Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:So... (Score 1) 233

And when the POAM is being tracked, and things aren't getting fixed .... oh, wait, *I* know, we'll put together a Selected Hurdles Integration and Testing Facility Engineering System Template to make sure the problems get resolved.

The deal is that once you've spent big money, you just can't back out and save face. They need a new leader, brought in from the outside, to shred the contract and tell HPE to go away.

Comment Re:I don't get it (Score 1) 126

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Nevertheless, I do want to point out that there is a simple case where a pressurized tank will hold just fine, but will leak like a sieve if the pressure is lowered: an internal flap that is being held in place against a hole by the high pressure, that is no longer being held sufficiently tightly when the pressure is lowered. The flap, in this case, might well be unintentional, like from an overlapped seam of two panels. It turns out that the flapper valve in most toilets works just in that way: it depends on the weight of the water to ensure a good seal, leaking terribly during the initial filling of the tank. The toilet valve is designed to do that, but after shaking the begeezus out of a lift stage that has been designed neither for low-pressure use nor for long-term durability, there might well be such flaps unintentionally present.

But the primary point is that we agree -- the basic idea is worth pursuing. Given the vast cost of lifting the shell to orbit, it would seem to be a resource that could be utilized, somehow, and that bears investigation.

Comment Re:I don't get it (Score 3, Insightful) 126

It is pressure tested at many times the 0.5-1.0 atm pressure differential needed to sustain human life in space.

It is pressure tested on earth before being subjected to the intense rigors of launch. All bets are off as to whether it retains long-term integrity, as it has not been designed to do that. It's easy to find situations where a vessel will will not leak at high pressure differentials, but will leak at low pressure differentials. That we don't know the answer as to what will happen to the current designs is a good reason to test, but it should not be put forth as incontrovertible evidence of future success.

Comment waste of money (Score 1) 225

1. No, simply no. It makes my eyes go funny.

2. No. Cute ways to make graphics spell out a company's name is a first-year student's approach. You can do better. It looks like a QR code FFS.

3. Interesting. But what does it have to do with browsers? Is Mozilla now making robots? Or a chat app?

4. Cute. Will not be cute in about 18 months.

5. No, and see point 2 as to why. It also does not render well at 32x32.

6. Makes my eyes bleed almost as much as #1. Also will not render well at low resolutions. FFS, why do I want to recall those horrid Apple drawing programs from the pre-iMac days?

7. What? Which part of that is the logo? Is Mozilla an origami company now? It's supposed to read Mozilla? See objection to #2.

The only one that has any relevant design sensibility (note the important "relevant" part ... the open elevator door logo is sheer idiocy, unless Mozilla has bought Otis Elevator and no-one's noticed) is the fourth Moz://a, but it will get tired quickly. Cute does not last.

Now, can anyone tell me what the Mozilla logo currently is? Not the Firefox logo. Not the Thunderbird logo, but the Mozilla Foundation's logo. Anyone? Anyone? So the logo does not matter one whit. (The logo, having looked at the mozilla.org web site appears to be a lower-case "mozilla" in an attractive sans-serif font; not a bad logo, kind of bland, but lacks the iconic symbology that is regrettably so popular right now.)

Comment Re:Honest Question (Score 1) 151

Fedora 24 is THE reason that I'm now running CentOS 7 on my machines. Screw the constant need to upgrade / reinstall the OS, screw the constant need to figure out how to fix things that stopped working with the newest version, screw the lack of updates in basically a year (because who is stupid enough to upgrade to a new OS immediately when it's released?), screw the idiots who think that change for the sake of change alone is a good idea.

Fundamentally, I gave up on Fedora when I installed a test instance of 24 on my laptop, and seemingly half of the things in my carefully constructed environment were now broken because someone decided to re-implement something or other, and hadn't bothered to FINISH their implementation before releasing it.

