Not quite. Shipping companies have bought up most of them. I worked at UPS on the flight line and I know they still use several 100 & 200 series 747's, though they are slowly being replaced with 500 & 600 series. As for dc-8's, I believe UPS is the only company still flying them. They buy several junk ones to use for parts since parts are so hard to find. Of course they are going to be phased out eventually.
Yeah, I flew on one of those 500 series 747s the other day. Whatta ride.
(there is no 747 series beyond the 400 series. The 300- series is a stretched upper deck 200 series with more modern engines, and the 400- series has avionics and electronics modernization from the factory.)
Most 100 and 200 series 747s are out in the desert, being parted out. The ariframes are no longer economical for flight - which was my point. After a certain number of flight hours, it is no longer economically feasible to fly an early 747, simply because of the overhaul costs involved in a third or fourth C-check on a large cargo aircraft.
Your analogy is correct, but remember that most of the early (-100 and -200) 737s, and almost all 747-100s are out of service now, and the 747-200
Yeah, but that's because they wore out. Most commercial 707s and DC-8s are out of service too, but that doesn't mean a low-hour airframe of either type wouldn't still run on today's avgas and engine oil, or fly in today's atmosphere.
Communist countries served by the An-24 didn't exactly go through 3-5 takeoff/landing cycles per day like 737s, or experience long haul heavyweight flights like 747-100 and -200s, did they?
Russian commercial aircraft are flying older for the same reason that Boeing B-52(G)s designed in 1947 and updated throughout the 1950s are. Not because they are superbly built, but because those airframes get comparatively little time in the air compared to commercial types used in the USA and Europe.
Which one of the shuttles is near it's design-rated 100 flights?
As an aside, this is why many of us here in the U.S.A. suspect our (p)resident of breaking the armed forces on purpose; the machine was so well-oiled and well-maintained during the previous 30-40 years that without the Soviet threat, excercises were not pressuring (with duty use) the equipment of the armed forces of the United States into upgrades. We're still kicking ass with equipment designed and built in the 1970s, for the most part.
The problem with breaking the armed serrvices is that none of the war hawk bloggers on the Internet want to go serve - and neither do the normally pliant small-town college seekers who enlist for college benefits. Nearly 1900 dead soldiers can't be wrong; enlisting these days, whether to get money for college or as a career is pretty dangerous!
STS was originally conceived in the 60s, implemented in the 70s, and was launched in the 80s. I turned 24 today. The space shuttle first took off when I was six days old. Sounds like Unix. And we're still using it, too.
That might be the most accurate comparison I've ever read on Slashdot. The thing is, it reads like a troll, but it isn't.
Here are some other thoughts to go with yours:
"Sonds like cars, which still have four wheels and reciprocating engines. And we're still using those too." "Sounds like the 747, which still has four jet engines. And we're still using that too." "Sounds like liquor, which still comes in glass bottles. And we're still using that too." "Sounds like soda, which still comes in cans. And we're still using that too."
You might notice that:
A: All the things we both named have been continuously improved since inception, despite vast advances in the underlying technology. B: UNIX is the only one unrecognizable in it's current state. (Mac OS X) C: The Shuttle's concept was not fleshed out properly after it got beyond the design stage. The same is not true of the other designs, which have been forced to compete in competitive markets.
All of my examples (and yours, of UNIX) have done well in the market for over twenty years. The Space Shuttle has not, in my opinion.
I regret that I never got down to Edwards to see the STS land while I lived in California. Odds are it probably won't land there again - unless someone here knows different. The recovery and travel costs are too high for NASA.
The Centris 660AV had two major differences from the Quadra 660AV. The Centris (budget 68040 machines) were rolled into the Quadra nameplate in October, 1993.
-Tray loading, rather than caddy loading 2X CD-ROM drive. -The first manual-inject floppies from Apple.
The Centris and Quadra 660av both had a 25MHz 68040 on a 32-bit bus and a 55MHz AT&T 3210 DSP.
The "av" machines introduced some Apple-first and Apple only features, including:
-Directional microphone with speech recognition (This was a pain in the ass to demo in the student unions I was charged with!) -Compsite video input and output; direct to hard disk recording from any analog or s-video source. -Direct PowerPC upgradability via a logic board swap - rather than the PDS slot upgrade available for previous Quadra/Centris 6xx/700/9xx machines.
The serial ports did indeed get strange at overclocking frequencies above 48MHz - due to the logic board's reliance on a half-multiple of the CPU speed, the serial controllers would die pretty ealy on.
The Quadra 800 (33MHz 68040) was actually more overclockable than the 840av in terms of percentage, but the 840 was, and remains, the fastest 68040 Apple machine ever, coming as it did at the sunset of the 68000 series. The PowerPC 6100, 7100, and 8100 were released March 14, 1994 and even the $2000.00 6100/60 (60 MHz PowerPC 601) easily eclipsed even the 840av in raw computational performance.
