My very first computer was a TRS-80 Color Computer 2. It was basically a computer in a keyboard that I connected to the TV. Now, decades later, I will soon be able to buy a computer built into a keyboard that will display on my TV.
"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9 (NIV)
Of course, if this can handle "HD" YouTube, Netflix streaming, and other online sources, it might actually be worth looking into as an alternative to building my own low-power box for the TV. At least worth keeping an eye open, I suppose.
Which, given the fact that fairings don't particularly represent a difficult design or development problem, indicates that something (major) is wrong at SpaceX.
So, you're saying that fairings are, to use the phrase, "not rocket science"? It's certainly true that a fairing design and implementation is not nearly as difficult a nut to crack as designing a new liquid-fueled engine completely from scratch, but fairings and fairing separations aren't something so inherently mundane that they can be ignored.
The aerodynamics are not so trivial you can just say, "Eh, that looks about right..." and be at an energy-optimal solution. Additionally, while it's trivial to overbuild a solution that will protect the payload during ascent, reducing the mass of the fairing system is not so easy. (Like most things in engineering, the first bits are easy, with additional improvements coming with greater and greater effort.) Having additional time to shave off a few more kilograms from the fairing is certainly a net positive.
Now, as for fairing separation incidents, there have not been many, but a quick check does turn up three of note in the last decade or so:
I cannot speak to the failure potential of a new fairing design on a new launch vehicle as compared to existing fairings on well-traveled vehicles, but if I were to go with a "feeling", I would certainly doubt that it is less.
(By the way, your ad hominem song and dance routine was hardly mature. Will you be coming to Geowoodstock next year up in your area? I'm thinking of possibly heading up for the event and some cold water diving next year, and I wouldn't mind betting a batch of my homemade chocolate chip cookies on SpaceX -- perhaps you can bet a family-restaurant-level dinner? I don't drink, so it shouldn't be expensive.)
"This gives us the best flight data in advance of our first COTS mission," Musk said. "It also removes the (payload) fairing from the schedule critical path and allows us to spend more time on making the fairing lighter and more reliable."
This sounds more like, after the debacle the Falcon I has been to date, nobody is willing to risk their payload even for the reduced prices (sometimes even free) that such launches usually charge.
Actually, the situation is that there are two complementary reasons in play. By using the static test Dragon capsule, they get valuable engineering data about the dynamics of the integrated system that they can use to make any adjustments in advance of the first Dragon COTS launch.
The other factor influencing the decision is that the Falcon 9/Dragon configuration does not use the payload fairing. By using the static test Dragon capsule for the Falcon 9 demo launch, they can extend development of the payload fairing without impacting the demo launch time line.
Not requiring a finalized Falcon 9 payload fairing until flight five gives them significant additional time to optimize the fairing. Acquiring valuable flight test data by using their already-built static test Dragon capsule just makes it the proverbial "win-win" situation.
I'll refrain from making any comments about Bing cherry-picking the Net for results. I certainly won't claim that Bing is Microsoft crooning over their search engine. In fact, I don't think I'll even go the onomatopoeic route and say that Bing is the signal to stick a fork in them and see if they're done. Heck, with the number of things I'm not saying, I may as well not go into wordplay, either, although by analogy with sing/song...
Bing me a bong I bang when I was young, one we all have bung before.
"The book reads like the cereal style stories..."
on
Space Vulture
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Well, there's your problem. You never get deep stories with your cereal. You just get fluff ad copy, an occasional prize inside, and a lot of sugary sweet filler without much substance (unless it's Fiber One or something, in which case reverse that last bit).
On the other hand, perhaps I should just put some flow control on my proverbial cereal port and ignore that bit.;)
The solid rocket boosters separate 125 seconds into the flight at about 150,000 feet (46 km). About seven minutes later when the external tank (ET) separates 30 seconds after MECO, it's at about 120 km, so it's already in space (going with 100 km as the boundary, which is greater than your 50 miles). Additionally, although it's on a suborbital trajectory, it is not yet at the apogee of that trajectory.
