772876 < 956533, so you tell me.. :)

I see weirder A/B tests flash by on a monthly basis at the least. They never get rolled out as seen in these experiments.

/ puts off aluminium hat
/ stares at ceiling
/ puts on aluminium hat

OSX 10.2 (2002) had applications better sandboxed than Windows XP (2001).
Windows by its nature doesnt have sandboxes, and is part of why it grew so fast. The newer Windows RT OS did implement application sandboxes i believe, tied right into the distibution/installation method like on iOS and Android

Its a shame the current (which was not even using RT .. all the more puzzling) users/customers did not want to know any of it due to the new Startscreen. I rather like the RT idea. Not going to use it myself, but its perfect for those of us not brainwashed with the traditional GUI "workflow", in which case its suddenly very intuitive.

Like .. Linux?

On Linux, i have yet to find any desktop application (thats not part of a distro) that installs in the ever-the-same, proper directory since its v1.0 release. At least most of the time it is /opt/* or /usr/bin/* or /bin/* .. its time Linux got some proper application-sandboxing too. I should not need to be root to install software, there should be a userspace level that can manages sandsboxes only. The Synaptec Package Manager (same for apt-get) software installer was way ahead of its time compared to other OS, but why is it overtaken?

Insights on this are welcome .. but keep the blind MS/*ux hate-love to yourself.

This article is bogus and even /. MS bashing unworthy. A proper upgrade is a OS reinstall, not a wizard that performs some half-ass "lets copy files and hope it works". Windows XP was never intended to boast a upgrade system like this. Applications can do anything on the whole computer and there is nothing to properly wall these in, except for using a sandboxed OS like Android or iOS. But these are, ofcourse, not as productive.

Quit the whining, just buy the new hardware and accept that the world doesnt stop spinning because you got stuck in 1994.

So the only risk factor here, is when the laser points through the windows into the cabin?
What is the risk involved when the laser beam goes vertical parallel to (not hitting) a cabin window?

> Laser dazzle is complete and can last quite a while.

The pilots and their windows are on the top side of the aircraft. The lasers are pointed to its belly. Can that do any dazzle/harm whatsoever?
I imagine a landing with horizontal lasers would, but while trafficking (likely by autopilot) i doubt that.

They should just inflate the autopilot.

> Seriously, /. without the comments is like Playboy with no pictures.
Hear hear. I find the pictures on beta a distraction.

I have nothing against BETA design, except perhaps that it has less room for text.
I just hope my boss doesnt think i'm venturing on some "The 9 Things About Cats You Should Know" website or Youtube..

I believe they designed servers and integrated some smart software to be able to do that with great performance.
But you can duct-tape this kind of recovery on commodity servers if they boot via PXE/TFTP on a rudementary but very effective level though, in tandem with one configuration channel each that you could have fallback for quite simply.

I imagine rollout scripts would first check if rollout to a test-subset is succesfull before continueing with all production servers. I speculate this article might just be about this subset, but story being spiced/beefed up in spite of more exceting/serious errors at server heaven.

The hardware is not ready, at least not until they use hardware to build composite mutation-images that show relevant (pixel) changes only. There is no point in trying to parse a single image a second, or -on the opposite side- a video stream.

In my opinion, efficient wearable vision software should ignore lower quality versions of what it already saw, it would make a huge efficiency leap. I believe this architecture ultimately would be a software skeleton for a mental world reconstruction much like humans perceive.

> minus 133.6 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 92 degrees Celsius)
minus 92 degrees Celsius (minus 133.6 degrees Fahrenheit)

There i fixed that for you.