I've been hearing about Longhorn since before Windows 2000 shipped, actually.
If it's so great...
-Why is application launching only 15% faster than XP, despite requiring a 3GHz Pentium? -Why can Microsoft only seem to get screen real estate back by shrinking existing controls? -Why is this Paul Thurott person so enamored with what will essentially be a has-been OS with the features and security of something you can buy today from Apple?
If I was Steve Jobs, I'd release Tiger for X86 at MacWorld 2006 - get the PC users hooked before Microsoft can evern release their Tiger work-alike to manufacturing.
Let me be the first to think you for dumping lots of "fun" chemicals into the wastestream by using AA batteries to power your portable electronics.
Of course, you refer to using recordable CDs as an "utterly disposable format" so I guess you're one of those folks who thinks that plastic comes from the magic plastic tree and that when you put things into the trash can, they magically "go away".
Unfortunately, in the world I live in, we have landfills, batteries and plastic require raw materials and energy to create and are difficult to actually degrade into their components.
But hey - why consider anything but your own convenience when buying a product?
And for those ready to complain about Apple's "proprietary" battery, I think $100.00 every couple of years for a thin-pack L-Ion battery, proper disposal of said battery, and a product that doesn't eat little toxic sausages constantly is a pretty fair price to pay. YMMV.
Harvard's failure to secure their server is not the fault of the applicants who checked their records.
Bullshit. This isn't fair to those who saw a message on a bulletin board, checked it out to see if it was true, and are now out of a very exclusive and potentially lucrative education at one of the nation's top business schools.
Harvard may not like that the cat is out of the bag, but this is their fault - not that of the applicants who checked their status.
I take exception to your description of the PP5002C/5003 as "just enough" to decode.mp3. That's not accurate.
The PP5002C/5003 is based around a dual-core ARM7 CPU, and with the multimedia extensions and I/O logic added by Portal Player, the 5002C/5003 are more than capable of encoding or decoding video and audio content simultaneously.
I think your assumption that Apple used "just enough" power to get the.mp3 decoding job done is seriously flawed.
Effectively, Adobe has been making all the right moves to actively discourage use of Framemaker.
Nail. Head. Direct fucking hit.
I don't know why so many technical writers and Adobe stockholders continue to look the other way while Adobe flies in the face of good business sense.
Once upon a time, Adobe promised to ship a "Mac OS X version of all our flagship products".
I guess Premiere and Framemaker are not flagships. Not, say, like Reader (which sucks like an Electrolux past v5.)
Not, say, like Photoshop, which will be languishing in the shadows for 64-bit memory space support until Microsoft/Intel/AMD gets their shit together enough to ship and support a true 64-bit Windows platform.
I guess us Mac users are gonna have to wait. Because, you know, Adobe's business is and was built on the Windows platform.
There are perhaps a hundred different reasons Adobe should support the Mac and Linux more completely than they do. They will listen to none of those reasons as long as they've got current management in place - witness the fact that the Frame for Mac OS X mailing list has not one Adobe.com member. That irrreplaceable product is dead - it just hasn't stopped kicking, revenue-wise.
What I hear from every Adobe employee that I talk to since Chuck and John left is that the Twin Towers of San Jose have turned into the Creative Professional's Microsoft. None of us like it, but we have to deal with it for now.
Adobe - you're cruising for a bruising. Better check the cruise control, because we think it's stuck.
Why is it that just after I struggle to find posts to use my Mod points on, I come across one (the parent of this post) that really deserves the points?
We used to build a little dam around the processor with putty, fill up the reservoir with freeze-spray, and drink margaritas while the whole shebang evaporated noisily.
No fancy metal heat sinks for us...andd we liked it!
I just spent a couple of hours trying to recover DRM keys for a friend of mine who didn't know enough about digital audio to uncheck the "protect my content" box in the 'rip' dialog of Windows Media Player.
Caveat emptor. At least iTunes allows you to back up your files and use them on another machine. Up to five times, in case you're a real screw-up type and don't have the ability to de-authorize a machine before it dies/you give it away/it is stolen.
Slashdot Mirror
"Get away from her, you BITCH!"
"Take this, you BITCH!"
The science for LEO is here, the technology for LEO is here.
That's not the point.
The risj is in man-rating a vehicle - which is a unique challenge for every discrete design.
Why send a man to do a robot's job? The shuttle's promise was that we could use it to haul parts and the personnel to assemble those parts to LEO.
Instead, the CIA and the Air Force whored NASA out for a couple of years and left her by the bed.