I do not have a number for its apogee, but since the OMS-1 burn is generally not required anymore, you can assume to a first approximation that the ET's apogee is close to that of the Shuttle. Without it's own version of the Shuttle's OMS-2 burn to circularize the ET's orbit, however, the ET reenters the atmosphere after less than a complete orbit.
Regardless, if the ill-fated bat with the apparently broken wing (or its earthly, perhaps spacely, remains) managed to stay attached through max Q, it could have been the first animal (body) to make it up to space.
IgG, the most prevalent class of antibody[...] is the only class of antibody that crosses the placenta from mother to fetus. The mother's IgG protects the fetus and infant until the infant's immune system can produce its own antibodies.
IgA: These antibodies help defend against the invasion of microorganisms through body surfaces lined with a mucous membrane, including those of the nose, eyes, lungs, and digestive tract. IgA is present in the bloodstream, in secretions produced by mucous membranes, and in colostrum (the fluid produced by the breasts during the first few days after delivery, before breast milk is produced).
Obviously, this is anything but a comprehensive review of the relevant medical literature. I personally wonder how long actual antibodies last (as opposed to the immunity of which they are one facet). Hopefully, this has piqued your interest enough that you'll look deeper yourself.
But I could be wrong, maybe antibodies get through as well, it just doesn't seem likely.
How "likely" does it seem that you would have five classes of antibodies? I'm not going to beat you over the head about being wrong (which would make me, what, a bio-nazi?), but I will call you out for relying on supposition and gut feeling instead of doing even the most basic checking (not even "research") before spouting off.
If we collectively make fun of Ted Stevens for speaking "authoritatively" about things he does not understand in the least (series of tubes!), I would suggest that we are perfectly within our rights to call out each other for spouting equally ill-informed drivel about topics on which we have not bothered to read.
Take the quote, "we discontinued initiating new lawsuits in August". Now, the normal way of reading that is "as of August, we are no longer initiating new lawsuits". On the other hand, if you read it with a cynic's eye, you get "we are no longer going to initiate new lawsuits in the month of August".
It's not poor RIAA's fault that people misinterpreted their perfectly honest statement. All they were saying was that August is traditionally a busy month with summer vacations and the beginning of the school years of many locales. They simply found their calendars overbooked, and initiating lawsuits when college students are still moving in to their new apartments... frankly, it was more trouble than it was worth.
From now on, new lawsuits will be initiated from the second Monday in September through the Thursday of the last full week of July.
(COMMENTER'S NOTE: The preceding post was intended as an ironic, tongue-in-cheek piece of very basic entertainment. I did not read their entire letter, nor did I compare it to the list of known -- or unknown -- cases. If it happens that it really *can* be interpreted this way, it's still bald-faced deception.)
In this case, there is no effective difference between a list of the numbers themselves and a list of the hashes thereof. You can trivially do a dictionary attack covering the whole phone number space, as there cannot be more than 10^10 phone numbers on the list (given a ten-digit phone number space).
Think about how trivial it is to run an exhaustive search across eight lower-case alphabetic characters. It's easily more than an order of magnitude less work to traverse the entire ten digit phone number space naively.
Now, if you *want* to have some efficiency and you're even minutely intelligent, you don't need to bother traversing the entire space naively. Instead, you take into account that the first three digits are an area code, and therefore populated with significantly fewer than 1000 different values. You can also eliminate several swaths from the trailing seven digits by taking into account a few rules (such as seven-digit phone numbers not beginning with 1 or 0).
Likely the only thing you'd get out of releasing hashes instead of numbers are that someone would make a Windows-only application to sanitize your telemarketing lists for the low, low price of $250 per seat.
