Agreed. There is no information available to tell how long someone spent browsing a page. Sure, if there is a record of a page retrieved, and then a record of another page retrieved that was linked on the initial page, and the time between those two retrievals was relatively short you can probably infer that the time on the first page was probably the time spent looking at the page. But in general people have a variety of browsing methods, may have taken a break to do something else (or their web browsing is the "break" while do some other task), etc. Any long time between page retrievals does not allow a conclusion that the time between those two retrievals indicates that the entire time was spent on that page.

How about doing anything that takes a long time and you don't want to remain logged in for it to complete? For example you are running a standard program that is going to take hours or even days to process some data, so you redirect stdin to /dev/null, stdout to one file, stderr to either the same file or another file, and you start the whole thing with the nohup shell command.

There is already a well established mechanism for cleaning up background processes, i.e. the SIGHUP signal. And there is already a mechanism for explicitly stating that you don't want a process to die when you log out, and that is the shell's "nohup" command (which blocks the hangup signal that is sent to the process when the user exits).

And in what way does this new mechanism "enhance security"? Running something in the background after you log out doesn't give you any more privileges than if you remained logged in.

Why do the systemd folks think they need to keep reinventing the wheel? This feels like a solution in search of a problem.

Huh? Full disclosure, I'm an HPE employee. Where did you get the idea that HPE doesn't have any hardware products? We spun of HP Incorporated which does the more consumer oriented products that most consumers associated with HP, so that is why they got the original logo. They make printers, laptops, notebooks, desktops and workstations, and a lot more. Basically now we spun off the former EDS that HP bought from Ross Perot some time ago. We're still a major player in hardware. Just go to the HPE website (www.hpe.com) and click on Products. We make servers, from smaller rack servers up to huge Enterprise scale servers. We make storage hardware, network hardware, etc. Basically, if it's something you'd find in a corporate data center, we make it AND support it.

This is already partially solved in a way similar to passenger jets, which have to deal with a similar problem. You need enough oxygen for each passenger to last long enough until the problem can be addressed. For a passenger jet, that means 12-15 minutes while the pilot dives to low altitude. For a low pressure tunnel emergency that means slowing the train down and then letting normal air pressure into the tunnel in a controlled fashion. As far as air resistance is concerned, I think you are thinking about lower speeds than are planned for a hyperloop solution. Hyperloop designs are considering speeds that approach or possibly exceed mach 1. Drag goes up exponentially (velocity squared), so the air density becomes a much greater issue at those speeds. Besides drag, you also have to take into account the heating of the train due to drag.

Maglev is becoming a viable technology for long distance rail. The low pressure tunnel allows for more efficient low drag travel, perhaps even supersonic travel. How do you propose that the train "float" on a cushion of air in a low pressure environment? What form of propulsion are you proposing that is going to work in this low pressure environment, assuming you have a solution for the "floating" problem that doesn't involve maglev?

Yes, I agree that "Body Transplant" technically makes more sense, however, as other people have noted, the head is part of the body. When you hear "Head Transplant" you know exactly what it means. If you hear "Body Transplant" it's not completely clear what that might mean without further clarification.

Right, but the other side of the equation is not zero. Coal fired power plants, and the associated mining is responsible for the vast majority of mercury in our food chain. During normal operation, the effective radiation released from coal fired plants are ~100 times that of a nuclear plant. Combustion of fossil fuels produces air pollutants that lead to increased cancer risks and statistical increases in related deaths. Combustion of fossil fuels also are a major source of greenhouse gases.

Then note that the Fukushima accident was close to a worse case scenario, i.e. a major earthquake, followed by a tsunami. Even then, better planning could have prevented this disaster. The safety standards in place at Chernobyl were so ridiculous it's not even worth considering when it comes to accessing nuclear power risks. Lets learn from our mistakes and make improvements, rather than throwing in the towel and increasing use of fossil fuel power plants.

I applaud the view of France, who never wavered in their pursuit of nuclear energy, as opposed to Japan and Germany who overreacted to the situation. I think both countries will eventually regret the path they've taken. I'd certainly like to see the U.S. pursue nuclear energy, since it is the only practical clean energy source that addresses the issue of base load, other than hydroelectric plants, which have significant limitations in where they can be installed.

I'm all for other clean energy sources like wind and solar, but anyone who thinks we can move to them for all our energy needs is living in a fantasy world. The only way that can happen is with unrealistic breakthroughs in storage technology, not the steady increase in storage capability that we've seen over the last 100 years. Stop reading and believing all the "major breakthrough" stories posted to Slashdot regarding this. Inevitably they turn out to be false, or just another step on the same progression we've seen over the years.

