That is differnt. It is for a single shockwave. What this article deals with is multiple shockwaves.
The examples are ATF, Eurofighter, Viggen, Suhoy S27 and later, so on so forth. All of these have shapes designed specifically to split the shockwave into a series of shockwaves to improve lift and maneuvrability at hypersonic speeds. As a result the noise is muffled as a side effect. From there to muffling it completely is just one step.
In btw, I am glad that it was done on the F5. It is the only US bird that has some resemblance of grace and beauty in the air.
If you have information on companies or end-users choosing XFS over the other files systems for technical reasons rather than to ease migration, please post a link to it.
Try to implement the bloody NT ACLs with samba on something different from XFS. Repeat until successful. Enjoy the blinkenlights.
Noone that has any interest in safety will ever buy a Civic. Honda has always cut corners on safety when it comes to performance. Check the EuroNcap results and they are selfexplanatory.
Compare the same for a new Corolla or a new Sirion and an Expedition (and a Volvo S80 for good measure) and you will get my drift. Especially after you try to take a sharp corner with any one of the vehicles mentioned. After all, the ability to take a sharp turn at 50 mph+ is a safety spec part for a vehicle (at least the way I see it).
Similarly, ability to do evasive maneuvers may become oneday a handy feature for a space vehicle. Stingers or Strela 12 in Florida anyone? Or you think it is far fetched;-)
Nothing of the kind. It is more in the context of the new orbital plane design. It is not in the context of current shuttle operations.
Think of the shuttle as an SUV. It is qute and you like the way it looks. It also sucks on-road (compared to a proper car). It sucks off-road (compared to a real offroader). It can carry less then a proper truck. And it eats resources for breakfast, lunch and dinner (fuel, oil, maintenance, so on so forth).
So what this guy is advocating is the obvious idea. Have a decent vehicle for crew. Have a decen t vehicle for cargo. Russians have been understood this 20 years ago by separating the Soyuz and Progress programmes.
It is time the americans get the idea.
SUVs are qute. They make no sense in neither commercial, nor safety terms.
It is still faster then some of British motorways in peak hours. And no speed cameras. Yet.
Actually, someone (I think MG) 30 years ago did something similar and people even used it to cross the Channel. You can see it in some of the early Grzhimek movies about Serengetty. It got banned on safety ground at the end.
It is also important to note that the compatibility level between MS Office apps differs from platform to platform.
It is not that bad on Windows when dealing with +/- 1 major release.
It is horrible converging on unusable on Mac. There you have incompatibilities between patch levels which often render any document older then a year to be unopenable if the machines have been patched and maintained (not typical Mac user behaviour, I know).
While on the subject, MS Office on Mac has the habit of saving some really horrid garbage which no open source app can open correctly. Actually, MS Office at a different patch level cannot open it either:-)
This also allows any international company to politely ask SCO to send the licensing request to their German IT department. Or move the IT department mailing address to Germany for the same reason.
So any "licensing" request can be directly forwarded to court and converted to a payment request.
1. Security does not go any further then the TLS extension to ESMTP. If you force TLS in ESMTP you get the same result.
2. There is a plethora of "codes" for SPAM which will be abused the same as now and will require regulation.
3. It suffers from the same problem of SMTP as it is hop per hop, not end-to-end.
4. It breaks country laws in many countries which are still being anal-retentive on encryption.
Instead of this horrid garbage all that is needed is the following simple fix/extension to SMTP:
1. Messages should be signed by every gateway on the way with the sertificate of the gateway. The sig should be inserted as a "Received-signature:" header which covers the mail and the lines of the header that exist so far under it. Thus even if you do not have a cert for the end-user, but trust the relay you may decide to accept the mail and optionally add the user to your cert trust tree.
2. Gateways should no longer modify any headers prior to the ones they add (some do - see spamassassin for example).
Not really an option. And an incorrectly managed linux machine on an academic network can be almost as big threat to the outer world as windows. I am speaking out of experience as I have dealt with OC3+ floods coming from zombies in student dorms long before people started to apply "voodoo" to windows machines. It was linux, bsd, solaris and other unix systems in those (pre BO) times. Quite oftent it still is.
Still, you can very easily deal with it.
