My Linux is only on external hard drives. If something goes terribly wrong... unplug drive 01, plug in drive 02... Reboot.
Next step, if necessary: rsync drive 02 -> drive 01. Damage fixed. Currently Debian unstable is a bit botched, but not to the extend that a drive switch or rsync is necessary.

Do we want them here?

Actually using Linux is not enough. Today's distributions are so streamlined that rarely anything goes wrong. I learn only by solving problems. No problems = no deeper knowledge. Setting up servers? Where is the problem? Most servers in most distributions come pre-configured with automatic dependency resolution. Not that I complain, that's the way it should be. When I need a server I want it fast. In the 90th one could learn plenty just by using Linux. Today? Not much more than you can learn Windows by using Windows.

And... ./configure --prefix=/whatever; make; make install. is not enough. it is the absolute minimum. But if you want more functionality, better system integration, it still is hunting dependencies, solving compatibility problems.

Ubuntu derivatives? Or Debian derivatives? ;-)

Did it once with LFS (http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/). It is fun to do. One learns quite a bit about Linux. IMHO if one wants to work a Linux system administrator it is almost a must. However, it is absolutely no fun to keep such a system up-to-date. Changing dependencies. Following security advisories. It is a full time job. As software developer I prefer a standard distribution. Which one? Don't care. As a compromise I manage my most used tools... gcc/clang/qt/cmake... myself. This way no update can unexpectedly pull the rug from under my feet. I can easily change the distribution. And I learn about possible problems in my tools, which otherwise might be hidden due to distribution specific patches.

Police departments across the United States are easy targets for hackers who infect their computers,

Sneak into the police departments and manipulate the computer without the police noticing it. Respect!

Or is this not the way it happened? I wonder how the police computer got infected, if they are used as intended: For work.

I take your point about pipedot and I will respect it in the future.

It is my point. Nothing more. Topics are voted on in pipe. ;-)

The ones with the most difficulties are all diminutive women, it made me wonder if we were being treated differently principally on the basis of gender.

Sure we are. So what? This would only be a problem is one side only gets all the pros and the other side all the cons. Do you believe that is true?

Here is a nice parody. Unconditional equality? Sure, fine with me, but then, please, exactly like in this film:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_PTxpIjGXE

In my opinion we should ignore this topic at all and mostly the people who bring it up (*). It is simply a non issue. Women are not more or less welcome in IT than blue eyed people, red haired people, fat people, people with mustaches, or people who lisp. The only thing that matter is skills and interest. Anyone who claims otherwise is an idiot and/or has an agenda.

(*) In this case I don't mean you, but people who constantly claim women are discriminated or even hated. Still I'd prefer not to see topics like this on pipedot. For this /. is good enough and their articles constantly draw in all the sjw scum and feminazis. I can live with out them here.

I don't care. I don't go to work to meet women there.

Is this something we can change the preception of?

Why should we?

...I would not care. Apart from all the politics, I just don't like the 'user experience'. When I have to develop using Windows I always feel like I am wearing boxing gloves.

file:///tmp/Electronics-poised-to-replace-steam-powered-aircraft-launch-system.pdf

Please give us access to your computer ;-)

We all can google. ;-)

Little bit of nitpicking: Mushrooms are no plants :-D

Everything that has a sufficiently strong influence on a blast shock wave should be strong enough to make minced meat out of human flesh itself. So instead of a normal car alarm.... What you touched my car? *SPLATTER*

Cars for crowd control will be another, and a much more probable use case for this technique.

Some time ago I wrote an app for Samsung TVs. It did not run on the TV itself, but connected and streamed content via DLNA to a couple of Samsung TVs. For testing reasons I had several TVs in my net. One of the c, d, e, and f series. At first I tested with only one TV. During during this stage of my development I had several very strange results in my log files, which at first I could not explain. I expected to see only messages of the TV, which I currently used for testing. But actually even switched off (standby) Samsungs send DLNA messages. Not regularly. On average perhaps one DLNA message every 1-2 days. I am not sure about the exact rate.

