From what I've read so far, it seems that ESA was uncomfortable with the possibility of a collision to a degree that SpaceX could possibly be quite comfortable with - ESA wants > 1km distance, whereas SpaceX might be comfortable with much closer - they are quite different constellations.
Who has the right to dictate who has priority / which criteria is the right one?
I'm going to assume that the cost of ESA's satellite is much greater than SpaceX's StarLink module so obviously they have much more of an interest in preserving full functionality - BUT avoiding collisions is in everybody's best interests. Who is going to use their fuel? Who has right of way, and to what terms?
That made me wonder about what would happen if google started grouping concepts (eg words for grandmother in other languages will almost certainly give you differing results) rather than words...
Possibly (probably) the cognitive load on people might lead to bad A/B test results, but it would be a curious thing to explore - cultural bias would get a bit of a beating I'd imagine.
It always comes in slightly to the side of the barge and as part of the landing burn it does a final sideways correction. I believe it was for this kind of situation - or one where the final burn doesn't even happen.
Didn't google earth have exactly this in the early days? I can't remember exact details, but pretty sure it was an easter egg - ctrl + alt + a would launch it.
"The non-powered vest offers protection and support against fatigue and injury by reducing the stress and strain"
Would love to see how this works and maintains an adequate range of motion so as to not get in the way. Seems like it adds rigidity so that the weight is shared by the exoskeleton.
Pretty sure Wernher von Braun isn't available any more though [x], in fact I think you're going to have a real hard time with many of the other principals. Principles though seem to be potentially an easier route.
Either way, I'd back that category in a heartbeat, though not sure if it could be completed in the duration of a normal games cycle... In a way it's been started already with the google lunar x prize [o] though that's been running a little longer than your typical games...
I believe that comment is more or less based on the shuttle landing and/or the soyuz capsules (eg parachutes) - but as far as I can tell, SpaceX is the only one currently capable (and using) propulsive landing on earth - so essentially they've already leapfrogged the grey zone to a large extent.
Makes me wonder whether testing a propulsive landing on an airborne drone barge is feasible? A blimp with a well-insulated large pad on the top - though I'm not sure how you'd effectively anchor it in the air - probably a active propulsion system as well.
I would say on the whole, yes - that is actually true. Now you only need one "smart" person to program up the machinery, whereas in the past you did need multiple skilled craftsmen in a variety of roles - not exactly apples vs apples, but I think that one of the unfortunate side effects of too much specialization is a lack of a broad knowledge base that lets you apply skills from one field in a different area.
The way I've come to see it is "The less you know about a subject, the less you think you don't know."
In other words, you have no solid grasp on the field and so cannot make an effective guess at your ability in the field - so go for middle of the road and that's possibly your best statistical guess...
I'm pretty sure the implication is that the big corporates don't care a hoot about open source, the ethics or the model - they'll just take it, the cheaper the better.
The principle and supposed ethic is to share and have some reciprocity - the reality is somewhat different. And we all suffer. Tragedy of the commons, I guess...
Is there a middle ground here somewhere? In that the kernel developers create some sort of DB specific hooks that allow some of the kernel bypass mechanisms to be implemented?
What are the key things that a kernel bypass version does different? Can these be separated out in a concise way which would lead to multiple DB implementations being able to use these same interfaces? Essentially for any major DB system, you'd want the kernel tailored anyway - you're not going to be doing much else on your DB server (are you?)
Genuine question - was he Ukranian when he went up there? I guess customs for space flight isn't such a concern, but that would be a weird thing to have go down while you're off the planet...
How often do sysadmins actually make the call on what gets bought? For a purchasing dept, they'd probably stop at step 2, get the over-priced product and everyone's happy.
The re-seller is obviously the under-performing part of your exchange, it should be their business to know what they are selling. Most likely it shows the current state of the market - not very many buyers ask these technical questions, hence the experience is not there for the reseller. If you'd want to feel better about it, at least the reseller you've dealt with now has some more knowledge of one of the products they are selling.
There's a relationship management issue there somewhere - supporting one-off small volume sales has a definite cost at some point - someone needs to process and fill the order. Limiting sales to "big" customers means you can spend less time dealing with all the order processes and focus more on a decent product (or decent profits, wherever the focus may lie)
Easy to implement in an AI as well. Could try various permutations and see which works best fairly trivially then too, eg up down left right / up left down right / up left right down etc...
I've been enjoying spotting the sunset. Can't actually see the sun setting where I live, but the sudden change in hue (blueish to reddish - I've set it quite red) is quite noticeable (pleasing to my eyes).
Is there a noscript type extension that allows you to see the start of the script contents? Or the parts that would be triggered first?
Seems like a sensible option might be to have some sort of button (address bar / extension button) that opens up a pane with the javascript as read-only so its easier to do a quick visual check for "funny business".
From what I've read so far, it seems that ESA was uncomfortable with the possibility of a collision to a degree that SpaceX could possibly be quite comfortable with - ESA wants > 1km distance, whereas SpaceX might be comfortable with much closer - they are quite different constellations.
Who has the right to dictate who has priority / which criteria is the right one?
I'm going to assume that the cost of ESA's satellite is much greater than SpaceX's StarLink module so obviously they have much more of an interest in preserving full functionality - BUT avoiding collisions is in everybody's best interests. Who is going to use their fuel? Who has right of way, and to what terms?