1. Move dorms to private addresses so that you do not have an address space constraint as the next step will eat addresses like there is no tomorrow. 2. Subnet the network into a small salad and put each slice of the salad into a separate VLAN. 3. 802.1q the vlans up to a linux box, bsd box or a cisco that has enough grunt to filter (72xx VXR or similar comes to mind, bigger ones have a hard time filtering, smaller ones cannot handle the bandwidth). 4. Filter on all 802.1q interfaces on the linux/bsd/cisco.
As a result you contain any clap to a small subnet.
Note that everybody will hate you initially. People definitely did hate me 8+ years ago as this was one of the things I did to deal with a similar problem (one dept in the building I managed was being hacked left right and center).
And here is where the difference between what I am saying and what your rudimentary thinking comes into play: Your idea does not have to be cool. It has to be profitable and patentable.
Some algorithms are very non-trivial as some math may be very non-trivial.
(Read all of this before moderating)
So frankly I see no problem in patenting an algorithm. I see no problem is patenting software. I see no problem in pathenting a business method.
The problem is not in the fact that something is patented. The problem people see with the patent system is because of the current state of the USPTO where that trivial things with loads of prior art are being patented. And there is a reason for the US PTO having this problem and it is very plain and simple:
Patent clerks in the US are paid a sum per patent reviewed and after that for patent accepted. If they reject an application they lose the second bit.
So all that is needed to fix the system is for any patent applicant to pay at least 100000 deposit when applying (I think that it should be more). If the application succeds he gets back 80% filled up further by government small business innovation grants (they are around 0.5-1M$ in the US for example). If the app fails he gets shit. Clerks are payed per application submitted and application failed and they are payed at least 10000 for application whacked. They are not payed for applications that have been accepted.
And that is all it will take to fix the system. There is no need for patent reform. There is need to reform the b*** patent office which is something completely different.
And finding a loand for the 100000 deposit as well as insurance towards suing the PTO to accept it if they unfairly fail you should not be a problem whatsoever for anyone with a worthy invention.
They were answering in Australia and there is an anticompetitive complaint there filed against them.
They have provided the same answer in Germany where they have an injunction filed against them.
They have not provided such answers and have stated exactly the opposite in every other country where they are not under anticompetive practices investigation (or injunction).
I think that it is absolutely bleeding obvious what takes them to make the statement they have done in Australia.
Blah, blah, blah, blah using different GUIs blah, blah, blah.
Well, a Windows user is capable of making a choice. Do not consider a windows user to be a moron by definition as he/she aint.
I have several ex-windows users around me which are by all means linux users now. When I say by all means they are using it. They are not administering it, configuring it, tweaking it or in any other way wasting their time. They actually use the machine for work.
And guess what they use - good ole Windowmaker with the standard brushsteel Debian theme (yes they have tried Gnome, Kde, XFCe, whateverE and they hated every moment of it). After all, people severely understimate the extent to which people like their machine being fast (even when it is a PIV at 2.4) with half a gig of RAM.
One of my old bosses used to say: "If you were a women you would be pregnat all the time"
And he was right. I learned to say no long ago and I still say it without any fear of repercussions.
There is a caveat: "During the interview when asked what are my problems when working if any, I always answer that I have a problem that with people who do not understand the word NO". Basically, you have to stake your right to say no from day -1. If you cannot do that you will be in trouble later.
I, for once, want to sell his address to the local Health and Safety enforcement. If he marketed "generic viagra" which usually goes along with the pills you can also sell his address to Pfizer. A few more like these also come to mind.
He will not have a house, a car and a future very very soon.
Russian compact reactor technology is based on fast neutron breeders with Bismuth based alloys as a first level cooling agent. As a result they can be considerably smaller in size and weight then the conventional U235/water or U235/graphite jobs and can run at higher core temperatures.
I have seen pictures of a portable generator (not very big one (it was not written anywhere how many kW could it give) that fits on a standard size Ural truck.Even if they were fake (Soviet Russia jokes), it would not have been far off in terms of size.
Anyway, I still do not see us (Earthlings) shipping this shit to Mars unless we also start using nuclear drives in space and this is more then 30 years off unless someone suddenly redirects a considerabl chunk of the military budgets around the world to space exploration. Any comet threats anyone? Please?
Windows server cannot be "had out of the box". Tuning a windows server and adjusting a windows server for a "slightly non-standard" setup require 10 times more knowledge on the matter then putting a Samba box to do this. In btw, your average MSCE has no idea whatsoever on how to do this.
P.S. I am not even talking about securing a windows server and using a sane access policy to it.
