No, it gave 4 virtual desktops on the same machine, the same user, the same login session.
I'm familiar with the "power tool" that gave that, and it was buggy and caused XP to crash a lot. Yes, I used it, and it wasn't available for Win2k.
But at the same time,Terminal Services was available in XP which is how they enabled the multi-user mode for XP; no more than two of which could be RDP sessions, and they would log out each other and the local user. (Unlike in Windows Server where they can co-exist.)
I've worked as a mechanical engineer and done metal part design. That doesn't really sound like a problem caused by computer aided drafting so much as just human laziness or incompetence.
Using *mechanical* design software like SolidWorks or ProE or Catia that stuff is pretty simple. AutoCAD, which I haven't used extensively but God knows I've tried and given up on it a few times, is basically just a shitty drawing program.* It's really old and well established though and it's locked in as the standard for civil engineering just because it's what everyone else uses, like MS Office or Photoshop (except those don't suck as much). Note I said civil engineering; designing mechanical parts in AutoCAD is really old school and dumb IMO. But SolidWorks and the others let you see your part in 3D, and assemble it together with other parts to see how they fit, and with plug-ins or separate software you can also model the stress and strain (bending, stretching, etc.) when it's put under weight at a given point. You can also do all those calculations by hand/in a separate math or modeling program just as you always could. And typically prototypes are manufactured and physically tested. AutoCAD's not supposed to replace the physical testing; it just replaces the pencil and paper. If people are skipping testing that's just good old corner cutting.
*It does have a lot of power user features and it may actually have the stuff I'm saying it lacks, just buried behind an impenetrable layer of hard-to-useness and suckiness. I haven't invested the time to become an AutoCAD expert because it's always been easier to just use something else.
I'm pretty sure AutoCAD can do all that stuff. I know it does the 3D stuff - the part I referenced was designed in a 3D model in AutoCAD. The problem is all the layering you have to do so see everything fitting together - updating every single diagram to show the new parts. Now, may be AutoCAD and others make that easier than I realize (I'm no expert at them); and I really don't know why they didn't figure out that the parts wouldn't fit (in this case, the one end of the piece made and the piece it attached to couldn't be physically accessed because other stuff interfered on one side but not the other, or at least the other wasn't as bad).
I wouldn't be surprised by a "shitty drawing" though as the one ME in charge was not liked very well by the technicians since this was not an abnormal thing - everything being in the drawing, but not necessarily being obvious how to do it, even when multiple detailed diagrams were provided. But that's a different thing entirely.
When talking about cars - I'm referring to things like you have to take off 10 parts that requires 8 hours of labor to do in order to change 1 part that takes only 30 minutes of labor; when providing a little more space could have enabled one to change that part in 30 minutes entirely without to disassemble a chunk of the vehicle to get to it.
If I can't work on my car, I will not buy it. Same with my computer.
The problem is that people like you who want to work on their car are becoming more and more rare -- most people just want their car to be reliable and if it breaks, take it to the garage.
No, I think most would rather that someone they know could work on it, only the cars are so needlessly complex and require such special tools that most do not know how to work on them, so people take them to the shop because they don't know what else to do.
I would love to fix my own cars; and I do do some of the work myself. But even then, there are limits simply due to the computer being so integral to everything.
Sadly, even most shops now are useless as they just plug the computer in and do what it tells them. This has probably lead to the current issue with my 2005 Mazda3 which needs a major repair to stop it burning oil (a known issue on the 2.3 litre engine that seems to be related to ethanol content in the gasoline, and one which is not being owned up to by Mazda - seems one of the original OEM parts doesn't withstand ethanol very well, so you have to replace it with an after-market part); it probably could have been fixed early on with very little issue except the dealer just plugged in the OBDII to the computer which said everything was running fine, and kept going. Only after one big repair at another (non-Dealer that was still Mazda approved) shop was the oil burning uncovered.
