Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Dealing with steadily rising wages? (Score 2) 166

> The Group’s gross profit increased 20% to € 2.304 billion (2014: € 1.918 billion) in the third quarter.

http://www.adidas-group.com/en...

I would love to know why Adidas can't afford to pay decent wages?

Maybe they're using more robots precisely because they want to pay their (remaining) human employees decent wages. :D

Comment Re:Bomb or missile (Score 1) 410

It seems like a really weird bomb - if we assume middle eastern terrorists. They would be in Paris with a bomb, but choose to go through all the airport security and the risks associated with it just to blow up a plane filled with mostly Egyptians in Egyptian airspace?

Yeah, why not? First, bringing down an airliner means a lot more publicity than just exploding a bomb in a restaurant somewhere. Second, a bomb that kills at most one or two people in a restaurant kills 100+ people when exploded in an airplane because most or all victims won't die from the blast but from, you know, flying in an airplane that's crashing.

Yeah but if you're going to blow up a plane wouldn't you want to do it over land, preferably over a city or something (like the one it just left) where lots of people are likely to see, rather than over some bit of ocean miles and miles away from anything.

Yeah, if you have any control over where exactly the bomb goes off. You seem to be assuming that the terrorist was onboard the plane, on a suicide mission. Which seems pretty unlikely to me.

Comment Re:Bomb or missile (Score 1) 410

It seems like a really weird bomb - if we assume middle eastern terrorists. They would be in Paris with a bomb, but choose to go through all the airport security and the risks associated with it just to blow up a plane filled with mostly Egyptians in Egyptian airspace?

Yeah, why not? First, bringing down an airliner means a lot more publicity than just exploding a bomb in a restaurant somewhere. Second, a bomb that kills at most one or two people in a restaurant kills 100+ people when exploded in an airplane because most or all victims won't die from the blast but from, you know, flying in an airplane that's crashing.

Comment Re:I can see it now... (Score 1) 610

And since it's not the 1990's anymore anything worth calling it encrypted is storing keys in specialized hardware, so it's not just a question of getting a debugger out and pawing through memory.

Well, in block device / disk encryption on PCs, they keys are stored on the regular device, but they're stored encrypted with another key, namely the passphrase, which is only stored in the user's brain (hopefully). So unless the device is already running and somebody has already entered the correct passphrase, you can paw through anything you want (except the user's brain) and it won't help.

Comment Re:Reliability (Score 1) 163

Still, there are obstacles. SpaceX still needs to demonstrate the ability to consistently produce and launch rockets many times a year after the June accident caused an unexpected, six-month setback, something it will do with several flights planned for the weeks ahead.

Just because it's relatively cheap to use Space X, if I have a 50-50 ( better or worse) chance that my $100 million satellite that took several years to design and build is going to get blown up, I'll pass.

So I'm guessing (and I'm more or less an interested layman here) it would depend o the cost of the payload. Even if reusable rockets turn out to be less reliable, they'd still open up new possibilities IF they're substantially cheaper. If cheaper launches become available, that opens the market up for new, less expensive types of payloads that nobody would've thought of before. If your payload costs two million dollars to build (and to build again if you lose one), you'd probably launch it with the one-million-dollars-per-launch vehicle that's three times more likely to explode. If your payload costs one BILLION dollars, you probably[*] launch with the 60 million per launch vehicle that's three times less likely to explode, because the launch costs are just 6% of your payload anyway. But the thing is, that 2 million dollar payload would not be launched AT ALL if the cheap launcher wasn't available (at least not if the payload is heavy enough so it can't be launched with 10 others on the same flight).

[*] Even that's not an automatic no-brainer decision if you're thinking of buying one hundred one-billion dollar payload launches and want to have as many dollars in orbit per million dollars expended as possible -- in that case you might launch even the expensive payloads with the cheaper launcher.

Comment Re:Data data everywhere and not a drop to think (Score 1) 366

Why measure weight? All that's needed to know whether the plane will lift off is the current amount of thrust, the current speed and its acceleration.

The plane lifts off when its lift exceeds its weight. Its *weight*, see? The airspeed (and flaps setting) determines the lift; to determine the weight, you have to, well, weigh the thing.

Comment Re: The Commit Message (Score 1) 572

And that is the whole fun point of it all: AICCU (or anything else) cannot fix network problems

It's not supposed to fix them, it's supposed to retry until they've been fixed externally. And no, you don't expect a user to "read log messages" and restart the thing manually every time the network is unavailable. A network outage is fixed where it happens, it's not supposed to break thousands of daemons downstream permanently until somebody has read their logfiles and manually restarted them like an idiot. There may not even be a user, if you think of unattended server boxes or, say, home routers running in your mom's basement. Your mom won't read log files. And she certainly doesn't want to power-cycle her internet box every time the network comes up again (or wasn't up when she switched the box on). This thing wants to be a Unix-style daemon that's supposed to support robust automation, not requiring a c00l h4xx0r type holding its hand and reading log files and typing fancy restart commands all the time to do stuff that's blatantly obvious anyway.

You should really step back for a minute and think this over and change your perspective. You were thrown into that Redhat bugzilla because you were angry because someone had made a wrong fix that DDoSed your service, without contacting you first, and apparently that anger has clouded your judgment, or so it seems.

Comment Re: The Commit Message (Score 2) 572

aiccu then crashes and it never starts again.

I may be miss-understanding something, but if a service crashes, SystemD is responsible to restart the service. In this case the service may just crash again, but that's besides the point. Why wasn't SystemD bringing a crashed service back online?

It did, after the submitter wrote Restart=always/RestartSec=10 into the service definition file. But that led to the (understandable) concern on the part of the aiccu author that when this patch was rolled out to all Fedora installations, you might have thousands of Fedora boxes out there with e.g. a wrong tunnel password in the aiccu configuration, and all those machines would then be continuously hammering the SixXs tunnel broker with rejected connection attempts. Stuff like that is one of the reasons why auto-restarting services are frowned upon. AFAIK systemd allows you to specify that a service be restarted only if it exited with one out of a specific set of exit codes and/or signals, but again, aiccu doesn't define specific exit code for specific error conditions, afaik (and I don't know whether systemd itself can perform exponential backoff for certain exit codes).

Another question is why wasn't the service registered with the event for when the network came back up? Then it could crash and stay down until the network was functioning again, instead of attempting to restart every 10 seconds.

Not all network outages are local. An upstream router or the SixXs service itself may be go down randomly. So you still have to have some strategy in the service daemon and/or the service definition to deal with the tunnel broker being unreachable.

Comment Re: The Commit Message (Score 5, Insightful) 572

There was a problem involving systemd, networking, and aiccu.

The aiccu maintainer demonstrated how systemd wasn't properly making sure that networking was up before attempting to start aiccu

No they didn't demonstrate that. The relevant thread is this one, and the short version is that the aiccu author failed to understand that the network being unavailable temporarily is quite a different failure mode than, say, the configuration file having a syntax error. In the latter case, it's OK to terminate and require user intervention, whereas in the former case, if you're a long-running daemon that's supposed to keep a tunnel open, you keep running, backing off exponentially and waiting until the network becomes available again. Or at the very least, you exit with a specific exit code so that somebody can write a wrapper script that handles this particular error correctly and implements the backing-off thing in the wrapper script, and still terminates permanently for any other error condition (at which point it's fair to ask again why you wouldn't implement the exponential backoff in the daemon itself).

This whole thing is quite independent of the init system; sysvinit will expose just the same set of issues. What's broken is the daemon, not the init system.

Slashdot Top Deals

"All the people are so happy now, their heads are caving in. I'm glad they are a snowman with protective rubber skin" -- They Might Be Giants

Working...