I got the feeling this was more along the lines of not talking about ship movements and stuff... The summary is a little extreme.
Did you read the paper (it's not hard, the link is right up there in the summary)? They specifically mentioned the "leaks" referred to in the summary. At least the ones I checked (GAO TSA report, Satellite orbit info, food supply threats).
If those aren't the kind of leaks they are talking about, then why do they mention them specifically?
Of course, of course, they didn't lose engine power, so glide ratio has nothing to do with this particular incident...glide ratio is not what dropped this plane into the ocean.
The parent poster claimed that a 10,000 ft/minute drop is within reason for a gliding jet, which is not the case unless there are other mitigating factors, like loss of hydraulics.
Merely losing air speed really shouldn't result in a crash. Unless some other system failed, this might be a case of pilot error due to vertigo.
The Garmin GPS I use while driving tells me how fast I'm going.
Your GPS tells your speed relative to the road, which, being firmly attached to the ground, is the speed you care about.
However, in a plane, your GPS tells you your speed relative to the ground, which could be plus or minus 300mph from your airspeed (depending on the speed of the jetstream) and I imagine that in the stormy conditions they were in, wind gusts could have made their airspeed even more variable and unpredictable with respect to ground speed.
According to some media-released transcrips I have read, the plane was stalled for over three minutes and yet the pilots consistently kept the nose of the plane at an upwards angle. Piloting 101 states that if your plane is stalled, the proper maneuvar is to point the nose downwards and dive sharply to pick up enough airspeed so that you can swoop and obtain lift so that you are no longer stalled. Apparently the pilot's actions deviated from this almost universal practice and further doomed the situation.
I am not nor have I ever been the pilot of an aircraft, however I fly remote control planes and I've had to deal with stalls a time or two using such a tactic. If the pilots of 447 had executed such a practice, odds are the stall would have broken. Perhaps that accounts for the 'human error' portion of the blame, but it was significant. I realize that airspeed and altimeter tools are invaluable to flight, but with the loss of those a firm knowledge of aviatic physics can mean the difference between life and death. As it was here.
Of course, in this case, even the computer didn't have the data it would have needed to fly the plane - if the pitot tubes were blocked and not giving a speed reading, the pilots may have attempted to outguess the situation. They may have looked at thrust settings and maybe even GPS speed reports and concluded that there was no stall despite the warnings since they knew the airspeed was far above what was reported.
I trust that an airline pilot has enough training to know how to handle a stall, but if he knows his instruments are lying to him, then he may choose to ignore them.
Do stall warnings use anything other than airspeed and angle of attack to warn about a stall, or are there some type of sensors on the wings to detect airflow and lift?
60 mph is a mile per minute. 10,000 feet is a bit less than two miles. 10,000 feet in one minute is two miles per minute. So, 120 mph vertically. That's a lot. It isn't totally out of reason for a gliding jet though. Big jets have a really crummy glide path. They go down almost as fast as they go forward.
Untrue - a 747 has a glide ratio of about 15:1, so at 30,000 feet, you've got around 80 miles to find an airport if all of your engines fail. Granted, it's a far cry from a 50:1 or better glide ratio you can find in a good sailplane, but it's also far from the space shutle's 1:1 hypersonic glide ratio.
There are standard operating procedures for this situation, if the pilots had done NOTHING AT ALL, then the flight would have been normal.
Really? I'm not a pilot, but what happens when the auto pilot disengages (as it did in this case), but no pilot takes control? Does the plane keep flying straight and level?
How good is a computer at flying when it loses a key sensor input that tells it the plane's airspeed? Will the computer make the right decision when it thinks the airspeed is 50 knots and the plane is stalling, but in reality is 400 knots?
The interesting part is the fact that they don't report any stall warning being heard on the CVR. I am not sure how it is implemented in Airbus planes, but the stall warning horn and stick shaker should make quite some ruckus that should be detectable on the CVR. This opens up more questions than it answers for now.
