Yeah, thanks, but I knew almost as soon as it happened months ago (I only browsed HN logged in on one device), just thought I'd see if it'd been reversed. Apparently not.
I'm not going to go begging to the man responsible for this degrading method of community management. I'll be better off continuing to not spending the time posting on HN anyway.
He did none of those things. None of the code he suggested requires root. Some hardware information collection may require root (though darn little of it in Linux, at least), but that's entirely independent of the question of how to expose it to the provider.
A lot of the countries you're talking about are relatively poor. Many of them are going to need international help to make a concerted push.
Others are already working on such things, they're just behind Germany. Oil-producing countries, for example, have started to pay a lot of attention to renewable power and other green initiatives, so they can use less of their oil domestically, but it's just getting started.
Yeah, but there just isn't much installed PV capacity in the world yet, Germany is one of the few countries to have anything like a concerted effort toward it. It's also very much a first-world country in terms of power usage.
Importantly, the same investment Germany has made would get you a lot more power in sunnier places. Just within Europe, Spain, Italy, and southern France could be significantly more efficient, nevermind places like Africa, the Middle East, Australia, and the Americas.
You're talking about losses due to market forces. Those aren't at issue. The losses complained of are due to NASDAQ's already-admitted breakage and subsequent mishandling of the fallout, hence why claims are being submitted to NASDAQ.
The capsules holding astronauts obviously have to land intact at some point, unless you thought we sent all astronauts prior to the Shuttle up to their deaths. The Shuttle's uncontrollable SRBs have been jettisoned and recovered after every flight.
Reusability is of no ground-safety consequence. By basic physical law, these devices will be very nearly empty of fuel by the time they reach the ground -- in fact almost all fuel will have been expended within minutes of liftoff.
The first stage of a Falcon 9 has a dry mass less than a 14-seat Gulfstream V business jet, the Dragon capsule is less than 1/3rd that.
If you trust thousands of planes to fly through the air over and into major cities every day without killing thousands of people on the ground, you should trust spacecraft far, far more.
> Up until now, space operations have always been nonpartisan, co-operative, and peaceful.
Oh please. Space operations grew directly out of unbridled Cold War militarism, and have been pure political football at least since the approval of the absolutely insane space shuttle program.
I want high taxes, I want big government, I want single-payer health care, I want a welfare and social security system that makes Scandinavia look like a libertarian wasteland. I want ten times the corporate regulation we have now.
But there is no reason for the government to be the primary driver or provider of routine space launch services, especially when it's done such a piss-poor job of it since Apollo.
Private companies like SpaceX have ample incentive to advance the state of the art in launch services and are demonstrably doing so for less than the government has ever managed before. NASA can and should take advantage of that.
Where exactly have you lived that you've avoided knowledge of Vostok, Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Soyuz, the Space Shuttle, Skylab, Salyut, Mir, the International Space Station, and the thousands of observation, spy, communications, and scientific satellites that have been launched since Sputnik in 1957?
I'd call that more like three orders of magnitude, and the world has been launching rockets and landing capsules since 1961. Nothing even remotely like what you are speaking of has ever come remotely close to happening.
No one launches rockets over populated areas, nobody aims capsules for populated areas, the CIA spent the 1960s recovering CORONA satellite film canisters with such precision they captured them with planes in mid-air.
No, in many cases these are actual, realized losses, as in "we bought at this price and sold at this much lower price". They have no money, and no stock. Recovery of the stock is irrelevant to them.
This seemed extremely bizarre to me until I read the filing itself[1].
The RSUs in question are unvested. Apparently a change was just made by the board that means unvested RSUs will collect dividends which will be paid out upon vesting. Cook is declining those.
I can kind of understand that it would look strange to make a change like this to already-granted RSUs, but if it were that big of a concern, it seems odd that only Cook would decline the dividends, or that the board would have made the change retroactive in the first place, so I still don't entirely understand declining them.
He's actually wrong. Starcraft introduced usernames/passwords and unique names to Battle.net in early 1998. The support was then patched into Diablo 1.05. Diablo I's Battle.net functionality did not originally include usernames/passwords at all.
It was quite a strange little architecture, initially. Your displayed name was whatever you'd named your character, with the distinguishing feature being an "account number" that could be re-generated by deleting a file in your Diablo directory (the corollary being if you didn't back the file up, your account number would change upon a reformat or migration to a new computer).
I'd be fine with that. In fact, it'd probably be an objective improvement with regard to my search results.
Not all of us believe search engines have some magical obligation to be complete or impartial. If you don't like the results you get from one, try another.
And there was nothing particularly special about the module aside from the extreme concentration. Every piece of Java I've ever written or even looked at has this same problem on a reduced scale.
My point is to show how utterly broken and worthless the concept is. Either there's a ton of exception-"handling" boilerplate that does nothing useful, or there's "throws Exception" everywhere, itself useless boilerplate that exists only to tell the compiler to buzz off.
> I reckon every few function calls you make could potentially trigger an exception.
One Java module I had the misfortune of writing theoretically had to deal with checked exceptions on the majority of its calls, and the only possible response to virtually all of them was to crash, because in that context, it could only have meant someone had either ripped the DRAM off the board, or placed the board in a particle accelerator.
What percentage of people actually get angry at this sort of thing? It's insane for luxury items -- either you value an item at the price it's listed for or you don't. If you don't, why are you buying it in the first place?
Frankly, I didn't have much confidence in this jury. It was stacked to avoid techies, its findings on other copyright issues (e.g. rangecheck) didn't instill much confidence in me, and some of the questions that were emerging made me question their ability to understand complex issues and distinguish between basically being ordered to find infringement, and being asked to determine if it was really infringement.
If you'd asked me what the count was likely to be, I probably would have told you something like 10-2 for Oracle.
I'm not going to go begging to the man responsible for this degrading method of community management. I'll be better off continuing to not spending the time posting on HN anyway.