Comment Please don't count how many chars I typed. (Score 1) 29
People who think in 140 character tweets are probably posting shallow crap in an attempt to impress others. This is not deserving of tips!
People who think in 140 character tweets are probably posting shallow crap in an attempt to impress others. This is not deserving of tips!
The recent tone of Russian communications relating to the ISS seems to indicate an increasing desire to exit from the ISS project. Given the recent Nauka module mishaps, the Auñón-Chancellor sabotage accusations, and the warming China/Russia relationship, one could be forgiven for suspecting an ulterior motive.
Russia's space program is one of their few sources of internationally recognized pride. If they exit the ISS, they can't go to the Chinese station - the Chinese station is in an orbit that can't be reached by by the rockets Russia launches. The Russians can launch to the ISS because the ISS was put in in an arguably suboptimal orbit so that the Russians can reach it. Russia has a much smaller economy than most people realize, so it seems unlikely they can build a new station on their own even if they tried to repurpose their ISS modules.
The entire space station is modular. There's no reason any module can't be replaced and rotated on an ongoing basis (its really just a cost thing). We could keep maintaining the space station indefinitely, replacing things as we go along.
Space Station of Theseus
It was designed to be built in a modular fashion. That doesn't actually mean that it's also designed to be taken apart. Russia did recently toss off an old docking port. But most of the modules are too intertwined with cabling and stuff for it to be feasible to remove them. Design work on the ISS started in the 1980s. We've learned a lot since then. If we're going to send up tons of new stuff, we might as well build a new station with an updated architecture.
I initially read the headline as "exploding".
Gee, I wish it had said that! Because I really do hope that Paypal Trading implodes on itself and doesn't see the light of day.
Each of the modules had a planned lifetime of 10 years. It's been up for 20 years. NASA hopes to keep it going until 2024 or 2028. Structural and other issues mean it can't last forever. Reportedly, NASA is interested in one or more commercial stations. Hopefully, SpaceX will succeed with their Starship which will facilitate launch of massive components at cheaper rates than we've ever had before.
TL;DR Facebook takes some heat and decides to outsource the decisions to a third party in the hopes of deflecting future blame.
Every single Bolt is being recalled. Which means they think the issue could be in every single battery made for the Bolt.
If such a high proportion of batteries have issues, then even the simplest of QA tear downs should have caught the problem. That QA didn't detect this is more problematic than a simple mis-aligned robot.
No. This is happening because the issue is rare not because the issue is common. As the TFA says, if the issue were more common, QA/QC would have caught it. Visual inspection won't show this particular problem. You have to either open (and damage) the battery or you have to x-ray it. Because of this, the QC process was to sample a small percentage of the batteries. They need to recall all of the cars because they cannot easily tell which cars have the problem.
If the employees don't approve of the clients, they can leave. Google is not holding them hostage.
Protests should be limited to events that are illegal, such as employee discrimination or harassment.
Wow! Protests should only be about criminal actions? No protests for *anything* else? Should the protestors wait until after a conviction? Imagine what today's world would be if there had never been any protests.
I don't disagree entirely but "Split DNS" has lead to a lot of confusing, hard to diagnose issue, and its own fair share of security problems.
Really what would be 'good for' most shops and all thumbs admins is filtered DNS. One set of records, but only those explicitly marked public are returned unless the request came from inside, otherwise NXDOMAIN or SRVFAIL.
Of course that is still a config or NAT - related booboo away from fill disclosure but at least that can be tested validated easily.
That sounds effectively the same as split DNS except that there are no names that appear both externally and internally.
One problem with your "filtered instead of split" proposal is that you *want* some names to appear both internally and externally. The most obvious names would be your fnord.com and www.fnord.com names. You probably want differing "A" records and "MX" records for internal vs external fnord.com.
If you want to avoid having the same names existing in both internal and external split DNS, the typical approach as suggested by the parent poster is to internally either use a sub-domain such as internal.fnord.com or use a different name such as fnord.org or fnord-int.com.
Will the Biden administration slow Elon Musk's SpaceX down?
[
The FAA is working with SpaceX to draft an environmental review of its plans to make Boca Chica a space port for the Starship. The FAA has declared that, “The proposed update to Starship/Super Heavy operations falls outside of the scope of the existing final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Record of Decision for the launch site and requires additional environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).” [
Well, Starship is significantly more powerful than Falcon Heavy, so a new impact assessment does seem reasonable. Here's hoping it passes.
But SpaceX might not need to launch from the land they have near Boca Chica. Musk wants to eventually launch multiple Starships per day. Which is one of the reasons that Musk has been talking about doing ocean launches for Starship. Boca Chica is on the Gulf of Mexico coast.
Guess who's the only bidder allowed to make a moon lander now. Guess why.
What do you mean? In November NASA added five companies to the list of vendors allowed to bid on contracts for NASA payload delivery to the lunar surface.
In January, the House space subcommittee approved a funding authorization bill that said NASA should do a "Moon to Mars" plan and to move the moon landing back to the previously targeted 2028 date. (Trump moved up the date to 2024 in the hopes that he'd have a second term and be the president that returned to the moon. Pence announced it maybe a year ago.) The House also specified that the lunar lander project had to be done in-house as a cost plus project and be "carried on an Exploration Upper Stage-enhanced Space Launch System (SLS)" NASA administrator Bridenstine publicly voiced concern.
That bill is why some are saying that Boeing is being given the lunar lander project. However, the subcommittee's bill isn't actually law yet. It still has to go to the full House. And then has to be reconciled with what the Senate is doing.
Yawn. Another successful test, another docking with no unscheduled rapid disassemblies. Can you say snooze fest?
I’d much rather fly Boeing’s crew capsule. Much more full of surprises - never a dull moment; keeps you on your toes!
Agreed - SpaceX is getting so good that their launches are too boring to make the nightly news. However, their recent test flight was an exception. Not a RUD, but that flight did include have a rapid scheduled disassembly complete with fireball.
From TFS:
Each of the lines consists of only one operation, unlike modern languages, which can pack dozens of operations with multiple options into one line...
Of course each line was one operation. The Apollo Guidance Computer was programmed in assembly!
The summary seems to be saying that the code was good because they wrote in assembly is better than high level languages! Wrong. And, some drivel about how compact the output binary program is vs the size of the human readable source. Even more incorrect. As others have noted, the code for the Apollo project was good because of the processes used.
Unlike morons like you. I understand physics.
Unlikely seeing as you don't understand simple math! Or, maybe you can't read. But, most likely, you're a troll.
As others have said, these satellites are orbiting *very* low. That's mostly why they need tens of thousands of them. The first generation will have slightly better latency than typical cable connections. The next generation will include optical satellite to satellite links. Those links (in a near vacuum) will be faster than fiber optic cables. For long distances such as U.S. coast to coast or for trans oceanic links, Starlink will have significantly lower latency than anything else.
BTW, it's already somewhat operational internally. Musk used it to send a tweet, IIRC.
This thing is expected to make *tons* of money. Massive profits is the reason that Musk started Skylink! He wants to put thousands of people on Mars and SpaceX won't generate enough money by itself for that.
Note that this targets rural areas, airplanes, ships at sea, forward military bases, and pretty much anything but dense urban centers. Because, physics.
Posting to undo accidental incorrect mod
2.4 statute miles of surgical tubing at Yale U. = 1 I.V.League