Not quite. Shipping companies have bought up most of them. I worked at UPS on the flight line and I know they still use several 100 & 200 series 747's, though they are slowly being replaced with 500 & 600 series. As for dc-8's, I believe UPS is the only company still flying them. They buy several junk ones to use for parts since parts are so hard to find. Of course they are going to be phased out eventually.
Yeah, I flew on one of those 500 series 747s the other day. Whatta ride.
(there is no 747 series beyond the 400 series. The 300- series is a stretched upper deck 200 series with more modern engines, and the 400- series has avionics and electronics modernization from the factory.)
Most 100 and 200 series 747s are out in the desert, being parted out. The ariframes are no longer economical for flight - which was my point. After a certain number of flight hours, it is no longer economically feasible to fly an early 747, simply because of the overhaul costs involved in a third or fourth C-check on a large cargo aircraft.
A'int nothin' but a thang.
Your analogy is correct, but remember that most of the early (-100 and -200) 737s, and almost all 747-100s are out of service now, and the 747-200
Yeah, but that's because they wore out. Most commercial 707s and DC-8s are out of service too, but that doesn't mean a low-hour airframe of either type wouldn't still run on today's avgas and engine oil, or fly in today's atmosphere.
Communist countries served by the An-24 didn't exactly go through 3-5 takeoff/landing cycles per day like 737s, or experience long haul heavyweight flights like 747-100 and -200s, did they?
Russian commercial aircraft are flying older for the same reason that Boeing B-52(G)s designed in 1947 and updated throughout the 1950s are. Not because they are superbly built, but because those airframes get comparatively little time in the air compared to commercial types used in the USA and Europe.
Which one of the shuttles is near it's design-rated 100 flights?
As an aside, this is why many of us here in the U.S.A. suspect our (p)resident of breaking the armed forces on purpose; the machine was so well-oiled and well-maintained during the previous 30-40 years that without the Soviet threat, excercises were not pressuring (with duty use) the equipment of the armed forces of the United States into upgrades. We're still kicking ass with equipment designed and built in the 1970s, for the most part.
The problem with breaking the armed serrvices is that none of the war hawk bloggers on the Internet want to go serve - and neither do the normally pliant small-town college seekers who enlist for college benefits. Nearly 1900 dead soldiers can't be wrong; enlisting these days, whether to get money for college or as a career is pretty dangerous!
Sounds like Unix. And we're still using it, too.
That might be the most accurate comparison I've ever read on Slashdot. The thing is, it reads like a troll, but it isn't.
Here are some other thoughts to go with yours:
"Sonds like cars, which still have four wheels and reciprocating engines. And we're still using those too."
"Sounds like the 747, which still has four jet engines. And we're still using that too."
"Sounds like liquor, which still comes in glass bottles. And we're still using that too."
"Sounds like soda, which still comes in cans. And we're still using that too."
You might notice that:
A: All the things we both named have been continuously improved since inception, despite vast advances in the underlying technology.
B: UNIX is the only one unrecognizable in it's current state. (Mac OS X)
C: The Shuttle's concept was not fleshed out properly after it got beyond the design stage. The same is not true of the other designs, which have been forced to compete in competitive markets.
All of my examples (and yours, of UNIX) have done well in the market for over twenty years. The Space Shuttle has not, in my opinion.
I regret that I never got down to Edwards to see the STS land while I lived in California. Odds are it probably won't land there again - unless someone here knows different. The recovery and travel costs are too high for NASA.
Just thought it was worth a comment.
a baggie of pot in the SSME bell once.
The Centris 660AV had two major differences from the Quadra 660AV. The Centris (budget 68040 machines) were rolled into the Quadra nameplate in October, 1993.
-Tray loading, rather than caddy loading 2X CD-ROM drive.
-The first manual-inject floppies from Apple.
The Centris and Quadra 660av both had a 25MHz 68040 on a 32-bit bus and a 55MHz AT&T 3210 DSP.
The "av" machines introduced some Apple-first and Apple only features, including:
-Directional microphone with speech recognition (This was a pain in the ass to demo in the student unions I was charged with!)
-Compsite video input and output; direct to hard disk recording from any analog or s-video source.
-Direct PowerPC upgradability via a logic board swap - rather than the PDS slot upgrade available for previous Quadra/Centris 6xx/700/9xx machines.
The serial ports did indeed get strange at overclocking frequencies above 48MHz - due to the logic board's reliance on a half-multiple of the CPU speed, the serial controllers would die pretty ealy on.
The Quadra 800 (33MHz 68040) was actually more overclockable than the 840av in terms of percentage, but the 840 was, and remains, the fastest 68040 Apple machine ever, coming as it did at the sunset of the 68000 series. The PowerPC 6100, 7100, and 8100 were released March 14, 1994 and even the $2000.00 6100/60 (60 MHz PowerPC 601) easily eclipsed even the 840av in raw computational performance.