Complain to your regulator and your competition authority. At least in Germany they have some serious teeth.
There is no technical reason whatsoever for the operators not to use ISDN call divert (or the equivalent mapping for this service in SS7 terms) as a mechanism for transfering the call to the new destination. In this case the only time when the call travels to the premises of the old operator is when it is set up. The actual voice (or data) should go directly to the new destination. There is no reason to charge you for the call set up only as for an entire call and there is no reason to route the call through the old operator network.
The fact that the phone operators in Europe do not use this on purpose (it has been in GSM since 1997) is already a part of an investigation by the European comission. More specifically, it is the investigation on unfair roaming charges.
So you are in you right to b*** and should do so. As a result of enough people b*** we may sooner or later get decent roaming charges for roaming mobile to roaming mobile calls so it may be a good idea to be persistent in this.
It is a result of american dislike of mathematics and long term scientific projects.
You cannot replace mathematics with elementary computer control systems based on simple feedback. That is the reality. And the american power blackouts are one of the common illustrations given in mathematical modeling classes in most of Europe of why simple feedback systems fail.
After the big blackout of the sixties every single European country has put this task to their universities and/or specilized institutes. In all cases it was given to mathematicians, not engineers (or ended up with the mathematicians after the engineers failed).
I happen know some the people who did the modelling in three countries. It took anything between 7 and 11 years to come up with viable models as well as analysis of viable failure scenarios. The scenarious have been rolled out by the 80-90-es so we are talking 20+ development and deployment cycle.
As a result you simply cannot take out the grid like this in any European country unless the country has grown complacent and has stopped updating the models to account for change in power usage patterns.
Have you ever tried to program using the perl bindings? I have done it in the past and was extremely annoyed by the fact that it is a non-stop moving target. It also broke quite often. I ended up abandoning the entire stuff.
Looking at the review FLTK has apparently grown up some perl bindings. This may be quite interesting...
Slashdot Mirror
That is differnt. It is for a single shockwave. What this article deals with is multiple shockwaves.
The examples are ATF, Eurofighter, Viggen, Suhoy S27 and later, so on so forth. All of these have shapes designed specifically to split the shockwave into a series of shockwaves to improve lift and maneuvrability at hypersonic speeds. As a result the noise is muffled as a side effect. From there to muffling it completely is just one step.
In btw, I am glad that it was done on the F5. It is the only US bird that has some resemblance of grace and beauty in the air.
Most modern long barrel weapons fire bullets at 1.2-1.4 Mach. As a result a silenser for them is pointless.
So does the new Via core which also runs at 1GHz. It is about as fast a a PIV-M.
I have one on my desk.
Works a treat if you are OK to accept the idiocies of the S3 Savage on board like not having a working 1152x870 mode for example.
So in fact you do not need a PIV-M to have a passively cooled ITX which works and has performance.
Try to implement the bloody NT ACLs with samba on something different from XFS. Repeat until successful. Enjoy the blinkenlights.
Compare the same for a new Corolla or a new Sirion and an Expedition (and a Volvo S80 for good measure) and you will get my drift. Especially after you try to take a sharp corner with any one of the vehicles mentioned. After all, the ability to take a sharp turn at 50 mph+ is a safety spec part for a vehicle (at least the way I see it).
Similarly, ability to do evasive maneuvers may become oneday a handy feature for a space vehicle. Stingers or Strela 12 in Florida anyone? Or you think it is far fetched ;-)
Nothing of the kind. It is more in the context of the new orbital plane design. It is not in the context of current shuttle operations.
Think of the shuttle as an SUV. It is qute and you like the way it looks. It also sucks on-road (compared to a proper car). It sucks off-road (compared to a real offroader). It can carry less then a proper truck. And it eats resources for breakfast, lunch and dinner (fuel, oil, maintenance, so on so forth).
So what this guy is advocating is the obvious idea. Have a decent vehicle for crew. Have a decen t vehicle for cargo. Russians have been understood this 20 years ago by separating the Soyuz and Progress programmes.
It is time the americans get the idea.
SUVs are qute. They make no sense in neither commercial, nor safety terms.
On earth. And in space.
It is still faster then some of British motorways in peak hours. And no speed cameras. Yet.
Actually, someone (I think MG) 30 years ago did something similar and people even used it to cross the Channel. You can see it in some of the early Grzhimek movies about Serengetty. It got banned on safety ground at the end.