No, it's a matter of technology creeping too far in and people feeling helpless about it as a result - that an design engineers who don't know who to design to actually make things easy to work on since they do everything in AutoCAD where its just a few clicks. I had a direct experience there where an engineer designed something in AutoCAD per their boss's requirements, the parts were made, and when the technicians when to put them on, it didn't work due to how all the parts fit together and would have broken due to fatigue at some point since it bent under the weight - this after many hours of design and review and much expense in building the parts; the technician and I went to the hardware store and spent $13 CAN and solved the problem in under an hour.
I can guarantee, Microsofts version of 'Open Source' , will differ quite vastly from what you or I consider as 'Open Source'. There business IS licensing models. It's certain, to a point, them being Open Source won't benefit you much at all.
Yes, just look at the analysis of the licenses surrounding the Open Source
Windows 10 has multiple desktops.
So did XP and every release since. You had to download it from Microsoft (included in Windows Power Tools, iirc).
FYI - it's called Terminal Services. XP and every consumer release (e.g Vista, 7, 8, 10) are limited to only 2 logins simulaneously; while the server editions are limited to 5 out the gate, and more with sufficient CALs. But it's all based on their Terminal Services functionality that goes back to NT4; it just wasn't natively integrated until an SP for WinXP and Windows Server 2003 - prior to that it was an add-on or dedicated product (Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server Edition).
Makes perfect sense, no nighttime, panels would have sunlight more than 90% of the time. Loss in transmission would be low with microwaves, could be sent to ground based rectanna of tens of square miles with 80% efficiency, and the power density per square unit area kept within safe limits for living things. Look up facts before you spew.
That's actually not a big problem. It just means you push the panels far enough away from the earth that they can interface with a series of geo-synchronous satellites that are used to transmit the power from the collector to the ground station such that all of them take turns in transmitting the signal to the ground relay satellite (collector -> geo-sync array -> relay -> ground station). Now, power is loss with each transmission, but space being space it's probably still quite efficient.
You know what makes even more sense than that? Putting solar panels on fucking rooftops or on the ground.
On a roof or ground, you have the cost of the panel, plus frame and mounts. You also have reduced output, and maintenance costs from dust. You have reduced output from atmosphere and clouds. And after all that, cut the output in half again because of the varying angle over the day and through the seasons. Put it on a stratospheric kite, balloon, or kite-balloon-hybrid, and you can easily double or triple your output. Is it worth it? I dunno.
Problem then becomes weight. They're not light (no pun intended); and either you have to tether it or you're back to microwave/laser transmission with less control over placement due to winds than there is in space.
That's all well and good, but which do you think we are more lacking in the world?
a) Engineers with "perspective" on the world and people around them
Surely this is obvious. For most engineers worth their salt, humanities exposure happens on their own time and in good measure. I can't say the same for non-engineers I work with, who receive little to no exposure to actual critical thinking of any variety.
(c) both.
In other words, developers want something that works everywhere, and
More like, it's the only framework said developers understands or cares to learn, so it's what they use; or it is an easy framework to get past their manager that doesn't want to invest more in training for proper tools like Qt (PyQt, Qt), Gtk, etc that are actually 100% open source and freely available.
The very lack of them finding the plane (MH370) at all means that it more than not it did not crash
No - They haven't found the plane because of the size of the search area.
Search area is a big issue; but the fact that they've ignored a sizeable chunk of it is another part of the issue. As noted, someone with access to the data (who publically wrote up the issue a few weeks ago) gave credence to the fact that it was more likely to have taken the northernly route - which has been completely ignored - and whether it made it to a destination controlled by a terrorist group or otherwise or crashed in the mountains along the way is another things that has yet to be ruled out.
I'm surprised how few people seem to get this.
The search area is choppy, stormy ocean and is the size of Australia. To put that in perspective, here's a map of Australia overlaid on the USA:
http://keithooper.smugmug.com/...
So imagine you're looking for a seat cushion in Nevada that's bobbing on the water in Illinois.
It's actually bigger than that.
And no, I'm not discounting the size of the search area. The issue with looking in the ocean is the fact that no debris of any kind has turned up any where. The likelihood of a crash happening in the ocean with zero debris (no debris, no oil slicks, etc - nothing) is smaller than that of the plane being hijacked for neferious purposes by an organization like Al Qaida.
