I do not see the conservatives as having an ambition to destroy me, personally; rather I am a victim of the Conservative War on Science. I have been training my entire life for a position in scientific research, and they are proudly do everything they can to bring science to a screeching halt in this country. That results in my permanent unemployment.
Ugh, Sylpheed uses GTK+ which is just unfortunate.
Why is this a problem? You can't file a flight plan electronically?
And get the FAA to respond with your waiver in under 5 minutes? The point of these flights is the under-30-minute delivery. That includes handling the transaction, picking the product at the warehouse, getting it on board and in the air and several miles away. The FAA isn't built for waiving NFZ rules in minutes.
Regardless, you're ignoring the whole no-BLOS part of their regs. They require a certified PIC and a spotter with eyes on the vehicle the whole time. It's taken them years to decide about THOSE rules. Deciding to waive them will take years more if ever.
A valuable CPUcore for DRM?! Fail! They should have just implemented a custom ASIC for that task.
Of course he is, as they should be conflated. Nitrogen fertilizer production is tied directly to natural gas. Take away natural gas production and billions will starve!!!
who wanted me permanently unemployed
It's hard to remember that the "conspiracy theorist" is *me* sometimes.
I'm impressed that you so proudly attempted to make two contradictory arguments in one sentence. I'm not sure why this impresses me, though, you do it quite often.
"Trollin', trollin', trollin'
Though the streams are swollen. .
The argument (and your attempt to milk it) is the distraction.
Well, if you're going to stand here and get milked like damn_registrars by these Progressive idiots, I really don't see the difference between you.
The fact that I voted for him and despise his decisions further supports the notion that you should be championing him as demonstration of the benefits of conservatism.
I guess it's in character. You were sufficiently stuck in foopid to waste your vote on the lying no-talent rodeo clown; now you expect me to co-op his idiotic Commie results as a demonstration of your strawmanning prowess? I say it's in character because you're so partisan that you will genuflect and vote for that Jezebel, Her Majesty, so that she can take us further down El Camino Cloward-Piven Real.
And your partisanship still stands out like the proverbial sore thumb. I figure that part is a troll, amiright?
Sure, troll, but riddle me this, Batman: are you trying to claim AGW, itself, is somehow non-partisan?
New technology market deployments go in stages, including the following:
1) The underlying technology becomes available and financially viable. The window opens.
2) An explosion of companies introduce competing products and try to capture market share. They are in a race to jump through the window.
3) There is a shakeout: A handful become the dominant producers and the rest die off or move on to other things. The window has closed.
We've seen this over and over. (Two examples from a few decades back were the explosions of Unix boxes and PC graphics accelerator chips)
IoT applications recently passed stage 1), with the introduction of $1-ish priced, ultra-low-power (batteries last for years), systems-on-a-chip (computer, radio peripheral, miscellaneous sensor and other device interfaces) from TI, Nordic, Dialog, and others. It's in stage 2) now.
In stage 2) there's a race to get to market. Wait too long and your competitors eat your lunch and you die before deploying at all. So PBHs do things like deploy proof-of-concept lab prototypes as products, as soon as they work at all (or even BEFORE they do. B-b ) They figure that implementing a good security architecture up front will make them miss the window, and (if they think that far ahead at all) that they can fix it with upgrades later, after they're established, have financing, adequate staffing, and time to do it right - or at least well enough.
So right now you're seeing the IoT producucts that came out first - which means mostly the ones that either ignored security entirely or haven't gotten it set up right yet. Give it some time and you'll see better security - either from improvements among the early movers or new entrants who took the time to do it right and managed to survive long enough to get to market. Then you'll see a shakeout, as those who got SOMETHING wrong fail in competition with those who got it right.
If we're lucky, one of the "somethings" will be security. But Microsoft's example shows that's not necessarily a given.
In this case, though, the POINT of the product is security, so getting it wrong - visibly - may be a company killer. (I see that, in the wake of the exposure, the company is promising a field upgrade with this issue fixed in about a month. If it does happen, and comes out before the crooks develop and use an exploit, perhaps this company will become another example for the PHBs to point at when they push the engineers for fast schlock rather than slow solid-as-rocks.)
Being in the industry, the reason I was given was (1) the electrolyte is very expensive right now
Vanadium pentoxide (98% pure was about $6/lb and falling as of early Oct and hasn't been above $14 in years) and sulphuric acid?
and (2) investors need a demonstration of return.
Always the bottom line. B-)
A rock store eventually closed down; they were taking too much for granite.