It is also important to note that the compatibility level between MS Office apps differs from platform to platform.
:-)
It is not that bad on Windows when dealing with +/- 1 major release.
It is horrible converging on unusable on Mac. There you have incompatibilities between patch levels which often render any document older then a year to be unopenable if the machines have been patched and maintained (not typical Mac user behaviour, I know).
While on the subject, MS Office on Mac has the habit of saving some really horrid garbage which no open source app can open correctly. Actually, MS Office at a different patch level cannot open it either
This also allows any international company to politely ask SCO to send the licensing request to their German IT department. Or move the IT department mailing address to Germany for the same reason.
So any "licensing" request can be directly forwarded to court and converted to a payment request.
Sorry. Not a good idea:
1. Security does not go any further then the TLS extension to ESMTP. If you force TLS in ESMTP you get the same result.
2. There is a plethora of "codes" for SPAM which will be abused the same as now and will require regulation.
3. It suffers from the same problem of SMTP as it is hop per hop, not end-to-end.
4. It breaks country laws in many countries which are still being anal-retentive on encryption.
Instead of this horrid garbage all that is needed is the following simple fix/extension to SMTP:
1. Messages should be signed by every gateway on the way with the sertificate of the gateway. The sig should be inserted as a "Received-signature:" header which covers the mail and the lines of the header that exist so far under it. Thus even if you do not have a cert for the end-user, but trust the relay you may decide to accept the mail and optionally add the user to your cert trust tree.
2. Gateways should no longer modify any headers prior to the ones they add (some do - see spamassassin for example).
Not really an option. And an incorrectly managed linux machine on an academic network can be almost as big threat to the outer world as windows. I am speaking out of experience as I have dealt with OC3+ floods coming from zombies in student dorms long before people started to apply "voodoo" to windows machines. It was linux, bsd, solaris and other unix systems in those (pre BO) times. Quite oftent it still is.
Still, you can very easily deal with it.
1. Move dorms to private addresses so that you do not have an address space constraint as the next step will eat addresses like there is no tomorrow.
2. Subnet the network into a small salad and put each slice of the salad into a separate VLAN.
3. 802.1q the vlans up to a linux box, bsd box or a cisco that has enough grunt to filter (72xx VXR or similar comes to mind, bigger ones have a hard time filtering, smaller ones cannot handle the bandwidth).
4. Filter on all 802.1q interfaces on the linux/bsd/cisco.
As a result you contain any clap to a small subnet.
Note that everybody will hate you initially. People definitely did hate me 8+ years ago as this was one of the things I did to deal with a similar problem (one dept in the building I managed was being hacked left right and center).
And here is where the difference between what I am saying and what your rudimentary thinking comes into play: Your idea does not have to be cool. It has to be profitable and patentable.
Cool is for kids.
Are you a moron or yes?
What is the point of patenting something that does not bring any profits within the forseable patent lifetime?
And what is the problem of finding an investor into your business if it can be profitable?
Get a clue kid.
(Read all of this before moderating)
So frankly I see no problem in patenting an algorithm. I see no problem is patenting software. I see no problem in pathenting a business method.
The problem is not in the fact that something is patented. The problem people see with the patent system is because of the current state of the USPTO where that trivial things with loads of prior art are being patented. And there is a reason for the US PTO having this problem and it is very plain and simple:
Patent clerks in the US are paid a sum per patent reviewed and after that for patent accepted . If they reject an application they lose the second bit.
So all that is needed to fix the system is for any patent applicant to pay at least 100000 deposit when applying (I think that it should be more). If the application succeds he gets back 80% filled up further by government small business innovation grants (they are around 0.5-1M$ in the US for example). If the app fails he gets shit. Clerks are payed per application submitted and application failed and they are payed at least 10000 for application whacked. They are not payed for applications that have been accepted.
And that is all it will take to fix the system. There is no need for patent reform. There is need to reform the b*** patent office which is something completely different.
And finding a loand for the 100000 deposit as well as insurance towards suing the PTO to accept it if they unfairly fail you should not be a problem whatsoever for anyone with a worthy invention.
Nope.
They were answering in Australia and there is an anticompetitive complaint there filed against them.
They have provided the same answer in Germany where they have an injunction filed against them.
They have not provided such answers and have stated exactly the opposite in every other country where they are not under anticompetive practices investigation (or injunction).
I think that it is absolutely bleeding obvious what takes them to make the statement they have done in Australia.