I cannot say, if there was more than this stray message, i.e. I cannot say if there was some home phoning. Nevertheless, I was (and am) pissed. When I switch a device off, I expect it to be silent. And no, DLNA on Samsungs does not allow to switch them on via a DLNA command over the net. This would be a good explanation and excuse for this behaviour, but.... nope, can't be done this way.

There are certainly many Linux distributions, which I don't know. Even though I use Linux since Kernel 0.9x. However, to call a Linux distribution "popular" I'd require at least some coverage in the media.

These are popular distributions:
http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=major

Though I don't know what BSD is doing in a list of popular Linux distributions. :-D

Distrowatch Page Ranking:
http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=popularity

No mention of #!. Last 12 month... 286 Distros, but no #!.

It does no mean that #! is not good. Does not mean there isn't a substantial (what counts as substantial?) community. It just means, this distribution is widely unknown, which IMHO contradicts "popular".

....how I should say it without sounding like a troll... but the Popular Distribution 'Crunchbang'is so popular that I never even heard the name before.

I switched my Linux often enough. Always was able to keep my /home unchanged, so it was always an easy and painless procedure. Means I am not in a hurry. I just wait and see how it turns out. If I get bitten by systemd... bye bye Debian. If not... why should I care then?

I would like to get email notifications what someone answers me to my posts. Apart from that I am quite happy with the site. ...so it is about time to make it worse. ;-)

http://www.ypsfanpage.de/hefte/gross/extra03.jpg

andhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgn6L0ebreI

German!

Oh, I understood you. I just wanted to make sure that I am not a fanboi, who defends everything Microsoft excretes. However, I just don't see the big difference between Windows 7 and 8. At least in 8.1 you don't have to see the touch part. For gamers... no difference at all. For people who just surf the net with whatever browser? No difference at all. For people, who use some office suite? No difference at all.

Tell me, which special use case can now be done much worse than on Windows 7? A use case, which is so common, that really a noticeable percentage of the Windows users are bitten by it?

Not the AC, but I'd say because Windows 8.1 has a bad reputation for ease of use and is known to enrage some people (even Microsoft fans).

From my initial post you can clearly see that I am not really in Windows user. But for the few things I do with it, I don't see a difference between Windows 7 and 8. On Windows 8 I had to change some settings so that I don't boot into the tile crap. But this was a one time effort, and even I was able to do it. No I get immediately into the desktop. I have the explorer to browse the file system, and when I have installed a game, I have an icon on the desktop. No difference to Windows 7 or XP at all. Ok, the start menu looks different. But the only time I see it, is when I shutdown the machine.

I am certainly no Windows lover, on the contrary, when I am forced to use it, it always feels like I am wearing boxing gloves. But I don't understand the Windows 8 hatred.

No camera, no mic on my machine. And even if it was... how would they get the data, when I am never online?

why?

Yep, from time to time I use Windows.... To start a game. Since I never play online, the first thing I do, is to disable the network in Windows. Thoroughly. No hassle with updates at inconvenient times. Malware? I don't care. Without network the worst thing that can happen is that a few game saves are destroyed. If I need to install something? I mount a partition under Linux and copy the setup or iso images on it. If I really need to be online to install something... Never happened before... I can enable network. In that case I might become part of a bot network... for 20-30 minutes? I could live with that. Personal data? Again only saves.

So I am not afraid of whatever ugly things can be found in Windows 10. On the other hand, I need a very compelling reason to change. With my use case I could still use XP without risk. The only reason I have Windows 8.1 is that I bought a new computer a few weeks ago. :-)

They didn't do a very good job then.

It is very hard, if not impossible to do a good job if all efforts are undermined by employees. And sure, you can padlock a computer, but there are limits, what a normal private company can do.

You didn't read the article. The SCADA systems were on a different, firewall controlled network. That is not nearly enough to keep attackers out, for many reasons.

