This is slashdot. Unless you are being sarcastic about a click-baity site that we need to laugh at, "Simple Bug" is not a valid replacement for "DLL Hijacking" or, more descriptively, "DLL Side Loading" or "DLL replacement."
You want to know what will make Slashdot better? Good headlines is a fantastic start.
Banks can roll back transactions for various reasons, e.g. bankruptcy proceedings, mistakes by their own operators or by customers, or
However, if I am designing an experiment, I try to limit any simultaneous changes to dependent variables.
That's not to say that I *won't* (I have) vary multiple independent variables at the same time, but if I do, I usually have at least a "hunch" that the direction I'm moving them both (all) is toward a saddle point.
Perhaps the person deciding this has already concluded the independence of the variables and the probable location of the saddle point. If so, good on them; from outside, I really haven't reached the same conclusion, but, alas, I do not have all of the data they have.
Which is why I stated my comment the way I did, rather than accusing them of bad judgement.
But I can't help but wonder in practice if it won't leave a lot of poor people with no internet access at all.
Sure, it's nice to have an even playing field. But when you're starving, do you really want the government telling McDonalds that they can't give you free food because that wouldn't be fair to Burger King?
This is the intent.
You didn't think that all the poor people with no internet access at all were the ones posting online about the lack of neutrality in the offering, did you? The people posting already have Internet access, and so the only impact on them would be:
(1) If they were one of the companies that refused to partner with Facebook, which means that they were unable to successfully compete in markets (e.g. job sites, etc.) where they were already underdogs, or
(2) They were ordinary Indians, more well off than the poor, who were suddenly forced to compete with well educated poor, who had the ability to apply for jobs which they coveted
(3) They were people who had to pay for their service, felt that if poor people received free service, they should too, and were upset that the free service was not as extensive as their current paid service
So it's basically a strategy to keep the target market segmentation of startup sites focussed on "not the poor", anti-competitive for labor, against the currently disenfranchised (keeping them that way), and people wanting their existing something for nothing, rather than a new thing that is a lesser something for nothing.
Welcome to India.
- 100% of the Falcon 9 Full Thrust landings have been successful.
- 0% of the Falcon 9 v1.1 landings have been successful.
- There has been one F9 FT flight so far.
- The F9 FT has (among others) improved thrust (and thus more reserves for the return flight) and improved landing gear.
- After the successful return of the F9 FT some things were noted about the FT drives and launches were pushed back 4-6 weeks as it looks right now.
Or the ground landing was a "Oops! We accidentally landed successfully! Let's blame the equipment! Back to the barge! Arrrrrr, maties!".
Multiple successful ground landings would have been good. But they aren't planning to refly the thing even if it's a successful landing at this point. But that does move us 3 launches to reuse from first landing to probably 6 launches to reuse. If they have money to burn on it because they are rolling it into launch costs, it makes sense to roll as much of it as you can into the costs before you end up being forced to drop the prices.
And yes, I know: being cheapest, they aren't "forced", but visible reuse would encourage others more, if it had corresponding visible cost reductions.
Why not use some sort of collar made of cables on some masts around the deck to support the top of the booster? When the booster come in, the hoop is wide open so as not to obstruct. As it passes though, the loop tightens and the booster is kept upright even if it tips. By the time it lands, the loops is snug against the top of the rocket and the booster is secure, even if the platform rocks.
That was actually my first reaction: "Oh, obviously it'll be something like 'this' that they'll be using...", the first time I heard they'd be landing them at all.
Then I got really annoyed at them not having something like that, and trying to land on a pitching platform.
The platform landings themselves make sense, particularly if you locate the launch and landing facilities out in international waters so that the world really has no say in whether or not you are allowed to launch and/or land, but really: there's a lot simpler tech that would work to avoid losing the things over and over again.
That said, once they get it right (assuming they ever do), and assuming the weather cooperates all the time, having solved the problem, the per launch additional equipment costs will be marginally lower than they would have been, had they gone with a "hug truss" system in the first place.
Personally, I was thinking they were going to do a least three dirt landings to give them a confidence interval and more data, since that data may change what they decide to do in the process of landing, which in turn might add complications to the water landings that they had not yet considered.
Hooray for more space junk!
And since when this is a problem?
What about all the poor animals who have to live in the environment up there, polluted with space-junk? Particularly if that space junk ends up in their breeding grounds?
You know that they lifted the ban on second children last year, right? And that it never applied to everyone, just certain areas where there was overpopulation. Obviously many in the west would condemn their methods, but it isn't true to say that they have a problem with the rate that their population is expanding. They have it under control, at the rate they desire.
I'm well aware of the ban. It primary served to cause a rash of "SIDS" cases that left odd strangulation marks on female children. Ironically, given that there will be massive shortage of wives, and the families with daughters will pretty much be able to dowry for whatever they want. You would think that there would be a lot of efforts in the other direction, as a monetary investment.
As far as "at the rate they desire"
I definitely didn't turn out OK... in fact, I died of dysentery.
What immense technical problems did autonomous vehicles have prior to the 2004 DARPA project?
What immense technical problems did nuclear have before the Manhattan project?
What immense technical problems did flight have 150 years ago?
What immense technical problems did the internal combustion engine have 200 years ago?
For a site supposedly for nerds the nerds sure are short sighted when it comes to technology. However based on the comments in multiple other threads most people here would be happier if kids had to walk uphill both ways to use their punchcards.
People don't want the first version.
They want the version that works right.
The iPod was the first MP3 player with a half decent user interface and had Firewire 400 so loading it didn't take forever.
If it breaks your tools maybe you need better tools.
The first 90% of a project takes 90% of the time, the last 10% takes the other 90% of the time.