You mean something like this:
From 2 h 10 min 05 , the autopilot then auto-thrust disengaged and the PF said "I have the controls". The airplane began to roll to the right and the PF made a left nose-up input. The stall warning sounded twice in a row. The recorded parameters show a sharp fall from about 275kt to 60 kt in the speed displayed on the left primary flight display (PFD), then a few moments later in the speed displayed on the integrated standby instrument system (ISIS).
Or this:
At 2 h 10 min 51 , the stall warning was triggered again. The thrust levers were positioned in the TO/GA detent and the PF maintained nose-up inputs. The recorded angle of attack, of around 6 degrees at the triggering of the stall warning, continued to increase. The trimmable horizontal stabilizer (THS) passed from 3 to 13 degrees nose-up in about 1 minute and remained in the latter position until the end of the flight.
What seems to be remarkable is that the trigger to the catastrophe has indeed been revealed to be the pitot tubes - something that was suspected very soon after the flight went down. To a layman like me, it is amazing that without the benefit of all the data that has been recovered from the flight data recorders, experts were able to get so close to the mark.
Now, one could flip this around and also say that given that so many observers were able to so accurately get to the initial trigger for the failure in the absence of hard data, it must mean that this was a really common failure mechanism that should occurred in the field only as a result of the problem being repeatedly ignored.
Since the pitot tubes were known to have problems before the crash and Airbus had recommended (but not required) their replacement prior to the crash, perhaps it's not so remarkable.
My pattern includes 6 dots. From each element, I have at least 5 choices (hint, you don't have to use the nearest dot, you can go between them to skip a dot).
So there are at least 15625 6 element pattern combinations. Actually there are more because from some dots you have more than 5 choices (like the center dot where you have 8 choices). It turns out that this guy already did the math:
Ironically, my Exchange admin requires a 4 digit password, and I chose 2 repeating digits for ease of typing (I could easily swipe my pattern without looking at the screen, I have a hard time doing that with digits), so my phone is less secure.
I have cable internet, so even though my Roku and Blu Ray players both support Wifi, I use a hard wired connection
I have cable internet too, but I don't have cable TV, so my cable modem is in my office, not anywhere near the main TV.
But if you had an ethernet-only Bluray player you could put the cable modem and Wifi router by the TV and let the computer use Wifi (with a $20 Wifi adapter if it doesn't already have Wifi).
Something's wrong there. I can easily get signals from my neighbors' houses, so getting a signal inside your own house shouldn't be a problem. Have you tried a 5GHz access point and adaptor? I believe I've read this band has better range than the old 2.4GHz stuff.
In general, 5Ghz has less range than 2.4Ghz (but less interference from neighbors due to less utilization and more channels, so it may give you better performance at long range even with less signal). I've tried both bands.
I have no problem picking up my back neighbor's Wifi from the back room of my house, but can't pick up the Wifi from the living room in the front of the house. The reason appears to be that I have metal lath behind my plaster walls which seems to act as a kind of faraday cage to attenuate signals. I can get a decent (but not great) signal one room away, but when the signal has to traverse 2 or more walls (there are around 4 to 6 walls between the front and back of my house depending on how you count), it's unusable. I even had a friend try to convince me that his 10db Cisco Aironet Yagi's would power through the walls, but even with his thousand dollars of equipment we couldn't keep a reliable connection up.
In contrast, a $70 Netgear powerline networking set worked great - I get around 70mbit/second sustained throughput.
And for movies that I think I'll watch multiple times
The number of movies that I will watch multiple times is so small as to make it a non-factor.
By the time I'm ready to see Pirates of the Caribbean 4 a second time, movies will be delivered via quantum entanglement.
Look past American mainstream movies and you may find some that you'll want to watch more than once. I've amassed quite a collection of foreign films (most are not available even on DVD at Netflix) that I've watched a number of times (none of them are Japanese anime).
Most people really need Wi-Fi on their BD players (or Rokus), unless their homes are wired with Cat5e.