Of the four instances in which watts were referenced (directly or in compound units), three are completely boneheadedly wrong:
Forrester debunks this myth as follows: The average desktop draws 89 watts per hour. If it's left on overnight for 16 hours, it consumes 1.42kW. It's impossible for the power surge that occurs when powering on a PC to rival that figure: "You would be drawing energy at a rate of 17 kWh -- the equivalent of 44 HP DL580 servers at 100 percent utilization. Moreover, the average US wall outlet can only provide 1.8 kW of draw, which is about one-tenth of what the power surge would require."
They should be:
89 watts
1.42 kWh
17 kW
(1.8 kW is correct.)
You *can't* call it a typo when they are perfectly backward in three out of four incidents. And you can't call it "They just got it backward..." when they got it right once. You must conclude, therefore, that they have almost no grasp whatsoever of units.
This is bullshit. I have two series 2 tivo's and have been a subscriber for years. I purchased them both with lifetime service. Now I am supposed to buy new hardware and pay monthly so I can use netflix?
Let's see. You paid for lifetime service, and a product you didn't pay for that runs on hardware you didn't buy is available now, and since you don't get it, you complain? Your TiVo still works and your lifetime service is still providing data. In fact, it is likely you are getting more than you originally paid for (i.e. there are new features which *have* made it to Series 2 TiVos).
For (not) the last time, people, the fact that someone else may gain an additional unexpected benefit does not mean that anyone who did not get the additional unexpected benefit is being slighted! You do not *lose* anything just because someone else has a shiny new toy.
The best doomsday device has to be the Shadow planet killer. Why? Because jms forecast cloud computing could destroy the world *years* before RMS came out with the idea.;)
You jest, but if what very, very little I understand of Japanese is in order... Well, maybe our great Taco has merely been watching too much anime.
In Japanese, ten-thousand is "man" (pronounced with an "a" somewhat like the "a" in "father": "mahn"). What we would call "five hundred thousand" would instead be called "go-jyu man" ("go" = "five", "jyu" = "tens", and "man" = "ten-thousands": "five tens, ten-thousands"). So, basically, "fifty ten-thousands" would be a fairly accurate English representation of Japanese-style numbering.
Of course, my Japanese is only slightly better than my Lisp, so don't put this in Wikipedia or anything.;)
They did, but if you show your hand early enough, the project is simply scrapped and you don't get any money. You have to wait until the project is all but released (with tons of money already spent) before you come forward with your claims, as that way the choice becomes "Buy us off with some of the money or lose *everything*."
The only item of significance here is that apparently Fox is asking for a large enough amount of money that WB sees fit to argue the point in court instead of just paying and being done with it. It is likely, then, that Fox believes the movie will perform better than WB believes it will perform, as that would be the basis for the amount they demanded versus the amount WB would be willing to pay.
Basically, then, this is just business as usual, and the headlines are simply being used by either side to try to put more pressure on the opposing side. In the end, the movie will certainly be released. If WB wins the case, Fox should have asked for a smaller windfall. If Fox wins the case, WB should've settled for the earlier Fox offer. Someone loses (maybe both do), but we don't have to care.
Actually, that's basically what happened. The Kestrel engine on the second stage ignited, and the exhaust from it pushed the first stage away. The problem is that the second stage is designed to have the exhaust expanding into the vacuum of space, and having the first stage right there meant that the exhaust was contained within (or perhaps I should say, was redirected by) the interstage. Normally, the first stage and second stage are pneumatically pushed apart just before the second stage fires.
The exhaust was only in contact with the second stage for a very short period of time, but that was sufficient to "roast" the second stage enough to cause failure, either due to direct thermal effects or the forces created by the expanding exhaust (or to a combination of those factors).
By the way, the nozzle of the Kestrel engine is radiatively cooled. Before the sloshing doomed flight two, it was cool (figuratively only!) to see the bell glowing brightly. Some people watching with me thought it was failing until I explained that it's supposed to look like that.;)
So what he's saying is, they can afford to have engines become nonfunctional (obviously not explosively so.)