As to why...well, a country like Russia might just want to remind certain powers that be of their influence; or for an organization like Al Qaida - it's easier to hijack a plane in that part of the world this way than it is to do it in someplace like the US or Europe. All they have to do then is figure out how to turn it into a bomb and get a flight plan scheduled that takes them close enough to the targets they want in a legit way that they can then carry out a mission.
Just saying, there's numerous methods to the madness. An outright crash is making less and less sense by the day.
Rather than locking the co-pilot out, just shoot/stab them, and keep the door locked.
Pilots have to go through the same security checks the passengers do. Or, at least, the pilots in the US do - I've seen them in the security checkpoints several times.
They also have access to weapons on the plane, provided to them for the sole purpose of protection. Whether an axe or a pistol locked in a safe, either is sufficiently useful.
Then again, as a friend said - your car keys are enough; as is a pen or pencil. So there's plenty of tools that they could use that they are legally able to get through the security check points too.
Much less likely, I'd be more worried about the "depressed narcissistic arsehole" overpowering the stewardess and crashing the plane anyway. I suspect (ok, assume) this is what happened to that Air Malaysia plane just over a year ago, the one which vanished without trace.
Well since we're throwing out conspiracy theories...
The very lack of them finding the plane (MH370) at all means that it more than not it did not crash, but was hijacked in some form and taken elsewhere. One credible person that had access to much of the data surmized that they likely took the route north, not south where everyone insists on looking, and were able to land near or in Russian territory at a site that after years of neglect happened to have a lot of activity and rebuilding of a hangar-like building that was big enough to hold the Beoing 777.
Well, I'm not sure if they made it that far. But I said from day one that it the lack of finding the plane or any evidence that it crashed thus far lends more and more to the the flight being hijacked, and we'll likely see it next when whomever decides to crash it into a building somewhere.
Now whether the pilots were in on it, or a passenger was able to access the controls via computer connections and then override the pilots is something entirely different. In either case, if it was hijacked then it's likely backed either by a nation state (e.g Russia) or a sufficiently large well funded terrorist organization (e.g Al Qaida). Which one we'll likely never know.
The modding here is atrocious.
The GP is right, and you are wrong.
There is only one form of decentralization involved here.
Even if git users have their own copies of a repo, it is not trivial to share changes among more than a couple of users, especially if they are on distinct networks with firewalls and other hindrances.
That is why GitHub is used.
All true.
GitHub negates the decentralization of git in order to make it practical for real world use.
GitHub being down may not be a problem for your rinky-dink one-man JavaScript library project that nobody uses.
But for real projects with distributed teams consisting of numerous people the decentralization of git is a big problem.
GitHub is the only practical solution to the problems of decentralization.
This can actually be mitigated by several different means:
It's just a matter of deciding where the "master" copy resides and keeping them all (hopefully automatically) in sync.
Now, this can be managed with tools like Subversion too, using replication, but it's no where near as nicely done as it is in git.
However, if you don't take the time to do the replication between several services then yes, you are risking this kind of situation.
Or, you could take advantage of this kind of replication by using the DVCS nature of git to your advantage.
OpenVMS handles invalid logons correctly. It locks out the terminal (that is, the network address) of the intruder. Why Microsoft, and most of the rest of the industry, does not understand how this is more secure and less vulnerable to DOS, I don't know.
It's usually policy based, though things like fail2ban make it easy to do for most logon methods. Even then, you cannot necessarily just use the IP address for blocking.
For instance, on your Windows system if a user locks their account, another user can come along an login (f.e support admin) and will still need to be able to validate against the domain. Once you enter into a centalized logon control that kind of things becomes a requirements. Otherwise you risk locking all your computers without any way to support them or risk severely increasing your organizations' internal help desk support load; this is often mitigated by using time period lock outs on the accounts.
So sadly there is no single, perfect solution to the issue. It's just a matter of which trade-offs are acceptable.
Lots of folks confuse bad management with destiny. -- Frank Hubbard