Is it true that "most" people need Wifi? I have cable internet, so even though my Roku and Blu Ray players both support Wifi, I use a hard wired connection. If I had a second TV, the room I'd want to put it in goes through too many walls for reliable Wifi connectivity - I use a powerline networking adapter so my computer will work in that room. My living room phone line connection (currently unused) is about 15 feet from my TV, so even if I had DSL, I still wouldn't need Wifi.
I know that "some" people might need Wifi, but is it "most"?
In any case, even if I'm faced with $70 for a streaming-only Roku or $130 for Wifi enabled Blu Ray player, I'd still go with the Blu Ray so I can play disks.
Lucky. Blu-Ray players that support Netflix are a bit more rare in Canada (and pricier). Even if the box advertises 'Netflix capable', doesn't mean it supports Netflix Canada, or ever will...
Blame the movie studios for that. I'm sure Netflix would be more than happy to open their catalogue up to the world, but they are bound by content distribution agreements that limit where they can provide their content. Of course in Canada you also face tiny monthly download limits that forces Netflix to use lower quality streams for Canadian viewers. It appears that the USA is heading that way too.
Until the movie studios come around to allowing streaming for all of their content, DVD's and Blu-rays will still continue to exist. I'm not (yet) willing to download pirated movies, so for some movies the only way I can see them is to get a physical DVD from Netflix. And for movies that I think I'll watch multiple times, it's hard to beat a used disk from Amazon, most are under $10 including shipping, many are under $6 including shipping.
The movie industry may hate their diminished revenue from streaming, but they are getting even less revenue when I buy used instead of streaming.
My Blu-Ray player displaced my Roku (which I sent to a family member for use with Netflix). The only thing I used the Roku for was Netflix, and since my Blu-Ray player does Netflix (and Pandora) there was no need for the Roku.
If I had a second TV and wanted a cheap streaming device, I might look at Roku again, but at $70 for a Roku-HD versus $99 for a Blu-Ray player with Netflix, I'd probably go for the Blu-Ray player so I can play disks too.
The library online catalog where I live has a feature called "search nearby on the shelf" that shows you the books around your search result. If this kind of data is already being indexed, it seems like a simple matter to make a virtual representation of the shelf that you can browse with a mouse or a touch interface. It's not the same as being there but it can be approximated.
It may be approximated, but it's a poor approximation.
The strength of being able to browse nearby books isn't just looking at the titles, but in being able to pick one up and flip through it and see if it's interesting. It's not quite the same if you see an interesting title, then have to wait 10 minutes for the robot to retrieve it for you.
Since they say each book bin holds around 100 titles, they could simulate this by putting the books into LC classification order in the book bin and letting you browse the whole bin.
and this place can truly be remote. I went to a wedding in Vermont and needed to go to an ATM. We had to drive many miles to find one, and there were 4 machines jammed together. All were for a different bank. The fiber backhaul into Vermont is so sparse that even automated banking is difficult.
I don't think the location of the ATM machine has anything to do with fiber -- an ATM machine has such low bandwidth needs that it can easily run over dial-up, a 56K copper leased line or even a cellular modem (which is how many of the ATM's that pop up at festivals and concerts work). No need for fiber or other high bandwidth connections.
Great. Now I can haz case insensitive filenames please?
That's all ready there.
[citation needed]
Case sensitivity is in the filesystem. # dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/vfat.filesystem bs=1k count=1k # mkfs.vfat/tmp/vfat.filesystem # mount -o loop/tmp/vfat.filesystem/mnt/vfat # echo 'Hello, World!' >/mnt/vfat/testfile # cat/mnt/vfat/TESTFILE Hello, World! # profit! profit!: command not found
I am specifically referring to names in the kernel source tree using conflicting cases such as:
Ahh, well you should have said that in the first place!
I'd recommend you drop Visual Studio and Windows and "go to the cloud" on an environment that is already scaled out. There are a few options, but I think one of the easiest to set up and get going on is Google's App Engine system.
Yeah, drop everything you've created and move it to a completely different platform. One that is is proprietary so you're locked into that one vendor forever unless you want to rewrite your app.
Or, since you are already familiar with and comfortable with Windows development tools you can pick and choose from dozens of hosting providers that will provider a Windows VM or physical machine and if they change their price or terms of use to something you don't like, you can easily move everything to another hosting provider.
None of which will be able to scale your application to the levels that the guy mentioned. Scalability like that comes from architecture, not hardware, and Google has an extremely scalable distributed storage and processing architecture.
Are you serious? Do you really think that the Windows platform can't scale to handle a few million users and a few million hits/day? Depending on how CPU and database intensive his app is, it's likely that he could scale that far on a single physical server. 8 cores + 8GB of RAM will take you far, even on Microsoft.
Of course, the odds that the OP will actually need that kind of scale are almost negligible, but it's what he asked for. As for the "Google lock-in"... that's manageable with a little up-front thought, as I suggested.
Is it really true that porting a.Net app to Google's API and making it portable to other platforms takes just a little up-front thought?
If you grow to the point that it really makes sense to get off of Google, making the move will cost you a lot of effort and a lot of money, but it's just the effort and money required to build the scalable infrastructure, and you have to pay for that at some point, regardless.
I'm not thinking that growth will force him off of Google, but pricing or terms of use changes.
Eh, wtf are you talking about? There isn't just hosting at your house or hosting in the cloud - there's the normal style shared hosting, dedicated server hosting and co-location hosting too, which is what most people use.
I wonder if that's what I meant when I said "coloc"? "Cloud" is not well defined, many people (like Amazon) use the term cloud computing interchangeably with virtual servers and even shared hosting.
I'd recommend you drop Visual Studio and Windows and "go to the cloud" on an environment that is already scaled out. There are a few options, but I think one of the easiest to set up and get going on is Google's App Engine system.
Yeah, drop everything you've created and move it to a completely different platform. One that is is proprietary so you're locked into that one vendor forever unless you want to rewrite your app.
Or, since you are already familiar with and comfortable with Windows development tools you can pick and choose from dozens of hosting providers that will provider a Windows VM or physical machine and if they change their price or terms of use to something you don't like, you can easily move everything to another hosting provider.
It'll take at least a 15Mbit/second upstream connection to handle that bandwidth which is hard to get on a residential connection in most areas of the USA. Plus the mean-time-to-repair on a residential connection can reach days, so if you have an outage, your site will be offline for a long time. And you probably don't have a generator (and even if you do, there's no guarantee that the equipment that serves your internet connection is also on generator), backup cooling (if needed in your climate), or someone to reboot your server or swap a failed drive when you're on vacation.
You can certainly get that much bandwidth delivered to your house, but you'll likely end up paying more than the cloud hosting costs and still won't have the uptime and reliability you'd get from the cloud provider.
But Camping's prediction is that the earthquakes will follow the sun... just as man's timezones do:
Harold Camping: Beginning at about 6:00p May 21st in New Zealand there will be a great earthquake. This earthquake will actually follow the Sun and as each timezone reaches 6:00p it too will experience this earthquake.
The timezone is just a convenience to describe when the earthquake will start -- as he says, it will be about 6:00pm, so someone on East side of the timezone will feel it before someone on the West side. Since the earthquakes will follow the sun, then man's definition of "timezone" doesn't matter - whether there are 24 timezones or 36 timezones, the earthquake would still appear to follow the timezones.
There may be many reasons to discredit his prediction, but timezones aren't one of them.
I think I'll be left behind. I certainly don't want to be 'raptured' with the kind of assholes that believe in that nonsense! So does this mean I shouldn't bother buying new shoes tomorrow?
Isn't there supposed to be 5 months of pain and suffering after the Rapture and before the end of the world? If that's the case, you may as well buy those shoes - after all, there may be plenty of suffering in the post rapture world, but that's no reason you should have to suffer in worn out shoes.
Slashdot Mirror
I got the feeling this was more along the lines of not talking about ship movements and stuff... The summary is a little extreme.
Did you read the paper (it's not hard, the link is right up there in the summary)? They specifically mentioned the "leaks" referred to in the summary. At least the ones I checked (GAO TSA report, Satellite orbit info, food supply threats).
If those aren't the kind of leaks they are talking about, then why do they mention them specifically?
Of course, of course, they didn't lose engine power, so glide ratio has nothing to do with this particular incident...glide ratio is not what dropped this plane into the ocean.
The parent poster claimed that a 10,000 ft/minute drop is within reason for a gliding jet, which is not the case unless there are other mitigating factors, like loss of hydraulics.
Merely losing air speed really shouldn't result in a crash.
Unless some other system failed, this might be a case of pilot error due to vertigo.
The Garmin GPS I use while driving tells me how fast I'm going.
Your GPS tells your speed relative to the road, which, being firmly attached to the ground, is the speed you care about.
However, in a plane, your GPS tells you your speed relative to the ground, which could be plus or minus 300mph from your airspeed (depending on the speed of the jetstream) and I imagine that in the stormy conditions they were in, wind gusts could have made their airspeed even more variable and unpredictable with respect to ground speed.
According to some media-released transcrips I have read, the plane was stalled for over three minutes and yet the pilots consistently kept the nose of the plane at an upwards angle. Piloting 101 states that if your plane is stalled, the proper maneuvar is to point the nose downwards and dive sharply to pick up enough airspeed so that you can swoop and obtain lift so that you are no longer stalled. Apparently the pilot's actions deviated from this almost universal practice and further doomed the situation.
I am not nor have I ever been the pilot of an aircraft, however I fly remote control planes and I've had to deal with stalls a time or two using such a tactic. If the pilots of 447 had executed such a practice, odds are the stall would have broken. Perhaps that accounts for the 'human error' portion of the blame, but it was significant. I realize that airspeed and altimeter tools are invaluable to flight, but with the loss of those a firm knowledge of aviatic physics can mean the difference between life and death. As it was here.
Of course, in this case, even the computer didn't have the data it would have needed to fly the plane - if the pitot tubes were blocked and not giving a speed reading, the pilots may have attempted to outguess the situation. They may have looked at thrust settings and maybe even GPS speed reports and concluded that there was no stall despite the warnings since they knew the airspeed was far above what was reported.
I trust that an airline pilot has enough training to know how to handle a stall, but if he knows his instruments are lying to him, then he may choose to ignore them.
Do stall warnings use anything other than airspeed and angle of attack to warn about a stall, or are there some type of sensors on the wings to detect airflow and lift?
60 mph is a mile per minute. 10,000 feet is a bit less than two miles. 10,000 feet in one minute is two miles per minute. So, 120 mph vertically. That's a lot. It isn't totally out of reason for a gliding jet though. Big jets have a really crummy glide path. They go down almost as fast as they go forward.
Untrue - a 747 has a glide ratio of about 15:1, so at 30,000 feet, you've got around 80 miles to find an airport if all of your engines fail. Granted, it's a far cry from a 50:1 or better glide ratio you can find in a good sailplane, but it's also far from the space shutle's 1:1 hypersonic glide ratio.
This was clearly pilot error.
There are standard operating procedures for this situation, if the pilots had done NOTHING AT ALL, then the flight would have been normal.
Really? I'm not a pilot, but what happens when the auto pilot disengages (as it did in this case), but no pilot takes control? Does the plane keep flying straight and level?
How good is a computer at flying when it loses a key sensor input that tells it the plane's airspeed? Will the computer make the right decision when it thinks the airspeed is 50 knots and the plane is stalling, but in reality is 400 knots?
The interesting part is the fact that they don't report any stall warning being heard on the CVR. I am not sure how it is implemented in Airbus planes, but the stall warning horn and stick shaker should make quite some ruckus that should be detectable on the CVR. This opens up more questions than it answers for now.
You mean something like this:
From 2 h 10 min 05 , the autopilot then auto-thrust disengaged and the PF said "I have the
controls". The airplane began to roll to the right and the PF made a left nose-up input. The stall
warning sounded twice in a row. The recorded parameters show a sharp fall from about 275kt
to 60 kt in the speed displayed on the left primary flight display (PFD), then a few moments
later in the speed displayed on the integrated standby instrument system (ISIS).
Or this:
At 2 h 10 min 51 , the stall warning was triggered again. The thrust levers were positioned
in the TO/GA detent and the PF maintained nose-up inputs. The recorded angle of attack, of
around 6 degrees at the triggering of the stall warning, continued to increase. The trimmable
horizontal stabilizer (THS) passed from 3 to 13 degrees nose-up in about 1 minute and
remained in the latter position until the end of the flight.
What seems to be remarkable is that the trigger to the catastrophe has indeed been revealed to be the pitot tubes - something that was suspected very soon after the flight went down. To a layman like me, it is amazing that without the benefit of all the data that has been recovered from the flight data recorders, experts were able to get so close to the mark.
Now, one could flip this around and also say that given that so many observers were able to so accurately get to the initial trigger for the failure in the absence of hard data, it must mean that this was a really common failure mechanism that should occurred in the field only as a result of the problem being repeatedly ignored.
Since the pitot tubes were known to have problems before the crash and Airbus had recommended (but not required) their replacement prior to the crash, perhaps it's not so remarkable.
My pattern includes 6 dots. From each element, I have at least 5 choices (hint, you don't have to use the nearest dot, you can go between them to skip a dot).
So there are at least 15625 6 element pattern combinations. Actually there are more because from some dots you have more than 5 choices (like the center dot where you have 8 choices). It turns out that this guy already did the math:
http://beust.com/weblog2/archives/000497.html
4 dots: 1624 solutions
5 dots: 7152 solutions
6 dots: 26016 solutions
7 dots: 72912 solutions
8 dots: 140704 solutions
9 dots: 140704 solutions
Total: 389112
Ironically, my Exchange admin requires a 4 digit password, and I chose 2 repeating digits for ease of typing (I could easily swipe my pattern without looking at the screen, I have a hard time doing that with digits), so my phone is less secure.
I have cable internet, so even though my Roku and Blu Ray players both support Wifi, I use a hard wired connection
I have cable internet too, but I don't have cable TV, so my cable modem is in my office, not anywhere near the main TV.
But if you had an ethernet-only Bluray player you could put the cable modem and Wifi router by the TV and let the computer use Wifi (with a $20 Wifi adapter if it doesn't already have Wifi).
Something's wrong there. I can easily get signals from my neighbors' houses, so getting a signal inside your own house shouldn't be a problem. Have you tried a 5GHz access point and adaptor? I believe I've read this band has better range than the old 2.4GHz stuff.
In general, 5Ghz has less range than 2.4Ghz (but less interference from neighbors due to less utilization and more channels, so it may give you better performance at long range even with less signal). I've tried both bands.
I have no problem picking up my back neighbor's Wifi from the back room of my house, but can't pick up the Wifi from the living room in the front of the house. The reason appears to be that I have metal lath behind my plaster walls which seems to act as a kind of faraday cage to attenuate signals. I can get a decent (but not great) signal one room away, but when the signal has to traverse 2 or more walls (there are around 4 to 6 walls between the front and back of my house depending on how you count), it's unusable. I even had a friend try to convince me that his 10db Cisco Aironet Yagi's would power through the walls, but even with his thousand dollars of equipment we couldn't keep a reliable connection up.
In contrast, a $70 Netgear powerline networking set worked great - I get around 70mbit/second sustained throughput.
The number of movies that I will watch multiple times is so small as to make it a non-factor.
By the time I'm ready to see Pirates of the Caribbean 4 a second time, movies will be delivered via quantum entanglement.
Look past American mainstream movies and you may find some that you'll want to watch more than once. I've amassed quite a collection of foreign films (most are not available even on DVD at Netflix) that I've watched a number of times (none of them are Japanese anime).
Most people really need Wi-Fi on their BD players (or Rokus), unless their homes are wired with Cat5e.
Is it true that "most" people need Wifi? I have cable internet, so even though my Roku and Blu Ray players both support Wifi, I use a hard wired connection. If I had a second TV, the room I'd want to put it in goes through too many walls for reliable Wifi connectivity - I use a powerline networking adapter so my computer will work in that room. My living room phone line connection (currently unused) is about 15 feet from my TV, so even if I had DSL, I still wouldn't need Wifi.
I know that "some" people might need Wifi, but is it "most"?
In any case, even if I'm faced with $70 for a streaming-only Roku or $130 for Wifi enabled Blu Ray player, I'd still go with the Blu Ray so I can play disks.
Lucky. Blu-Ray players that support Netflix are a bit more rare in Canada (and pricier). Even if the box advertises 'Netflix capable', doesn't mean it supports Netflix Canada, or ever will...
Blame the movie studios for that. I'm sure Netflix would be more than happy to open their catalogue up to the world, but they are bound by content distribution agreements that limit where they can provide their content. Of course in Canada you also face tiny monthly download limits that forces Netflix to use lower quality streams for Canadian viewers. It appears that the USA is heading that way too.
Until the movie studios come around to allowing streaming for all of their content, DVD's and Blu-rays will still continue to exist. I'm not (yet) willing to download pirated movies, so for some movies the only way I can see them is to get a physical DVD from Netflix. And for movies that I think I'll watch multiple times, it's hard to beat a used disk from Amazon, most are under $10 including shipping, many are under $6 including shipping.
The movie industry may hate their diminished revenue from streaming, but they are getting even less revenue when I buy used instead of streaming.
My Blu-Ray player displaced my Roku (which I sent to a family member for use with Netflix). The only thing I used the Roku for was Netflix, and since my Blu-Ray player does Netflix (and Pandora) there was no need for the Roku.
If I had a second TV and wanted a cheap streaming device, I might look at Roku again, but at $70 for a Roku-HD versus $99 for a Blu-Ray player with Netflix, I'd probably go for the Blu-Ray player so I can play disks too.
The library online catalog where I live has a feature called "search nearby on the shelf" that shows you the books around your search result. If this kind of data is already being indexed, it seems like a simple matter to make a virtual representation of the shelf that you can browse with a mouse or a touch interface. It's not the same as being there but it can be approximated.
It may be approximated, but it's a poor approximation.
The strength of being able to browse nearby books isn't just looking at the titles, but in being able to pick one up and flip through it and see if it's interesting. It's not quite the same if you see an interesting title, then have to wait 10 minutes for the robot to retrieve it for you.
Since they say each book bin holds around 100 titles, they could simulate this by putting the books into LC classification order in the book bin and letting you browse the whole bin.
and this place can truly be remote. I went to a wedding in Vermont and needed to go to an ATM. We had to drive many miles to find one, and there were 4 machines jammed together. All were for a different bank. The fiber backhaul into Vermont is so sparse that even automated banking is difficult.
I don't think the location of the ATM machine has anything to do with fiber -- an ATM machine has such low bandwidth needs that it can easily run over dial-up, a 56K copper leased line or even a cellular modem (which is how many of the ATM's that pop up at festivals and concerts work). No need for fiber or other high bandwidth connections.
Great. Now I can haz case insensitive filenames please?
That's all ready there.
[citation needed]
Case sensitivity is in the filesystem.
/tmp/vfat.filesystem /tmp/vfat.filesystem /mnt/vfat /mnt/vfat/testfile /mnt/vfat/TESTFILE
# dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/vfat.filesystem bs=1k count=1k
# mkfs.vfat
# mount -o loop
# echo 'Hello, World!' >
# cat
Hello, World!
# profit!
profit!: command not found
I am specifically referring to names in the kernel source tree using conflicting cases such as:
Ahh, well you should have said that in the first place!
I'd recommend you drop Visual Studio and Windows and "go to the cloud" on an environment that is already scaled out. There are a few options, but I think one of the easiest to set up and get going on is Google's App Engine system.
Yeah, drop everything you've created and move it to a completely different platform. One that is is proprietary so you're locked into that one vendor forever unless you want to rewrite your app.
Or, since you are already familiar with and comfortable with Windows development tools you can pick and choose from dozens of hosting providers that will provider a Windows VM or physical machine and if they change their price or terms of use to something you don't like, you can easily move everything to another hosting provider.
None of which will be able to scale your application to the levels that the guy mentioned. Scalability like that comes from architecture, not hardware, and Google has an extremely scalable distributed storage and processing architecture.
Are you serious? Do you really think that the Windows platform can't scale to handle a few million users and a few million hits/day? Depending on how CPU and database intensive his app is, it's likely that he could scale that far on a single physical server. 8 cores + 8GB of RAM will take you far, even on Microsoft.
Of course, the odds that the OP will actually need that kind of scale are almost negligible, but it's what he asked for. As for the "Google lock-in"... that's manageable with a little up-front thought, as I suggested.
Is it really true that porting a .Net app to Google's API and making it portable to other platforms takes just a little up-front thought?
If you grow to the point that it really makes sense to get off of Google, making the move will cost you a lot of effort and a lot of money, but it's just the effort and money required to build the scalable infrastructure, and you have to pay for that at some point, regardless.
I'm not thinking that growth will force him off of Google, but pricing or terms of use changes.
Eh, wtf are you talking about? There isn't just hosting at your house or hosting in the cloud - there's the normal style shared hosting, dedicated server hosting and co-location hosting too, which is what most people use.
I wonder if that's what I meant when I said "coloc"? "Cloud" is not well defined, many people (like Amazon) use the term cloud computing interchangeably with virtual servers and even shared hosting.
I'd recommend you drop Visual Studio and Windows and "go to the cloud" on an environment that is already scaled out. There are a few options, but I think one of the easiest to set up and get going on is Google's App Engine system.
Yeah, drop everything you've created and move it to a completely different platform. One that is is proprietary so you're locked into that one vendor forever unless you want to rewrite your app.
Or, since you are already familiar with and comfortable with Windows development tools you can pick and choose from dozens of hosting providers that will provider a Windows VM or physical machine and if they change their price or terms of use to something you don't like, you can easily move everything to another hosting provider.
The bandwidth needs alone will push you to the cloud (or to a coloc).
You say you're expecting milions of hits/day - if each user pulls down 50KB of content, and you get a million of those hits over a 10 hour period:
50KB/hit * 1 M hits/day / 10 hours / 3600 seconds/hour = 1388 KB/second
It'll take at least a 15Mbit/second upstream connection to handle that bandwidth which is hard to get on a residential connection in most areas of the USA. Plus the mean-time-to-repair on a residential connection can reach days, so if you have an outage, your site will be offline for a long time. And you probably don't have a generator (and even if you do, there's no guarantee that the equipment that serves your internet connection is also on generator), backup cooling (if needed in your climate), or someone to reboot your server or swap a failed drive when you're on vacation.
You can certainly get that much bandwidth delivered to your house, but you'll likely end up paying more than the cloud hosting costs and still won't have the uptime and reliability you'd get from the cloud provider.
But Camping's prediction is that the earthquakes will follow the sun... just as man's timezones do:
Harold Camping: Beginning at about 6:00p May 21st in New Zealand there will be a great earthquake. This earthquake will actually follow the Sun and as each timezone reaches 6:00p it too will experience this earthquake.
The timezone is just a convenience to describe when the earthquake will start -- as he says, it will be about 6:00pm, so someone on East side of the timezone will feel it before someone on the West side. Since the earthquakes will follow the sun, then man's definition of "timezone" doesn't matter - whether there are 24 timezones or 36 timezones, the earthquake would still appear to follow the timezones.
There may be many reasons to discredit his prediction, but timezones aren't one of them.
I think I'll be left behind. I certainly don't want to be 'raptured' with the kind of assholes that believe in that nonsense! So does this mean I shouldn't bother buying new shoes tomorrow?
Isn't there supposed to be 5 months of pain and suffering after the Rapture and before the end of the world? If that's the case, you may as well buy those shoes - after all, there may be plenty of suffering in the post rapture world, but that's no reason you should have to suffer in worn out shoes.
Look for something that's brimstone resistant.