No thank you. Yes, I understand cutting edge. Yes, I understand the role that Fedora is supposed to have. But over the last N releases, it has become increasingly acceptable to release a new version with inadequate testing and worse overall performance.

I installed CentoS 7, and holycrap, it all just worked! Moreover, it's stable! And supposed to be supported well into the 2020s!

From the descriptions above, Wayland sounds like another one of these urges that young programmers get to make their mark without fully understanding the existing system first. X is amazing. It works exceedingly well. Remotely executing programs rendered on the local screen was a problem that was solved in its entirety in the 1980s, and done much better than any of the replacements I've seen for Unix-derived systems or Windows. There must be some important issue that I don't understand to make it worth re-engineering the entirety of that system, and running games isn't good enough.

Comment Re:people will still reject education but need deg (Score 4, Interesting) 282

Public libraries are a vastly under-utilized resource. When I was a kid, I loved spending time there, looking for exciting books to read. One of my best finds was a book on nuclear fission and fusion by Glenn Seaborg. I pored over that book, checking it out time after time after time.

Comment Re:this is a good thing, but not enough... (Score 1) 64

One other thing that journals do, when performing their filtering process is force the authors to re-write. When my papers get rejected, I don't turn around and just resubmit elsewhere, I take the criticism to heart and address it. My best written papers are ones that were rejected (or required major revisions) two or three times. My most highly referenced paper was rejected from three journals before being accepted (and then was covered in the international press). Each rewrite was painful, but it is a much, much better paper than when it was first submitted.

Comment Re:this is a good thing, but not enough... (Score 1) 64

The NIH has been requiring this for some time now, and the important part is that the papers are freely available after one year. So the journals get to reap the benefits that their selection process provides for a given period of time. Thus far, they've been able to handle survival under such circumstances and some (*cough* Elsevier *cough*) have even thrived.

And note that I slipped in an important observation that gets often overlooked: journals provide an important filtering mechanism that has, thus far, not been sucessfully reproduced elsewhere. While there clearly are exceptions, and I'm sure nearly every person who reads scientific articles has their favorites, generally put the more respected journals have more stringent vetting processes that lead to a higher concentration of quality publications. Given that there are too many papers published to read in nearly any given field, having someone apply a filtering process to pick out the ones more likely to be worth reading is an extremely valuable service.

Comment Re:Report: Fire destroyed generators (Score 4, Insightful) 239

Here's the thing that amazes me.

500 servers.

The airline runs on 500 servres.

I was part of an early social networking site that, at its peak had 20 M users, with about 10K actively using the site at any given moment. We ran with 200 servers and had really very excellent render time (this was getting on to a decade ago, and if our page loads ever got above 1 second it was considered a near crisis; our email/messaging system, that I wrote, handled 150 M messages per day). It just can't be that hard to run an airline site compared to running a web site that peaked at Alexa 100. They need 500 servers? Five HUNDRED servers? And with the resources of a multi-billion dollar company, they're STILL ALL IN ONE LOCATION?

They need a new IT team. Or a new management to give them the support they need.

Comment Re:A billion in damages?! (Score 1) 216

the damages per violation is $80,000 on each image, out of a possible $150,000, times the number of violations per image.

Exactly my point. They don't know yet how many violations per image. The document quoted assumes exactly one violation per image. That is unlikely to be true. It is a justifiable inaccuracy to assume one violation per image as a starting point, but until discovery is complete, the figure is not accurately known. It may be substantially higher, it may be substantially lower.

My understanding is that Getty's offering of licensing is not in and of itself illegal with regard to this case, but the selling of licenses, that is taking money from a licensee under false pretense, is the issue. We don't know how many such licenses were actually sold, yet. Given the vast number of images, my bet is that the total number of licenses sold is going to be substantially below 1 per image on average. I also bet that Getty is busy calculating the actual number.

Slashdot Top Deals

"What the scientists have in their briefcases is terrifying." -- Nikita Khrushchev