Posts by allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

Re: Maybe an opportunity for creative criticism...?

Well put. But why Dortmund, of all places?

Re: What a waste

Next step: testing will show that cybersecurity is slightly worse than on the average IoT device.

Re: Also

"This was actually suggested as an alternative explanation for the Tunguska blast, ..."

For example in this movie.

Re: Looks like someone was digging a hole...

That was my first thought too, slag-heap next to a mine...

Re: "But the ransomware is deliberately programmed not to infect computers in eastern Europe."

My guess is it checks the language settings of the infected system.

Re: hmm.

Laser focus? When you see a red dot on you, take cover.

That was when research was driven by engineering rather than marketing.

Anyway, simple yet elegant solution for an actual problem, using existing resources, that still works perfectly after 45 years - good call! For all I care Tomlinson did invent e-mail.

Re: Is this getting worse with time

"Is that any way to run anything that fancies itself a profession?"

From where I sit - no. But then I am in civil engineering.

On the other hand, "that way" practicality ensures that there will always be pastures for unicorns.

Well, back then 1) everything was new and exciting and 2) we were young and impressionable.

But yes, a good game is a good game and when it is able to stimulate your imagination it just klicks. And this can work even without any graphics, time to mention text based games.

Re: Tools aren't toys.

Well, there is a large grey area...

However, this reminds me of two things:

1) It's really centrifuges that separate the men from the boys

2) When I was just a schoolboy, my mama told me son, always be a good boy, don't ever play with guns. But I shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die.

Re: "Master of DevOps"

I see your 'Master of DevOps' and raise you a 'Structorum Magister'.

Re: Hyperbole / bazza

"It sounds dangerous to upset one's own government and law enforcement agencies..."

In a free country, ruled by a government of the people, by the people, for the people this shouldn't be an issue, surely?

Re: Oops...

No, no oops. It wasn't mentioned in this article, but the satellite will make the last leg of the rip under its own power, unsing in ion thruster, so it will take a couple of months. Much more cost efficient overall.

Re: reliant on an internet connection to function.

"I think a good rule of thumb is that if your task/ reputation/employment relies on someone else's systems working properly it's probably time to move on."

Cloud-based systems, anyone?

Re: Snowden is a hero to the security biz.....

Basement?

"It's a command center!"

Willing suspense of disbelief.

(As this seems to be 'Quote Saturday', at least on some of the threads, how about "I'm not letting anyone stare in disbelief at my willie suspension!")

Anyway, have you ever seen what a couple of swans can leave on the lawn?

But I digress. If something like that can get a powerplant, nuclear or not, in trouble, there is a lot of room for improvement in the design of the plant.

Re: Missing the point...

Landing on land isn't an option for most flight paths, the trajectories and above all the fuel availiable for bringing the first stage back simply won't allow that. (As we're doing quotes on this thread, how about "Aw, physics, thou art a heartless bitch!") Making more fuel availiable would mean more weight to be launched - for which you'd need more fuel. Most of the fuel burned is used to lift fuel, rocketry just works that way, and there is no way around that outside the realm of science fiction.

Rockets are surprisingly frail things because they are made as lightweight as possible. Some designs work basically as a pressurised container, a bit like a blimp. When not pressurised, the thing is very delicate to handle and very, very easily damaged. You can see this in some of the 'well, back to the drawing board' test footage from the 1950ies and 1960ies, rocket stages folding and tearing like tinfoil. In order to make the first stage reusable, it has to be sturdier already = more weight = more fuel = even more fuel, see above. But it's still a design that relies on the idea that the main forces it has to handle occur along its vertical axis. If you want to land it horizontally you'd have to convert the flying pressure tank in something very much like a widebody airframe, sturdy enough to cope with a carrier landing. Possible, of course, but (in comparison) very big, very, very heavy and needing very, very, very much fuel. And a bigger barge.

As a fellow commentard likes to say: Rocket science isn't actually that hard. Rocket engineering is.

Re: Brian Chant, 57, who lives with his parents

Sorry, my bad - Underground Command Centre then.

Re: The system was working ...

"Why does the UK have so much trouble doing what others have been doing for years? Cheaper to buy a copy rather than re-invent the wheel."

Ah, but then it wouldn't be a British system, see? Can't have that, now can we, what?