Oh man, that Gedit screenshot. Damn... It's a very *lovely* looking interface, but I would have no idea what the hell to click on to get anything done. Yep, definitely a redesign by some "UX expert".

The save icon is another one said "experts" are always trying to get rid of (if I'm not mistaken, we can see an example here as well. It's hard to tell though). "But we don't use floppies anymore...", they whine. Yes, but by now, everyone that uses a computer knows what that symbol means, even if they've never seen a floppy in their life. It's a universally known symbol. Don't screw with it!

Now, granted, tradition can go too far in the other direction. I can't even count the number of applications that have a main "File" menu when they rarely deal with files at all, or are not at all document-based to begin with. Unfortunately, I'm not sure anyone's come up with a decent replacement convention. Application? Something else? However, a text editor certainly doesn't have this problem, as it's most assuredly a file / document based application.

You think having the part designed to handle five times the load it actually experienced to not be "with sufficient margin"? How much of a margin do you want them to put, 100x?

RTFA. They were doing statistical-sampling quality control testing of struts. The problem was that most of them were just fine, but there were a very small number which were totally defective and broke at a tiny fraction of their rated value. And no, SpaceX did not make the parts, it was an outside supplier. And yes, SpaceX A) will now be testing 100% of them, and B) is ditching the supplier.

It's not just about the cost of a failed launch, there's also a huge cost to a company's reputation if a rocket fails. And to their schedule.

Out of curiosity, is there any lightweight way to sense how close a part is to failure *in use*? I mean, finding defects on the ground is great, no question. But what if something would doom a mission not due to a part having a manufacturing defect, but due to an oversight somewhere in the rocket design process, or assembly, or transportation, or launch setup, or unexpected weather conditions, or whatnot? It seems to me it could be a massive boost to launch reliability if one knew that a part was about to fail - for example, in this case, the computers could automatically have throttled back to the rocket to reduce stresses, at the cost of expending more propellant, and possibly been able to salvage the mission. And then the problem could be remedied for future missions, without having to have a launch failure first.

To pick a random, for example, would there potentially be a change in resistance or capacitance or other electrical properties when a strut nears its breaking point?

Obviously, though, if adding sensing hardware would add a high weight or cost penalty, that would be unrealistic.

Random Youtube video found to be distorting facts and be less than insightful. I never saw THAT coming.

Funny ;) But the main point is that its surface is high radiation and very oxidizing; and as far as we know there's no liquids anywhere on Mars except for possible transients or extremely perchlorate-rich brines (aka, something you'd use to sterilize a rock of life).

On the other hand, subsurface water oceans are common elsewhere in the solar system, and colder bodies are known and/or theorized to have a wide range of alternative liquids.

Also, maybe it's just because I've never worked in that industry before, maybe it's common practice in rocketry, but is anyone else impressed with the use of sound triangulation to figure out which part broke? I've never heard of that being done before.

Sad that the Falcon Heavy won't be launched until next spring, I've been really looking forward to that. Oh well...

Somewhere a hipster is sad that you don't care.

It's a marketing tool. If you sell Solution X, then everyone who gets your certificate will promote Solution X when there's a choice. Because that is where their skills are and it's just basic job security to promote what you know instead of what you don't know. The money paid for the certificate course is peanuts compared to the ongoing revenue from a team of undercover agents promoting your product to their employers.

However for some tech jobs, if you have certificates listed on your resume then this will lower your chances of getting a job. Listing certificates is a signal that you haven't updated the resume since you were an entry level grunt. Outside of IT you will almost never see certificates except in technician jobs. The point of these certificates most of the time is not even training to be competent in some field, but for their marketing use (ie, all those certificate holders will promote Microsoft solutions to the end of their days).

Elon is surely really fuming about this one, as I know from past interviews with him that he really doesn't like having to source hardware from outside suppliers. He has the old "robber baron" mindset of wanting to get the whole production chain start-to-finish in house, and it's one of the things that really frustrated him when he started Tesla: at the time of the last interview I read on the subject (something like 3 or 4 years ago), he had gotten SpaceX up to 80% in-house, but Tesla was only up to 20% in-house. Car manufacture has long been all about sourcing parts from a wide range of outside suppliers.

But even at 80% in-house at SpaceX, looks like that remaining 20% still bit them : Seriously, failing at 1/5th the rated failure value? The vendor might as well have given them a cardboard cutout with the word "strut" written on it in sharpie.

Spot on 100% !

Functionality got tossed out for bullshit Form.

i.e. Windows 1 vs Windows 8.1

* http://gaspull.geeksaresexytec...

/sarcasm I mean who would want a consistent Windows Control Panel -- let's fuck with it every version and move shit around because we're too lazy to do it right the first time.

It's not a solution, it's a product. The point is to get people to buy it even if they don't need it. People did buy it. The only question left is whether or not it sold enough to cover the development costs.

Apparently, you missed the news from a while ago about Microsoft releasing the CLR under a free software license. Check it out.

I've been a Slashdot reader since back when it was called Chips & Dips. Back then, Microsoft deserved the M$ appellation. Today, not so much. They're cooperating a lot more with the libre software community. Now, you can either shake your fist at them and scream how they'll never be forgiven for their sins... or you can smile, extend a hand, and welcome them to the party.

The world works better if more people choose the latter. And that applies to life in general, not just Microsoft. :)

IoT on a Windons device? That's absurd. Well, maybe not, the IoT term is being used for all sorts of gibberish. Raspberry Pi itself is almost a bit too big for me to call it IoT even if it is a thing and networked. An IoT device is not supposed to be an interactive consumer gadget.