Oh yes, I know the reasons. At the very beginning of my career I worked for almost a year as system administrator for a small company. My first task? Make our net secure. We need a firewall. I did it. And then the complaints started:

"I can't do this, I can't do that. I NEED ftp, I NEED telnet.. no, ssh and scp is not enough ^{_{(I don't know how it works, I don't want to learn anything new)}}.

But...

No 'but'. You are only admin, I am very important person... Open the ports for me or go job hunting.

That's what I did.... both. No 'or'. The company does not exist anymore.So yes, security is never 100% free. You say one possible attack vector is a USB drive? I know a company where all USB ports were glued shut. A few 'experts' opened their machines to circumvent this useless chicanery with USB boards. Hey, the sys admins are paranoid a**holes with a god complex. Security is important, but not when it interferes with real work... and who can work without music from his personal mp3 collection on USB?

Of course I cannot say for sure that something like this happened in this steel mill, but I would not be surprised a bit. For years now, the most important attack vector isn't the hard- and software anymore, but the wetware.

You understand? I don't. Yes, it is understandable that no one wants to come to work at 2am t troubleshoot. But you also mentioned one solution: VPN. It is (or should be) a well known fact that embedded devices and industrial systems often suck at security. But this does not matter, if they are isolated behind a proper firewall/gateway. It may not be possible to upgrade the machinery, but the access to and from those systems should be under total control of the operating company.

By what logic? I did not say anything about making or banning plastics. I pointed out an argumentative flaw in the arguments of the plastic bag manufacturers. What I would have expected were paid studies, which show that plastic bags have only very little environmental impact. Promises to recycle more. Promises to make them environmentally more friendly. However, more or less they answered the concerns that plastic bags could harm ocean life with: They are so convenient and have many uses. Or even shorter: So what?

What's more:

who say their product can be easily recycled

Again a non argument. So they are not recycled, but only can be recycled? Not they want to recycle more? Who is exactly supposed to recycle? Sounds to me like the usual 'privatize profits, socialize costs'. All in all if that's all the plastic bag manufacturers have to say, they should fire their spin doctors. They are absolutely incompetent.

Thin plastic bags are reused, he said: They are repurposed as lunch bags and trash can liners, and they come in handy for pet cleanup.

That is not the point. Even if a plastic bag is 10000 times reused, what matters is their number and their effect in the environment. To defend the plastic bag they'd have to show that their impact is less or equal than all of the alternatives. Since they don't do this one can safely assume they cannot do this.

What's the point of floating cities on Venus anyway?

From the article:

A new study by researchers at the Systems Analysis and Concepts Directorate, part of the NASA Langley Research Center, suggests astronauts could circle Venus in a helium-inflated dirigible -- conducting science experiments as they orbit.

So no cities to live in, but research platforms.

Different kind of radiation. Earth's atmosphere does a very good job to protect us from cosmic and gamma rays. That's great since those are the biggest problem. And that's were the real value of the protection of Venus' atmosphere lies. Earth's atmosphere also protects us from UV rays, but with less efficiency the lower their frequency is. According to the article Venus gets 40% more solar energy than Earth at the same height. So I just assume, that Venus also gets 40% more of hard UV light. When it comes to radiation exposure for the crew or instruments, this does not matter at all. Even hardest UV light is that easily blocked, that this aspect does not even require a special thought. However, UV radiation ages plastics. Sure, it won't be the everyday plastics, which make up our deck furniture. But with much stronger UV radiation, greater heat, and perhaps exposure to sulfuric acid it is not the everyday environment.

Same pressure. And only 75 instead of462 degrees celsius. Certainly not same composition. This does not make it 'the same as it is at sea level on Earth'. And it might not have the heavy concentration of sulfuric acid as on ground level, but is the atmosphere in 50km height totally free of it?