Well, a Windows user is capable of making a choice. Do not consider a windows user to be a moron by definition as he/she aint.
I have several ex-windows users around me which are by all means linux users now. When I say by all means they are using it. They are not administering it, configuring it, tweaking it or in any other way wasting their time. They actually use the machine for work.
And guess what they use - good ole Windowmaker with the standard brushsteel Debian theme (yes they have tried Gnome, Kde, XFCe, whateverE and they hated every moment of it). After all, people severely understimate the extent to which people like their machine being fast (even when it is a PIV at 2.4) with half a gig of RAM.
One of my old bosses used to say: "If you were a women you would be pregnat all the time"
And he was right. I learned to say no long ago and I still say it without any fear of repercussions.
There is a caveat: "During the interview when asked what are my problems when working if any, I always answer that I have a problem that with people who do not understand the word NO". Basically, you have to stake your right to say no from day -1. If you cannot do that you will be in trouble later.
Hello city boy. Ever been out of there?
1. Ever seen anything growing under a nut tree (assuming we are talking walnut or similar)?
2. Peanuts are dug from the ground so this means disrupting any tree roots that are there.
Why,
I, for once, want to sell his address to the local Health and Safety enforcement. If he marketed "generic viagra" which usually goes along with the pills you can also sell his address to Pfizer. A few more like these also come to mind.
He will not have a house, a car and a future very very soon.
Not likely.
Russian compact reactor technology is based on fast neutron breeders with Bismuth based alloys as a first level cooling agent. As a result they can be considerably smaller in size and weight then the conventional U235/water or U235/graphite jobs and can run at higher core temperatures.
I have seen pictures of a portable generator (not very big one (it was not written anywhere how many kW could it give) that fits on a standard size Ural truck.Even if they were fake (Soviet Russia jokes), it would not have been far off in terms of size.
Anyway, I still do not see us (Earthlings) shipping this shit to Mars unless we also start using nuclear drives in space and this is more then 30 years off unless someone suddenly redirects a considerabl chunk of the military budgets around the world to space exploration. Any comet threats anyone? Please?
Windows server cannot be "had out of the box". Tuning a windows server and adjusting a windows server for a "slightly non-standard" setup require 10 times more knowledge on the matter then putting a Samba box to do this. In btw, your average MSCE has no idea whatsoever on how to do this.
P.S. I am not even talking about securing a windows server and using a sane access policy to it.
Well,
Complain to your regulator and your competition authority. At least in Germany they have some serious teeth.
There is no technical reason whatsoever for the operators not to use ISDN call divert (or the equivalent mapping for this service in SS7 terms) as a mechanism for transfering the call to the new destination. In this case the only time when the call travels to the premises of the old operator is when it is set up. The actual voice (or data) should go directly to the new destination. There is no reason to charge you for the call set up only as for an entire call and there is no reason to route the call through the old operator network.
The fact that the phone operators in Europe do not use this on purpose (it has been in GSM since 1997) is already a part of an investigation by the European comission. More specifically, it is the investigation on unfair roaming charges.
So you are in you right to b*** and should do so. As a result of enough people b*** we may sooner or later get decent roaming charges for roaming mobile to roaming mobile calls so it may be a good idea to be persistent in this.
It is a result of american dislike of mathematics and long term scientific projects.
You cannot replace mathematics with elementary computer control systems based on simple feedback. That is the reality. And the american power blackouts are one of the common illustrations given in mathematical modeling classes in most of Europe of why simple feedback systems fail.
After the big blackout of the sixties every single European country has put this task to their universities and/or specilized institutes. In all cases it was given to mathematicians, not engineers (or ended up with the mathematicians after the engineers failed).
I happen know some the people who did the modelling in three countries. It took anything between 7 and 11 years to come up with viable models as well as analysis of viable failure scenarios. The scenarious have been rolled out by the 80-90-es so we are talking 20+ development and deployment cycle.
As a result you simply cannot take out the grid like this in any European country unless the country has grown complacent and has stopped updating the models to account for change in power usage patterns.
Sadism or masohism? Sadism is if you apply it to someone and maso is if you selfapply it.Which one do you mean?
Have you ever tried to program using the perl bindings? I have done it in the past and was extremely annoyed by the fact that it is a non-stop moving target. It also broke quite often. I ended up abandoning the entire stuff.
Looking at the review FLTK has apparently grown up some perl bindings. This may be quite interesting...