Actually, from what I read, the Merlin 1C engines are protected with respect to the catastrophic disassembly of one of their fellows. I'm not sure how big a boom the Kevlar shielding can take in terms of preventing a multi-boom situation, but it's there to stop debris from a failed engine from turning into a chain-reaction failure.
Whenever I hear "This call may be recorded...", I note that there are two potential meanings. It could mean "there is a chance that this call will be recorded", but it could also mean "we permit recording of this call". Of course, be sure that your purpose fits within the listed permissible reasons, if any. Regardless, the permission is not implicit; it's explicit.
Now, if they want to say "But,... but,... that's not what I meant!", my response would be that they would be well served by considering their terms more carefully in the future.;)
Before creation of organization project left two main Thunderbird developers. How this situation remarks project and how are these developers involved in Thunderbird now?
That simply *must* be a mechanical translation. Not even *Yoda* speaks in that manner.
What, are you saying you want a *preposition* in the headline. "Canonical Talks *ABOUT* Netbook Remix Details"?
We don't need no steenkeen prepositions!
And don't get me started about "Canonical Discusses Netbook Remix Details" or all those other ways to say it. Trying to parse headlines is half the fun of/.!:)
The whole point of AJAX is to reduce the amount of data you need to send to the user, not necessarily to reduce the amount of code. Yes, the browser will need to download the entire library, but only once. Caching takes it from there.
Compared to data, code is small. This is not a universal truth -- you can have a white pages site with a tremendously weighty interface that displays nothing but "Jenny 867-5309" -- but it is a valid assumption in the general case. With AJAX, data is effectively unbounded.
If you're using AJAX just to make your collection of 42 casual haiku look pretty, that's one thing. If you're using AJAX more along the lines of Google Maps (where there is almost unfathomably more data than code), that's a horse of a different color. I imagine most people are somewhere in between, but it seems readily obvious that it would be incorrect to think of the AJAX designs in the present using the assumptions of the now distant past.
Couldn't you design a modular AJAX system that would bring in functions as they are needed? That way, someone visiting just a couple pages wouldn't have to download the entire library. Have each function in it's own file, and then when an AJAX call is done, make it smart enough to figure out which functions need to be downloaded to run the resulting Javascript. Actually, the trend is in the opposite direction. By including everything in one file, you can greatly reduce the number of HTTP transactions. Eliminating the significant overhead there can improve "speed" tremendously.
Additionally, if you're using compression, it is likely that one large file will compress more effectively than a collection of smaller files. (You *are* using compression, aren't you?)
So they spelled it wrong in the title. They're movies of... er... an "educational" persuasion: Bandwidth Explosion Bodies 1-3 (downloadable through your local USENET or bittorrent client).
Slashdot Mirror
My very first computer was a TRS-80 Color Computer 2. It was basically a computer in a keyboard that I connected to the TV. Now, decades later, I will soon be able to buy a computer built into a keyboard that will display on my TV.
"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9 (NIV)
Of course, if this can handle "HD" YouTube, Netflix streaming, and other online sources, it might actually be worth looking into as an alternative to building my own low-power box for the TV. At least worth keeping an eye open, I suppose.
Which, given the fact that fairings don't particularly represent a difficult design or development problem, indicates that something (major) is wrong at SpaceX.
So, you're saying that fairings are, to use the phrase, "not rocket science"? It's certainly true that a fairing design and implementation is not nearly as difficult a nut to crack as designing a new liquid-fueled engine completely from scratch, but fairings and fairing separations aren't something so inherently mundane that they can be ignored.
The aerodynamics are not so trivial you can just say, "Eh, that looks about right..." and be at an energy-optimal solution. Additionally, while it's trivial to overbuild a solution that will protect the payload during ascent, reducing the mass of the fairing system is not so easy. (Like most things in engineering, the first bits are easy, with additional improvements coming with greater and greater effort.) Having additional time to shave off a few more kilograms from the fairing is certainly a net positive.
Now, as for fairing separation incidents, there have not been many, but a quick check does turn up three of note in the last decade or so:
I cannot speak to the failure potential of a new fairing design on a new launch vehicle as compared to existing fairings on well-traveled vehicles, but if I were to go with a "feeling", I would certainly doubt that it is less.
(By the way, your ad hominem song and dance routine was hardly mature. Will you be coming to Geowoodstock next year up in your area? I'm thinking of possibly heading up for the event and some cold water diving next year, and I wouldn't mind betting a batch of my homemade chocolate chip cookies on SpaceX -- perhaps you can bet a family-restaurant-level dinner? I don't drink, so it shouldn't be expensive.)
Source: SpaceX doubles down on inaugural Falcon 9 mission
This sounds more like, after the debacle the Falcon I has been to date, nobody is willing to risk their payload even for the reduced prices (sometimes even free) that such launches usually charge.
Actually, the situation is that there are two complementary reasons in play. By using the static test Dragon capsule, they get valuable engineering data about the dynamics of the integrated system that they can use to make any adjustments in advance of the first Dragon COTS launch.
The other factor influencing the decision is that the Falcon 9/Dragon configuration does not use the payload fairing. By using the static test Dragon capsule for the Falcon 9 demo launch, they can extend development of the payload fairing without impacting the demo launch time line.
Not requiring a finalized Falcon 9 payload fairing until flight five gives them significant additional time to optimize the fairing. Acquiring valuable flight test data by using their already-built static test Dragon capsule just makes it the proverbial "win-win" situation.
Bad Internet! No Google!
I'll refrain from making any comments about Bing cherry-picking the Net for results. I certainly won't claim that Bing is Microsoft crooning over their search engine. In fact, I don't think I'll even go the onomatopoeic route and say that Bing is the signal to stick a fork in them and see if they're done. Heck, with the number of things I'm not saying, I may as well not go into wordplay, either, although by analogy with sing/song...
Bing me a bong I bang when I was young, one we all have bung before.
Well, there's your problem. You never get deep stories with your cereal. You just get fluff ad copy, an occasional prize inside, and a lot of sugary sweet filler without much substance (unless it's Fiber One or something, in which case reverse that last bit).
On the other hand, perhaps I should just put some flow control on my proverbial cereal port and ignore that bit. ;)
The solid rocket boosters separate 125 seconds into the flight at about 150,000 feet (46 km). About seven minutes later when the external tank (ET) separates 30 seconds after MECO, it's at about 120 km, so it's already in space (going with 100 km as the boundary, which is greater than your 50 miles). Additionally, although it's on a suborbital trajectory, it is not yet at the apogee of that trajectory.
I do not have a number for its apogee, but since the OMS-1 burn is generally not required anymore, you can assume to a first approximation that the ET's apogee is close to that of the Shuttle. Without it's own version of the Shuttle's OMS-2 burn to circularize the ET's orbit, however, the ET reenters the atmosphere after less than a complete orbit.
Regardless, if the ill-fated bat with the apparently broken wing (or its earthly, perhaps spacely, remains) managed to stay attached through max Q, it could have been the first animal (body) to make it up to space.
I'm no expert, but I don't see how the mothers antibodies could be protecting the child after delivery[...]
From the Merck Manual Home Edition:
Obviously, this is anything but a comprehensive review of the relevant medical literature. I personally wonder how long actual antibodies last (as opposed to the immunity of which they are one facet). Hopefully, this has piqued your interest enough that you'll look deeper yourself.
But I could be wrong, maybe antibodies get through as well, it just doesn't seem likely.
How "likely" does it seem that you would have five classes of antibodies? I'm not going to beat you over the head about being wrong (which would make me, what, a bio-nazi?), but I will call you out for relying on supposition and gut feeling instead of doing even the most basic checking (not even "research") before spouting off.