Generally you are right. Sulfuric acid can be handled just fine.... under normal conditions on Earth. But on Venus? Constant high temperatures? Hard UV radiation? I'd say this rules out most normally usable plastics. Before people are put into such a balloon, I'd like to see them at least for a few years floating over Venus... UNMANNED.

Atmospheric pressure about the same as on earth at that height. Heat ~75 degrees Celsius. Here on earth we have much less heat and still devastating storms. I don't think I would feel save in a zeppelin. No way to do an emergency landing, and those glorified balloons are not known to be exceptionally fast. So not outrunning a storm.

spam

Not long ago I saw a documentation about cheese/lactose/lactose intolerance in tv. One very strange fact was mentioned there, which is probably valid only for Europe: The percentage of people with lactose intolerance increases from the north to the south. However, at the same time the popular cheese in a region gets softer with a higher content of lactose in the same direction, i.e. the more you get south, the higher the lactose content. It is paradox that regions with the most lactose intolerant people prefer cheese with the highest lactose content.

a food that triggered only mild symptoms on one occasion may cause more severe symptoms at another time.

...may cause...
This is only a possibility. This does not exclude, that many people never have a severe reaction. And it does not exclude that even if such a risk of a severe reaction does exist, it is so rare that it does not prevent the allergic persons to pass on their genes... An opportunity these persons might never have had, if they rather starved than accepted the risk.

Btw.. a friend of mine is allergic to flavour enhancers. Not really a big deal. He gets some minor skin problems. From time to time he says (more or less): "F**k it... today I want to eat my ". I doubt he would do it, if doing so he constantly would had the sword of Damocles of a deadly reaction over his head.

I looked for some statistics, but did not have much time. So this must be enough:
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=15618

As many as one-third of peanut-sensitive patients have severe reactions, such as fatal and near-fatal anaphylaxis. ("Anaphylactic deaths in asthmatic patients," Allergy Proc., 1989)

I would interpret this that two-thirds never have fatal or near-fatal reactions.

Lactose intolerance isn't a food allergy, it's the body not producing lactase

True, but in this context irrelevant.

The phrase "food allergy" has a specific meaning related to anaphylaxis,

Most likely wrong.
According to:
http://acaai.org/allergies/types/food-allergies
Anaphylaxis is only the most severe allergic reaction. There are plenty of reactions, which are less severe. Some can almost be described as only annoying:

Delayed reactions are most typically seen in children who develop eczema as a symptom of food allergy

Nevertheless, you can find plenty of false information googling. I am not an expert, but for me the source looks plausible.

Just out of pure curiosity: Anyone thinking here that placing people, who really think of spamvertized 'goods' as 'useful cheap meds resource', under disability would be too harsh?

I think you over-interpret

starving people have no food allergies

Not every food allergy is deadly. Some, perhaps most, are only very inconvenient. Flatulence, bad rashes, whatever. While in normal times people rightfully stay away from perhaps embarrassing or even painful, but not immediately deadly side effects, starving people don't have this luxury. I think above proverb quite nicely summarizes this fact.

Try hitting a computer chip with a hammer. Then try the same thing with your car's engine. Still think solid-state is always superior?

I don't think hitting with a hammer is neither the normal mode of operation for computer chips, nor for car engines.

But nevertheless, it is interesting. I would never have expected that such a motor can run reliably over years. Not only because of the moving parts, but also because of the helium. Helium is not the easiest material to contain. Especially not heated helium.

I am certainly not an expert, but from a gut feeling I would say RTGs are more robust than SRGs. A moving piston? Over years? Yes, maybe for manned missions, where repairs or exchanges are possible. But for something like New Horizons? I would think something without moving parts would be superior.

I am happy to read that New Horizons has a nuclear power battery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Horizons#Power
Ok, hard to go without one in that kind of mission, but when I read this:

Less than the original design goal was produced, due to delays at the United States Department of Energy, including security activities, which held up production.

I am sure the uneducated mobocracy tried its best to throw a monkey wrench into the works.

