I think the better way of saying this is that it underscores the point that obstructionist idiots have held back progress substantially because they are incredibly short sighted, and we should have been to that point decades ago.

We went from cars to landing on the moon in less than 60 years.

It's now been almost another 60 years. What significant progress has been made, while you idiots are all wasting time oppressing and shooting at each other?

Exactly.

Both the US space agency and the Chinese space agency have these troubling issues with their "space" footage: bubbles are seen escaping from the suits! This is evidence that the footage is being taken underwater, rather than in space. In fact, in one of the US space agency's "space walk" videos, a person wearing scuba equipment can be see hiding out in the hatch!

NASA lies. Once you know you're dealing with a liar, everything else they say is suspect.

Zero-days are not "back doors".

Unless the zero day flaw was put there intentionally, as back doors are put there intentionally, a zero day flaw is not a back door, it's just some incompetent who should be employed asking me "Do you want fries with that?", rather than employed writing security sensitive software. In other words: your average bad programmer.

Recent NASA info says we can't get past the Van Allen belts -- the radiation will fry a person.

So, how did the Apollo 11 astronauts get through? Answer: they didn't.

Stanley Kubrick was hired to fake it. Then he was murdered 3 days after revealing this in an interview (just before "Eyes Wide Shut" came out, which he contractually forced it to come out on the 30th anniversary of Apollo 11).

See the hints in the Shining: "A11 work and no play makes Jack a dull boy."

Note carefully that the typewriter did not show "All" -- it's "A11", as in "Apollo 11".

I don't trust Masons. They take a blood oath saying all previous and future oaths are subservient to this (Masonic) oath. Every single Apollo astronaut was a Mason.

To be entirely fair there, the U.S. and Britain knew he had them because we sold them to him in the first place.

http://rense.com/general29/wes...

your constitutional right to a trial. They make you agree to binding arbitration instead. (Section 10 of the EULA).

That one really burns me. It's pretty unAmerican to say "Give up a constitutional right or you can't use our product." (Was that there before?)

How can this be legal? There's got to be a way around that. I have no intentions of ever suing Microsoft, but this rubs me the wrong way. What's next, you have to give up your right to freedom of speech?

Um, no, the default is "Express Settings" which enables all that spyful telemetry by default. Most people are going to go with that. I turned it all off except for crash reporting.

That's a protocol design bug.

Specifically, there's actually no reason that protocol traffic wouldn't include a "this is my idea of the current time" in the requests and responses so that delta times could be locally calculated from the packet contents on the receiving end. This would work, no problem, for a protocol like NFS.

Kerberos is more of an issue, but since all parties have to trust the ticket granting system as the trusted third party -- so you might a well trust their timestamp as well, since you've already established a trust chain dependency on the third party. You mode the protocol to send the timestamp within the security association, and you are golden (regardless of whether you are running an adjusted or monotonic clock).

This is how DCE RPC handles byte order: receiver translates to local byte order -- if the byte order is different. If it's not, then there's no need for translation, and it saves CPU on both ends of the connection. Receiver translates to a delta time from which the timestamps are derived, and timesync is no longer a problem.

In my experience, this tends to happen when marketing gets involved in the design process, and starts asking for previous_product++. One of the reasons Steve Jobs was so effective is that he understood the technical side of things well enough to help make design decisions.

The best way to get good at estimating is doing a couple of fixed price contracts that end up working out to you making less than minimum wage. Then you either get good at estimating, or you go out of business.

All managers who've worked with people who are bad at estimating automatically apply a scaling factor, which usually depends on the person making the estimate, and then you scale it for the real estimate, because people are frequently bad at estimating. In general, there are two types of people (substitute gender, if you wish to): Mr. Right, and Mr. Right Now. Both of these can be valuable to a company, but generally, if you want to scale to a large number of customers without huge built-in costs, your prototype is done by Mr. Right Now to get to funding, and then your released product is done by Mr. Right.

The oldest continuously running company is Kongo Gumi; it was founded in the year 578. Not dead yet.

FWIW, there are 5,586 companies older than 200 years. Like the Stiftskeller St. Peter restaurant in Austria, which was founded in the year 803, or Sean's Bar, an Irish Pub, founded in the year 900. Even the U.S. has gotten into the act; Shirley Plantation is a farm founded in Virginia in 1613. A surprising percentage of them are alcohol related, although there are also a lot of hotels, confectioners, and other businesses.

The cooler thing would be if you have enough high speed printing capacity that you could manufacture and assemble a 1000 drone swarm in a very short period of time and overwhelm an adversaries defenses without requiring a ship big enough to carry a 1000 completed drones. And then another one, and another one. You would need a tanker full of plastic and a freighter full of batteries, electronics and propellers.

âoeKill decisionâ baby.

The browser UI is new, but the rendering engine is still based on Trident. They just removed all the legacy stuff, and focused on clean implementations of the standards without worrying so much about backward compatibility. Edge will puke about as badly as Chrome or Firefox will if fed code and markup intended for IE7, instead of falling back to IE7's rendering style.

Which isn't to say there aren't going to be security bugs, of course. But then, the same is true of all the big browser vendors.

Yep. Those kinds of experiments get expensive, though. There are only a few systems in the world sensitive enough to reliably (i.e. without risk of error from outside sources) detect thrust on the levels we're talking about, even at 10x the power of the current experiments. Another problem is that they need to cool the thing. It sounds counterintuitive, but cooling stuff in a vacuum (such as they are using for the current rounds of testing, to eliminate the risk of errors due to things like convection currents) is hard. That makes it difficult to run a high-power magnetron.

Possibly. I don't actually know anything about quantum virtual particles except what I've read related to the theories on how the EM Drive might work. I've got a BS in computer engineering, not a PhD in physics. I can believe that Hawking could have shown that, but I don't know if it has or has not been shown.

Empirical observations trump theory. Theory is an attempt to explain how the universe works, but it does not dictate the universe's workings. Grad-level physics can explain why the EM Drive shouldn't work. Newtonian physics can explain why GPS shouldn't work, too; and yet the accuracy of the results remain as high as ever.

The problem is, according to everybody who has tested it, the EM Drive does produce thrust. When your theory contradicts reality, it is the theory which is discarded (or at least updated). Unless there's some pervasive experimental error in all of the independent observations of this effect - which is possible, but becomes less likely with each successful reproduction - that will need to happen with our understanding of those grad-level physics you studied.

In that case, on your final, you did the equivalent of computing that if a 1kg object (constant mass, initially at rest relative to you) produces 10^8 N of thrust in a straight line away from you for six seconds, it'll be going at just over twice the speed of light relative to you afterwards. Perfectly consistent with physics as it was near-universally understood until 110 years ago...

Of course, in this case, we have an experimental result before we have a fully consistent theory to explain it. In a reversal from the way much (though not all) recent physics progress has been made, the empiricists appear to be outracing the theorists. That's why right now there are a number of hypotheses, each of which have problems. More experiments will allow us to refine those hypotheses and throw out those which are shown to be incorrect (for example, Guido Fetta - of the Cannae Drive - had a theory that radial slots inside the drive's chamber were required; NASA demonstrated that they weren't). More time will also allow theoretical physicists to work out the underpinnings of how this happens. That will expand our understanding of the universe, give us the tools to predict future experimental results (rather than trying to explain the result after the fact), and open new branches of scientific exploration.

The above paragraph is, of course, predicated on the assumption that the effect does happen. I'm not discarding the possibility of experimental error at this point. It is simply becoming less and less plausible of an explanation.