But perhaps some of those accidents caused by the car drivers are indirectly caused by the truck drivers. Truck drivers used to be the knights of the road. Now they drive like they drive their car. A lot of times when there is a backup of traffic on a highway it is due to a truck trying to pass another truck. They start to pass, get to a hill can't complete the pass, start to pass on the downhill, then hit another hill, etc. Sometimes it takes more than 5 minutes for a truck to get ahead of another truck and then they proceed to travel a 1-2 mph faster than the truck they passed. Meanwhile, as soon as the pass is complete, a lot of car drivers speed up to pass the trucks before another truck gets the idea that they have to pass another truck. Or they try to pass on the right of the truck that is still trying to overtake the "slow" truck in the right lane. I've seen lots of crazy maneuvers made by car drivers in this situation, induced by the incessant need for truck drivers to pass other trucks, which didn't seem to happen anywhere near as often 20-30 years ago as it does now. So yes, the car drivers may be ultimately respsonsible, but some of it is brought on by the behavior of truck drivers. With AI trucks we'll probably see a lot more truck caravans all following each other at the same speed in the far right lane, without the need to keep passing each other.

That was supposed to be "but not because of your bad math ..."

You're correct that it is not a 50% improvement, but because of your bad math (1/3 of 12 is 4, not 6). The real fail is the article which got it wrong with respect to Xeon E5 V2. You can get Xeon E5 V2 chips with 15 cores, so the V3 chips are really only a 20% improvement.

There are a lot of differences between typical recreational use and commercial use. So the recreational vs. commercial is only one small part of the guidelines outlined in Advisory 91-57. The main issue is that recreational model aircraft are flown with line of sight, and any camera is used either just for post flight video or for potential assistance, but not for primary flight. This kind of flight is almost useless for commercial use. A commercial UAS uses the camera as a first person view for actually flying the vehicle. Typically RF power is increased to be able to fly the vehicle much further. This is significantly more dangerous. There is a huge loss in situational awareness. If the camera system fails then you are literally flying blind. The camera is not showing the plane itself so it is more difficult to diagnose the beginning of a failure. When a recreational flyer sees his vehicle failing he can immediately turn it around and since it is not out of line of sight there is a much better chance that the pilot can get the vehicle back or most of the way back. The pilot has full situational awareness of what is under and around the plane/vehicle. Commercial UAS systems are typically higher power, heavier, larger batteries, etc. You really don't want these things flying over your head. Use of them in urban or suburban settings should be carefully regulated.

Are you talking about websites? Because I can't imagine people were all that excited about new telnet, ftp or gopher sites. If you're talking websites then your timeline is a little off. The World became the first ISP in 1989. Tim Berners-Lee created the first website in December 1990, but didn't really advertise the fact (and make a web browser available) until August of 1991.

UUNET was not providing internet connections at that time. They started out as a UUCP service provider, primarily providing email and Usenet feeds via uucp. So sometimes people will say they are the first ISP, just like people will claim Compuserve, Prodigy and AOL were all ISP's back then. But The World was the first true ISP providing access to the Internet, which probably wasn't all that exciting for the general public at that point.

RIght. That nearest hub/station/whatever is called a DSLAM. A DSLAM can be installed near or in your neighborhood and fed by fiber. I have a fiber fed DSLAM in my neighborhood and I subscribe to a 40 Mbit VDSL2 service. I'm less than 1000 feet from the DSLAM, as are most of the people in our neighborhood. The generic "DSL" covers a wide range of service. The fact is that many people can only get 1.5 Mbit (or even only 256 Kbit) service, so they assume that (or 5-7 Mbit, which is the next tier typically available) is the best that DSL can offer.

Perhaps you have been too quick to dismiss DSL. I assume that currently your DSLAM is not very close to the neighborhood and therefore AT&T can only offer the slower DSL speeds. Perhaps you can convince AT&T to install a fiber fed DSLAM near the border of your neighborhood. If there is fiber in the area this can be done without digging up your neighborhood. With current DSL technology (VDSL2) they could offer much higher speeds (up to 100 Mbit down, but more likely 20-40 Mbit). This can be done over your existing neighborhood phone wires as long as the distance to the DSLAM is fairly short. However, your neighborhood still might not be big enough to make a good case. At the very least you would have to get a significant number of your neighbors to commit to buy a high rate DSL service. Are there other nearby neighborhoods that could benefit? That might increase the chances of it happening. I'm not saying that there is a high probability that you can convince AT&T to do this, but you should at least consider all your options.