Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | gilgoomesh's comments login

If you can deflect with a simple impact, it's always going to be the most reliable.

If you look at the numerous things that went wrong with the Philae lander...


you wouldn't want any of that to happen on a life-or-death mission. Also... a landing either requires enormous amounts of fuel or between months and years of manoeuvring time.

It would be more news worthy if the news were newer. The tablet's discovery was announced in 2014.

From the exact same website:


The computer programmer in me says both are valid:

"on accident" is a pre-prepared behavior that will be employed when an accident occurs in the future.

"by accident" is metadata accompanying an event, reporting the author or agent that created the event.

It sounds like old-style BASIC exception handling.


Or modern JavaScript event handling. Button.onAccident(function() { ... });

Except that's not how it is used, it is used in place of "by accident."

"I knocked over the glass on accident."

In the first case, it would be more clear to say "upon accident."

No inconsistency. The price is:

1. 12 million per tonne to GTO on Falcon 9 with a maximum load of 4.85 tonnes

2. 14 million per tonne to GTO on Falcon Heavy with a maximum load of 21.2 tonnes

If you buy the 6.4 tonnes to GTO on Falcon Heavy package, Space X will sell the additional space to another two customers on same launch.


Using 3D Touch is wholly optional. 3D Touch merely offers peeks into views you can reach by using a regular tap.


> Small cautioned that the carbon dating was only done on the parchment in the fragments, and not the actual ink


> University of Oxford says the fragments were produced between the years 568 A.D. and 645 A.D. Muhammad is generally believed to have lived between 570 A.D. and 632 A.D.

Without a narrower range, it's ridiculous to say that it predates Muhammad. At most it predates the first known, fully assembled Qur'an from 653CE.

(Aside: I realize this story comes from Fox News but its listing of dates as "Anno Domini" is in poor taste, given the subject matter.)


Poor scholarship has never stopped anyone. As a theological masters degree student and PhD candidate I have always been just blown away at how poorly people do their work.

In terms of years AD isn't really disrespectful the CE (Common Era) never really caught on and it was the same years. Muslim year numbers are in AH (1 AH is when the prophet moved to Medina) so 1 AH Day 1 is 16 July 622. So the years would be 54 BAH to 23 AH. This range means that it goes with our history from the time. As far as history goes int he last 100 years we have gotten very good at dates in our history and especially around the 6th Century. Bogus reporting on bogus scholarship.


Oh, please. CE means precisely AD but with a gloss of PC lipstick. Next we're going to hear that uttering AD instead of CE triggers those of weak constitution.


Older works I have seen referred to CE as meaning "Christian Era" anyway. I don't know if that predates "Common Era" or not, though.


The term was originally "Vulgar Era" (meaning "the one that the people use", as opposed to the aristocracy which dated from the reign of various kings).

Jewish academics started using "Common Era" to mean the same thing as "Vulgar Era" in the mid 19th century.

"Christian Era" has never been used academically. It presumably came about due to people guessing at the "CE" in academic texts". It's not wrong though, so there's no problem. Also, unlike "Year of our Lord", it doesn't align the author with Christianity; it is merely factual.


Why poor taste? As is common knowledge A.D. is an abbreviation for Anno Domini. You might as well say that calling Muhammamad 'The prophet' is in poor taste. For most people in the Western world the year zero is an arbitrary number and not understood as year of 'Our Lord' nor is Muhammad regarded as a prophet. Both are aids to communication not exegesis.

Not living in the US, the reference to Fox News is a bit lost on me. Perhaps it's equivalent to the seemingly obligatory sideswipe at the British Daily Mail on the part of some folk. Establishes their credentials, I guess.


> Perhaps it's equivalent to the seemingly obligatory sideswipe at the British Daily Mail on the part of some folk.

The Daily Mail carries comments from people wanting refugees to be shot (a variety of ammunition is suggested, a few only want rubber bullets, a few want live rounds) or tear gassed, or sprayed with sewage.

Recently some bloggers took anti Jewish Nazi propaganda and changed the word "Jew" to "migrant" and posted it to the DM comments sections. Readers upvoted those comments.

DM regularly has creepy articles about underage girls. http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/all-grown-up-sexing-up-the-in...

The Daily Mail is scum.


Fox News are unashamedly biased towards Christianity.

The poor taste is because it is an article about one religion's prophet but uses a date suffix which effectively translates as "our God is Jesus". It is difficult to be academic about the subject matter if your word choice is highly partisan. This is why academics use "Common Era", aka CE.


Using CE -- either as "Common Era" or "Christian Era" -- dating from the same origin date as A.D. (and as a synonym for A.D.) is just as much of a Christian-origin and Christian-centric system as A.D., and is several hundred years old.

The idea that it is somehow more "neutral" and appropriate for academic when compared to A.D. is a fairly recent idea that ignores the history, origin, basis, and meaning (which directly holds Christianity as the norm) of the label.


There is no year zero, 1 BC is followed by 1 AD (1 BCE is followed by 1 CE.)


You omitted a significant phrase

> The Times of London reported ...

That's a News Corp. (Fox, Wall St Journal, etc.) publication. Unfortunately it is no surprise that they might try to undermine people who believe in Islam. News Corp's open religious prejudice, and propaganda, have a long track record.


Read the list again. Most of Apple's major packages are there.

xnu (the kernel), Libsystem (C/C++ core libs), CommonCrypto/Security, CF (CoreFoundation), IOKit et al, hfs, Apple SMB and more.

It doesn't include a number of other Apple projects that are hosted elsewhere like launchd, libdispatch, clang/llvm.


You're right that Apple gets a lot of criticism for not supporting open source yet host a lot of open source projects. But I think a lot of the criticism comes about because Apple's commitment to open source often comes with caveats. To use a few examples from your list:

* XNU is based on existing open source software. You're right that Apple had no obligation to release the source of XNU given the permissive licences of the parent code. But equally it feels a little disingenuous to congratulate a company for releasing their code to a project that was open source to begin with anyway.

* Apple SMB referenced from Samba code and only created because Samba changed licence to GPLv3.

* Clang/LLVM isn't an Apple owned project. Though I will granted you that they are major contributors to it.

I cannot blame Apple for wanting to keep their proprietary inventions closed. They are a business after all so I'd expect them to put their business interests ahead of "good will".


It is FUD since it is not impossible to make these changes, it's just (intentionally) more difficult than casually supplying a sudo password. Anyone can detect signature changes in a system directory and anyone can boot to a recovery volume (either the default Apple one or one provided by an anti-virus company, if desired) to make whatever corrective change they want.


It wouldn't be undeletable, it would just involve booting into a recovery volume (either the automatic Apple recovery partition or a user supplied volume).

Since all System locations will now be signed (as part of the move to SIP), it means that the basic Apple recovery partition will be able to purge any such malware by a simple signature verification.


Does it actually do that? I haven't heard of it... But just reinstalling the OS accomplishes the same, slightly less quickly. Of course, if the malware is nasty enough, it might modify user settings to make a program run automatically, e.g., by adding it as a startup item, which, unless that OS reinstall included a patch, could then exploit the bug again and reinstall itself to the system locations. Not much Apple can do about that.



Applications are open for YC Winter 2016

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact