The relative velocities are quite low, because there is very little gravity. So their plan was not to make a jet system that reduces the landing velocity (you may be thinking of the moon landing), but instead to use a cold-gas jet to press the lander onto the surface. That system, unfortunately did not fire. Secondly (and perhaps related?), the trigger that should launch harpoons to anchor the lander did not execute. That is why it did not land, but bounce off again.
People share links on Facebook, and re-tweeting is one of the core features of Twitter (culture), which always lets you retrace the original poster.
I think this is more about meme-sites, where pictures (and cartoons, infographics, etc.) are *copied* rather than linked to the original website, often stripping away the original author. Therefore you have websites that do not produce their own content, but bundles (and earns money with advertisement). When the original authors claim their copyright, the site complies, but the stream (and people's attention) has moved on, so it does not matter and they get away with it.
Wow, what a load of rubbish.
Your post can be summarized in 3 sentences:
1) Legitimate militaries will not follow/trust the treaty
2) Uncontrolled individuals/groups will ignore the treaty
3) Something like this has never existed, there is no centrally controlling authority and/or treaties can not work.
You are wrong on all three. I just need to mention the treaty on landmines (Ottawa Treaty). It works. You can control the market and the militaries, at least the bulk of it. Also for chemical weapons there is a treaty, and it works. Even for chemical weapons (Chemical Weapons Convention) the number of incidents from uncontrolled individuals/groups is low.
Some of your points are also rubbish, like:
(X) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(X) I don't want the government limiting my arsenal
This is not fantasy, banning weapon technology world-wide has been done before. Countries joined voluntarily, one by one, and are controlled by each other.
You can achieve the same level of security with Hardened Gentoo Linux (PaX, Grsecurity2, which is Gentoo with different flags) https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/H... .
The only small difference is that strcpy is still allowed (applications should move to strlcpy/strpcpy instead).
Then again, I don't use hardened Gentoo, because last time I tried (couple of years back), it was hard to maintain on a simple desktop.
Other distributions that use PaX: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Similar statements could be made for desktops, where tray icon pop-ups for updates, email and chat notifications distract and interrupt workflows.
Maybe both for desktops and cars, this problem can be solved by detecting whether the user is currently focussed (on the road or a task) or relaxed/idle, and may be interrupted. Mylyn is a very impressive demo of thinking in this direction, I would like to see more of it.
There are some very nasty pieces of work on that list, rapists and murderers who presumably managed to get a removal order from within prison
Do you have any reasons for your presumption, or are you just babbeling? Maybe they were falsely convicted as rapists and murderers, the ruling overturned and they do not want to be called rapists and murderers every time someone types their name into Google, for the rest of their lives. The fraction of falsely accused rapists is somewhere between 10-40%, and that stigma does not go away.
He has spoken out on systemd, and his words were approximately "I don't hate it, I think it's fine."
Once again, Microsoft is so heavily stuck in the "I'm a PC and he's a Mac" mindset they're incapable of looking past Office and Exchange.
Well, do you know how much money they are making from Office and Exchange?
Alternative version of roll-your-own: Host at some provider, use their client (or if you do not trust them, put a encrypted file system on top).
Mount that on a Linux machine.
Share that filesystem via SMB, so Android and Windows can access the files.
So I guess ideally Slashdot would have to be run as sort of a public service, rather than as a money-maker. I figured Dice bought Slashdot and SourceForge to drive traffic to their job site, sort of as a loss-leader, goodwill gesture, look-at-us-we-totally-get-you-guys, please-consider-us-for-your-next-job-search sort of thing. But given how they're seemingly burning the goodwill candle at both ends by pushing through unpopular measure after unpopular measure, I have to admit I can't figure out what their real strategy is.
Maybe it's not an evil plan by Dice? I suspect it is some newly-appointed, over-eager IT dude that tries to "improve" the website and make it more 2.0, and perhaps also make some tasks easier for them (site management, statistics). The guy hasn't given up yet
Then again, how much could Slashdot cost to run? It's just a forum, for chissakes, right?
Then again again, if it's just a forum, why hasn't everybody moved on, en masse, to one of the clones of Slashdot that disgruntled Slashdotters have started in recent years?
That would require changing bookmarks, and habits, both of which is hard! *whine*
By the way, that soylentnews site is looking for someone to make their page (slashcode) more web 2.0. How ironic.
It seems strange to me that with all the decentralization in software (ex. git) that Linus remains the sole gatekeeper for what goes or doesn't go in the kernel. Splitting up the responsibility seems like it would be infinitely more logical.
It is already largely decentralized. There is a relatively fixed set of subsystem maintainers, which collect patches and merge from contributors. Then there are top figures like Greg and Linus, and the individual Linux distributions which maintain their own kernels by merging across. All Linus really does (well, he probably does more) is take and drop patches and every other week declare a certain merge set a version. Anyone can do that for their own kernel, but the central naming makes it "Linux" and focussed (e.g. for bug reporting).
That's at least my understanding.
I bet this is misreported and what they demand is that all searches originating from France be censored, regardless of whether a Frenchman goes to google.fr or google.com -- this easy Google to implement. This does not affect anyone outside of France.
" France Claims Right To Censor Search Results Globally " -- rubbish
" France Claims Right To Censor Search Results Locally " -- corrected
Also, even if true, US-Americans are not really allowed to cry about it because "US Claims Right To Wiretap Globally".
The Firefox market share continues to drop as Mozilla continues to add bloat to what once was an excellent browser.
Is it though? I would bet that the number of Firefox installations is growing, just the rate of other installations is growing faster.