints. How is that easier to understand? I think it's more that you're familiar with them so you assume novices will be as well. At best you may argue that PhotoShop has become a colloquial term, but that's simply brand penetration, not clear naming to begin with.
3. Even if you only know it by GIMP, since it is not pre-installed on any systems that I know of, how would it even end up on a novice user's machine without them downloading it, at which point one would assume they've been to a website which describes to some degree what the software does.
"Regardless of the plan emergency responders choose, we have a practice to remove data speed restrictions when contacted in emergency situations."
Then why implement the data speed restrictions in the first place? Why make emergencies worse by putting up an entirely artificial barrier to efficient resolution?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019