If we collectively make fun of Ted Stevens for speaking "authoritatively" about things he does not understand in the least (series of tubes!), I would suggest that we are perfectly within our rights to call out each other for spouting equally ill-informed drivel about topics on which we have not bothered to read.
Take the quote, "we discontinued initiating new lawsuits in August". Now, the normal way of reading that is "as of August, we are no longer initiating new lawsuits". On the other hand, if you read it with a cynic's eye, you get "we are no longer going to initiate new lawsuits in the month of August".
It's not poor RIAA's fault that people misinterpreted their perfectly honest statement. All they were saying was that August is traditionally a busy month with summer vacations and the beginning of the school years of many locales. They simply found their calendars overbooked, and initiating lawsuits when college students are still moving in to their new apartments... frankly, it was more trouble than it was worth.
From now on, new lawsuits will be initiated from the second Monday in September through the Thursday of the last full week of July.
(COMMENTER'S NOTE: The preceding post was intended as an ironic, tongue-in-cheek piece of very basic entertainment. I did not read their entire letter, nor did I compare it to the list of known -- or unknown -- cases. If it happens that it really *can* be interpreted this way, it's still bald-faced deception.)
In this case, there is no effective difference between a list of the numbers themselves and a list of the hashes thereof. You can trivially do a dictionary attack covering the whole phone number space, as there cannot be more than 10^10 phone numbers on the list (given a ten-digit phone number space).
Think about how trivial it is to run an exhaustive search across eight lower-case alphabetic characters. It's easily more than an order of magnitude less work to traverse the entire ten digit phone number space naively.
Now, if you *want* to have some efficiency and you're even minutely intelligent, you don't need to bother traversing the entire space naively. Instead, you take into account that the first three digits are an area code, and therefore populated with significantly fewer than 1000 different values. You can also eliminate several swaths from the trailing seven digits by taking into account a few rules (such as seven-digit phone numbers not beginning with 1 or 0).
Likely the only thing you'd get out of releasing hashes instead of numbers are that someone would make a Windows-only application to sanitize your telemarketing lists for the low, low price of $250 per seat.
Of the four instances in which watts were referenced (directly or in compound units), three are completely boneheadedly wrong:
They should be:
You *can't* call it a typo when they are perfectly backward in three out of four incidents. And you can't call it "They just got it backward..." when they got it right once. You must conclude, therefore, that they have almost no grasp whatsoever of units.
This is bullshit. I have two series 2 tivo's and have been a subscriber for years. I purchased them both with lifetime service. Now I am supposed to buy new hardware and pay monthly so I can use netflix?
Let's see. You paid for lifetime service, and a product you didn't pay for that runs on hardware you didn't buy is available now, and since you don't get it, you complain? Your TiVo still works and your lifetime service is still providing data. In fact, it is likely you are getting more than you originally paid for (i.e. there are new features which *have* made it to Series 2 TiVos).
For (not) the last time, people, the fact that someone else may gain an additional unexpected benefit does not mean that anyone who did not get the additional unexpected benefit is being slighted! You do not *lose* anything just because someone else has a shiny new toy.
Now that you say that, I remember it. My apologies to Harlan Ellison. (The joke may even work better with you!)
The best doomsday device has to be the Shadow planet killer. Why? Because jms forecast cloud computing could destroy the world *years* before RMS came out with the idea. ;)
You jest, but if what very, very little I understand of Japanese is in order... Well, maybe our great Taco has merely been watching too much anime.
In Japanese, ten-thousand is "man" (pronounced with an "a" somewhat like the "a" in "father": "mahn"). What we would call "five hundred thousand" would instead be called "go-jyu man" ("go" = "five", "jyu" = "tens", and "man" = "ten-thousands": "five tens, ten-thousands"). So, basically, "fifty ten-thousands" would be a fairly accurate English representation of Japanese-style numbering.
