
Re: Axe
So you want them to axe ax? Think of all the labour, energy and bandwidth required to support that extra letter! Next you will have them adding extra 'U's all over the place for no explicable reason.
664 publicly visible posts • joined 8 Feb 2019
Not so sure. The article says printer manufacturers can provide their own drivers under the new system, that does not guarantee that legacy drivers will still work. Since it seems unlikely that printer manufacturers will write new drivers for old printers it could still make old printers obsolete.
Any weight added to the capsule would reduce the payload capacity so replacing is better than adding. On the other hand the tape was probably not designed to be removed so removal could damage or stress whatever it is attached to so coating might be the only practical option. Also some taped items may not be directly accessible, so it is more practical to spray with fire retardant.
In the end the flight risk will never be zero so there is always a risk vs cost trade-off. Still a project management disaster, hopefully that is all it is.
If the Red Hat contract is for support not for the code, then it is not part of the GPL agreement and they can withdraw or refuse to renew support at any time. Given that current customers have, up to now, had access to free distributions but still are paying implies that they would not want to lose Red Hat support.
But it would seem to me customers willing to give up future support could redistribute the code. So for each release if a customer can be found that is willing to give up support, then that release might be available for free distribution.
But could Red Hat also sell a separate a piece of proprietary code needed to make the distribution truly useful commercial use?
With each new release could someone buy a copy then publicly redistribute it? Red Hat would then cut them off as a customer so it would require a new volunteer for each release. I assume Red Hat would try and vet customers to avoid this but would this be a possible work around?
Yes and I suspect that some of their paying customers also make use of the free distributions, so unless Red Hat change their pricing structure, those customers could be facing much higher costs. At least that would provide some incentive for those customers to go shopping elsewhere.
Also like using AIs to detect email spam while others use AIs to create effective spam. Eventually it is just a battle of the AIs as messages become even more bizarre gibberish. The upside is that the spam that does get through may be easier to recognize for humans but with a lot of wasted CPU cycles.
There is also the issue of how many satellites are in view at any given time. During a long download the total available bandwidth could be changing as satellites go in and out of sight. It could also cause rerouting through different ground stations with different ground link capacity. Every time the routing changes the system has to reoptimize.
Seems like a AEB design issue.
My car disengages automatic braking as soon as I manually apply the brakes or the accelerator. The automatic system does not reengage until I tap the accelerator or press a button on the steering wheel. The downside is when the AEB is aggressively braking but I decide to take over by applying the brakes, but to to lightly, it feels like the car surges forward. I have learned that when I want to take over braking I must do so aggressively.
And also to block it. So spam generating AI's will have to focus on fooling spam blocking AI's rather than fooling the meatware. As if spam subjects lines were not already weird enough, viewing the spam folder could get entertaining - if the shear volume of spam wasn't so damn annoying.
Yes, but it was fun while it lasted. Hopefully they got enough data to diagnose the issue and it is not something to fundamental. They seemed to have at least 4 engines that did not stay lit and produced the occasional outburst.
I'm most interested in how the launch pad survived as they seem to be setup to replace rockets faster then they could rebuild the launchpad.
From what I understand the Diffie/Hellman protocol works between two entities allowing them to create an encrypted channel between them without private or public keys. But Diffie/Hellman can't be used to verify the identify the entities involved you still need a shared secret or a public/private key infrastructure, or some other means to do that. It is usually just as important to know with certainty who you are talking to as it is to have a secure channel to talk through.
> drive like maniacs (for some reason!?)
Driving a bus is boring, driving a race car is exciting - driving a bus like a race car is a compromise to help stay awake. However, as a passenger I would prefer the boring ride.
> could make the whole vehicle appear completely invisible to a computer.
True if it relies solely on cameras. If lidar or radar is used graphics would have no effect. However, non-metallic vehicles or trailers could be a problem for radar, light absorbing paints could stymie lidar.
Best to have a mix of sensors. I don't think I would trust a system that relies only on cameras, it is more reassuring to know the car can also "see" in ways that I can't.
> Had to disobey a red light ...
It would definitely be annoying to be stuck in an autonomous car with no where to legally go. On the other hand it could inform the fleet of the problem so all other autonomous vehicles route around the situation. Public transit has similar issues when buses break down or subways are temporarily stuck between stations, you just have to wait for help to arrive or the issue is resolved. Then again you could just abandon the car and catch a taxi, after all the car can find its own way home.
> while objects made of uncollapsed mass have an event horizon that is internal so can never be reached
Not really true. One could tunnel down below your hypothetical event horizon and still come out with a finite amount of energy, so not really an event horizon. Neutrinos pass through the centre of the earth without being trapped by gravitational forces. If the earth was compressed into a black hole it would trap neutrinos.
Since they launched without a payload I think they can legitimately claim this as part of the development process. Of course reaching orbit would have put them much closer to a commercial launch. Which I'm sure would have made investors happier.
And maybe they can just melt down the first stage and reprint it from the recycle material.
So that's why Musk's Neuralink will come with the standard Starlink feature. Instead of autopilot controlling the car it could just control the driver directly.
Orbital domination, communication monopoly, mind control, robot army, automated giga factories. It is all starting to fit together. He can even use the Boring Company to construct a secret underground headquarters.
Launching from the UK makes sense for polar orbits since there is a lot of ocean directly north for stages or aborts to "land". The EU might get upset about the eastward launches.
As others have said westward launches are very inefficient but they might make for some spectacular satellite collisions (differential velocity > 50,000 km/hr) as orbital space get more crowded.