If I gave the impression that I want to belittle the Roman accomplishments... nope definitely not my intention. And of course, nothing wrong with trial an error. But on the other hand one should not make the mistake to ascribe the Roman some 'magical' understanding of what they were doing. Do you really think the Romans had laboratories where they experimented with different mixtures? Had huge fields with pieces of walls all with different cement to see which wall piece looked best after 500 years? All meticulously documented in lab-journals? I think not. So yes, trial and error....and plenty of luck. This does not make what they did with their cement less impressive.

I just find it odd that the examples we can see are often projects that were started by emperors, which would have then had little impediments either monetarily, or hiring the best cement mixers, etc.

I don't find it odd. Even if the best cement was available for 'the middle class', how likely is it that an average house survives 2000 years? Nobody would demolish the colosseum to build the next bypass road, but the house of Nonimportus Averageus?

You are ignoring a third possibility, that making good cement was something that you had to be part of a guild to learn.. and guilds can be very protective of their trade secrets. That's why there is very little written down.

I know of guilds in the middle ages, but have no idea if and how common they were in ancient Rome. But the Roman empire existed for more than 1000 years. Now, the perfect cement might not have existed from year one on, but if the mixture was a guild secret, this guild still must have kept their secret for several hundred years.... this really would be an impressive feat. Even for today.

The Roman 'science' certainly was very advanced. Far superior than what came in the middle ages. However, I really doubt the Romans had the slightest idea what they were doing. Real material science came centuries later. So what they did came from trial and error.

I posted a link to a history of concrete:http://matse1.matse.illinois.edu/concrete/hist.html

Used pozzolana cement from Pozzuoli, Italy near Mt. Vesuvius to build the Appian Way, Roman baths, the Coliseum and Pantheon in Rome, and the Pont du Gard aqueduct in south France. They used lime as a cementitious material. Pliny reported a mortar mixture of 1 part lime to 4 parts sand. Vitruvius reported a 2 parts pozzolana to 1 part lime. Animal fat, milk, and blood were used as admixtures (substances added to cement to increase the properties.) These structures still exist today!

Fat? Milk? Blood? Oh, I am sure those materials really play an important role in the cement's durability. But I am also quite sure, that initially they were added for some sacrificial reasons. Not because the Romans knew that this really improved the cement. Furthermore the used material are natural materials. The composition of almost all natural materials vary a bit. Then: 1 part of lime and 4 parts of sand. Or 2 parts of pozzolana and 1 part lime... to what precision? Does it make a difference if it is 1.95 parts of pozzolana and 1.05 parts of lime? Does it make a difference where the lime came from? With all respect for the Roman accomplishments, but it is very unlikely that their cement had over centuries always the same quality.

IMHO this means either the allowed production tolerance is quite high, so that natural variations don't matter much for the cement's quality. Then it is surprising that the exact formula got lost. Or the allowed production tolerance is quite low, but this would support the theory that the Romans, too, did not always get it right and we only see the results where more or less by coincidence the mixture was perfect.

http://matse1.matse.illinois.edu/concrete/hist.html

300 BC - 476 AD
RomansUsed pozzolana cement from Pozzuoli, Italy near Mt. Vesuvius to build the Appian Way, Roman baths, the Coliseum and Pantheon in Rome, and the Pont du Gard aqueduct in south France. They used lime as a cementitious material. Pliny reported a mortar mixture of 1 part lime to 4 parts sand. Vitruvius reported a 2 parts pozzolana to 1 part lime. Animal fat, milk, and blood were used as admixtures (substances added to cement to increase the properties.) These structures still exist today!

Too bad....To really have durable structures, sacrifices to the gods have to be made. So virgin instead of animal blood. Damn... now way we ever can reproduce the Roman cement now.

Btw.... just kidding. ;-)

Do I really need to be a Roman architect/builder?
Read this:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/09/counterintuitive-world

False conclusions are very common in many areas. I think it is the same with Roman cement.
You see what remained after 2000 years. But of course you don't see anymore what crumbled
after 50 years.