Of course, my Japanese is only slightly better than my Lisp, so don't put this in Wikipedia or anything. ;)
They did, but if you show your hand early enough, the project is simply scrapped and you don't get any money. You have to wait until the project is all but released (with tons of money already spent) before you come forward with your claims, as that way the choice becomes "Buy us off with some of the money or lose *everything*."
The only item of significance here is that apparently Fox is asking for a large enough amount of money that WB sees fit to argue the point in court instead of just paying and being done with it. It is likely, then, that Fox believes the movie will perform better than WB believes it will perform, as that would be the basis for the amount they demanded versus the amount WB would be willing to pay.
Basically, then, this is just business as usual, and the headlines are simply being used by either side to try to put more pressure on the opposing side. In the end, the movie will certainly be released. If WB wins the case, Fox should have asked for a smaller windfall. If Fox wins the case, WB should've settled for the earlier Fox offer. Someone loses (maybe both do), but we don't have to care.
Actually, that's basically what happened. The Kestrel engine on the second stage ignited, and the exhaust from it pushed the first stage away. The problem is that the second stage is designed to have the exhaust expanding into the vacuum of space, and having the first stage right there meant that the exhaust was contained within (or perhaps I should say, was redirected by) the interstage. Normally, the first stage and second stage are pneumatically pushed apart just before the second stage fires.
The exhaust was only in contact with the second stage for a very short period of time, but that was sufficient to "roast" the second stage enough to cause failure, either due to direct thermal effects or the forces created by the expanding exhaust (or to a combination of those factors).
By the way, the nozzle of the Kestrel engine is radiatively cooled. Before the sloshing doomed flight two, it was cool (figuratively only!) to see the bell glowing brightly. Some people watching with me thought it was failing until I explained that it's supposed to look like that. ;)
So what he's saying is, they can afford to have engines become nonfunctional (obviously not explosively so.)
Actually, from what I read, the Merlin 1C engines are protected with respect to the catastrophic disassembly of one of their fellows. I'm not sure how big a boom the Kevlar shielding can take in terms of preventing a multi-boom situation, but it's there to stop debris from a failed engine from turning into a chain-reaction failure.
Whenever I hear "This call may be recorded...", I note that there are two potential meanings. It could mean "there is a chance that this call will be recorded", but it could also mean "we permit recording of this call". Of course, be sure that your purpose fits within the listed permissible reasons, if any. Regardless, the permission is not implicit; it's explicit.
Now, if they want to say "But,... but,... that's not what I meant!", my response would be that they would be well served by considering their terms more carefully in the future. ;)
What, are you saying you want a *preposition* in the headline. "Canonical Talks *ABOUT* Netbook Remix Details"?
/.! :)
We don't need no steenkeen prepositions!
And don't get me started about "Canonical Discusses Netbook Remix Details" or all those other ways to say it. Trying to parse headlines is half the fun of
The whole point of AJAX is to reduce the amount of data you need to send to the user, not necessarily to reduce the amount of code. Yes, the browser will need to download the entire library, but only once. Caching takes it from there.
Compared to data, code is small. This is not a universal truth -- you can have a white pages site with a tremendously weighty interface that displays nothing but "Jenny 867-5309" -- but it is a valid assumption in the general case. With AJAX, data is effectively unbounded.
If you're using AJAX just to make your collection of 42 casual haiku look pretty, that's one thing. If you're using AJAX more along the lines of Google Maps (where there is almost unfathomably more data than code), that's a horse of a different color. I imagine most people are somewhere in between, but it seems readily obvious that it would be incorrect to think of the AJAX designs in the present using the assumptions of the now distant past.
Additionally, if you're using compression, it is likely that one large file will compress more effectively than a collection of smaller files. (You *are* using compression, aren't you?)
I hear that in Britain, if it weighs roughly the same as a duck, it's most likely a witch.
So they spelled it wrong in the title. They're movies of... er... an "educational" persuasion: Bandwidth Explosion Bodies 1-3 (downloadable through your local USENET or bittorrent client).