Looking at Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser page, they did receive some funding from NASA. As I recall, so did SpaceX. But as best I can determine, these funds were only a small portion of the overall project funding.

Unless the GAO (or a court) has issued (or soon will issue) an injunction to halt work, I don't see SpaceX (or Boeing) them stopping work.

While I like Sierra Nevada's design and overall plan better than SpaceX's, SpaceX has already delivered cargo to the ISS in version 1 of their space vehicle - more than once. That puts SpaceX well ahead of Sierra Nevada. Granted, the Atlas V Sierra Nevada plans to use to launch Dream Chaser has a much longer service record than the Falcon 9, I don't think that makes up for not having put at least a cargo version of Dream Chaser into actual service. Therefore, it seems very reasonable to choose SpaceX over Sierra Nevada.

I'm not sure about the status of Boeing's CTS-100, so I won't comment on Sierra Nevada vs Boeing.

Their ideology is that anything that gets in their way of accumulating more money is unfair.

Every time I've actually been through jury selection, part of the judge's introductory comments were "This is a court of law. The only things that will matter in your decision are the applicable laws and the evidence presented in this court."

Seems to be a very clear confirmation of your claim.

I don't know what's taught in today's US history classes, but even as recently as when my daughter took US history in both middle school and high school, the teachers and books were still teaching that the US was indirectly* founded through an armed revolution against the British Empire.

It that what really happened? Or were the founders of the US just a bunch of thugs with guns who wrote the Second Amendment as a way to give themselves the right to continue to be a bunch of thugs with guns?

Depending on your point of view, the revolution was either a pre-facto application of the Second Amendment, or the Second Amendment was a post-facto rationalization of criminal activities by a bunch of thugs.

--

*By indirectly, I mean that during the revolution, the newly self-declared independent, former colonies were a loose confederation, codified under the Articles of Confederation. In 1787, the Constitutional Convention, originally convened to amend the Articles of Confederation, wrote the Constitution, which codified the country as the United States.

Also, not new. I've visited several factories over the last 15 years. The systems on the production lines were all connected over ethernet running TCP/IP. Granted, 15 years ago, sensors and other small devices would be in clusters, each cluster connected to a (large) shoebox sized controller, but over time, as the networked controllers got smaller and less expensive, there were more controllers with fewer devices connected to each.

I suspect the plant Intel "installed" IoT into was just in need of a major update to its existing IoT (by whatever name it was called).

Why would that necessarily be so?

Even if the commander assumes the suspect is just a clueless idiot, there's still a chance he is a terrorist, so the same precautions are necessary.

In essence, expect the best while preparing for the worst.

Of course, whatever any commander did would involve risk. Redeploying officers involves risking opening other avenues of incursion. Calling for an evacuation risks tipping off the suspect. The suspect might be using some kind of "dead man switch", so couldn't use a sniper, even if one was available. And a shit-ton more potential risks and other issues.

If I was one who saw that man go the wrong way I would have assumed he was a terrorist.

Not knowing any details about the building layout and how the security officers were deployed, I can't say how I would have responded.

Afterward, I'd very strongly curse the bean counters for not providing for enough officers to have prevented the incident.

I have no doubt that both the security commander and the on-duty command will be raked over the coals for not having an officer there to stop the guy before trying to go the wrong way - or at least an officer closer enough to intercept and neutralize the guy before he could become a problem.

I'm NOT claiming the commanders weren't incompetent, only that the scope of responsibility should also include the people deciding what resources to make available. If the commanders were incompetent, they should be maximally punished. If the resource planners did not provide enough resources, they should be maximally punished. And if the blame is shared, so should the punishment.

The article seems to suggest the guy wasn't arrested, so maybe "Only in Australia" is appropriate.

In the US, I have no doubt he would have been arrested and charged with causing mass panic (whatever the legal terminology might be). And his iPad, cellphone and any other electronics confiscated. Even if the charges were dropped, it would be after very intensive interrogation and at least several days in a very high security jail cell.

And, of course, being put on the no-fly list. (which I'm sure he is, anyway)

At work, I am forced to use Windows 7. I keep my 5 "always open" applications pinned to the task bar and the 15 most used pinned to the top level of the start menu.

On my own PCs (laptop I carry and desktop at home), my XFCE desktop has a similar arrangement.

Anything else, I use the "instant search" feature like the parent post.

And like the GGP post, I also see 90% of my coworkers cover the desktop with launch icons.

In the case of one scientist, my girlfriend and I have seen. She (the scientist) was a guest of honor at a convention several years ago. My GF and I were at an adults-only party in the hotel's largest suite - which had a large hot tub. Around midnight, the scientist showed up. Trust us, she was very sexy. (More importantly, a damn good scientist in her field.)

Interesting. The same people in the US who want to deregulate business want unlimited ability to regulate individuals' private lives. what do you label them?

If only it were that easy.

One of my daughter's (now former) science teachers (in a private school; previously in a public school) is such a person. But, she is very limited in what she's allowed to let the students do. Mostly she can only demonstrate. And even then she has to obtain approval for each demo (even repeats of past demos), then keep to the approved script.

Despite these restrictions, she manages to inspire her students. I thank her for her efforts. I just hope she won't be driven away from teaching.

A few things:

1. Linux can auto-update.

2. My employer's IT department does not blindly accept auto-updates. All PCs - both mswin and Linux - are configured to update from the company's servers, not any server outside the company. IT vets all updates before making them available on the company update servers.

3. The mswin experts (MS certified) in my employer's IT department have found and reported several "bone-headed obvious holes" in mswin.

4. Just because you are paying fees to receive commercial support does not mean you can setup-and-forget.

Total energy out == total energy in. The energy in is electricity. The energy out is a combination of light and heat. More heat implies less light.

Also, a bulb with more surface area for coupling heat to the air will feel less hot than an otherwise identical bulb with less surface area. The larger surface area has less heat per unit area. Also, the LEDs in the hotter bulb may be above their optimal temperature range, so operating less efficiently, so producing more heat per unit of input energy.

So, for otherwise identical LED bulbs, cooler is better. ("otherwise identical" being a big caveat)

Of course, there is another factor: Not all light is suitable for our use. Ideal would be all light produced be in the visible range with whatever color balance the individual user prefers (I prefer "daylight white"). It is possible for a bulb to produce less heat, but mostly unusable light while another produces more heat but mostly usable light. So, while the overall efficiency of the latter bulb is lower, its effective efficiency is higher.

As usual, YMMV.

The hard drive/data storage device contains a lot more potential evidence than the safe (Except, of course, when the safe contains one or more hard drives / data storage devices). While court orders can limit the scope of evidence obtained thusly, such orders cannot limit what the analysts reviewing the unlocked data memorize.

Seems to me that the encrypted data storage device scenario requires more care than the combination lock scenario.