840AV had a 40MHz 68040 and a 66MHz AT+T 3210 DSP.
I've been hearing about Longhorn since before Windows 2000 shipped, actually.
If it's so great...
-Why is application launching only 15% faster than XP, despite requiring a 3GHz Pentium?
-Why can Microsoft only seem to get screen real estate back by shrinking existing controls?
-Why is this Paul Thurott person so enamored with what will essentially be a has-been OS with the features and security of something you can buy today from Apple?
If I was Steve Jobs, I'd release Tiger for X86 at MacWorld 2006 - get the PC users hooked before Microsoft can evern release their Tiger work-alike to manufacturing.
Chumps.
Let me be the first to think you for dumping lots of "fun" chemicals into the wastestream by using AA batteries to power your portable electronics.
Of course, you refer to using recordable CDs as an "utterly disposable format" so I guess you're one of those folks who thinks that plastic comes from the magic plastic tree and that when you put things into the trash can, they magically "go away".
Unfortunately, in the world I live in, we have landfills, batteries and plastic require raw materials and energy to create and are difficult to actually degrade into their components.
But hey - why consider anything but your own convenience when buying a product?
And for those ready to complain about Apple's "proprietary" battery, I think $100.00 every couple of years for a thin-pack L-Ion battery, proper disposal of said battery, and a product that doesn't eat little toxic sausages constantly is a pretty fair price to pay. YMMV.
pfft... he only had the whole day to compose it. Um, the decision in the case wasn't released until a couple of hours ago, smarty-pants.
It's called maturing. It's a good thing, really. Adds perspective.
Harvard's failure to secure their server is not the fault of the applicants who checked their records.
Bullshit. This isn't fair to those who saw a message on a bulletin board, checked it out to see if it was true, and are now out of a very exclusive and potentially lucrative education at one of the nation's top business schools.
Harvard may not like that the cat is out of the bag, but this is their fault - not that of the applicants who checked their status.
Good point. Thanks fer postin'.
The PP5002C/5003 is based around a dual-core ARM7 CPU, and with the multimedia extensions and I/O logic added by Portal Player, the 5002C/5003 are more than capable of encoding or decoding video and audio content simultaneously.
I think your assumption that Apple used "just enough" power to get the .mp3 decoding job done is seriously flawed.
Nail. Head. Direct fucking hit.
I don't know why so many technical writers and Adobe stockholders continue to look the other way while Adobe flies in the face of good business sense.
Once upon a time, Adobe promised to ship a "Mac OS X version of all our flagship products".
I guess Premiere and Framemaker are not flagships. Not, say, like Reader (which sucks like an Electrolux past v5.)
Not, say, like Photoshop, which will be languishing in the shadows for 64-bit memory space support until Microsoft/Intel/AMD gets their shit together enough to ship and support a true 64-bit Windows platform.
I guess us Mac users are gonna have to wait. Because, you know, Adobe's business is and was built on the Windows platform.
There are perhaps a hundred different reasons Adobe should support the Mac and Linux more completely than they do. They will listen to none of those reasons as long as they've got current management in place - witness the fact that the Frame for Mac OS X mailing list has not one Adobe.com member. That irrreplaceable product is dead - it just hasn't stopped kicking, revenue-wise.
What I hear from every Adobe employee that I talk to since Chuck and John left is that the Twin Towers of San Jose have turned into the Creative Professional's Microsoft. None of us like it, but we have to deal with it for now.
Adobe - you're cruising for a bruising. Better check the cruise control, because we think it's stuck.
Cameras don't take bad pictures, but people do.
Why is it that just after I struggle to find posts to use my Mod points on, I come across one (the parent of this post) that really deserves the points?
We used to build a little dam around the processor with putty, fill up the reservoir with freeze-spray, and drink margaritas while the whole shebang evaporated noisily.
No fancy metal heat sinks for us...andd we liked it!
News Flash!
Management may at times ignore developer concerns, although developers can have insight into the customer base not obvious to management.
It's been that way at every company I've worked at...and usually ended up in tears.
Tears for customer support, that is.
Film at 11.
I just spent a couple of hours trying to recover DRM keys for a friend of mine who didn't know enough about digital audio to uncheck the "protect my content" box in the 'rip' dialog of Windows Media Player.
Caveat emptor. At least iTunes allows you to back up your files and use them on another machine. Up to five times, in case you're a real screw-up type and don't have the ability to de-authorize a machine before it dies/you give it away/it is stolen.
I have it on good authority that all the dark matter is in Iraq, and that's why we had to invade.
Because PDA sales have been delining for the past three years and are now at a five-year low.
That's why.