"Data transfer "in" and "out" refers to transfer into and out of an AWS Region." - Based on this, one would guess that downloading data would probably be a data transfer out. However, the examples in the FAQ use the retrieval pricing, and not the data transfer pricing, and so my guess/assumption seemed wrong.
"There is no Data Transfer charge for data transferred between Amazon EC2 and Amazon Glacier within the same Region." - This is address intra-region transfer and is not relevant to the scenario I am asking about.
"Data transferred between Amazon EC2 and Amazon Glacier across all other Regions will be charged at Internet Data Transfer rates on both sides of the transfer." - This is a region-to-region transfer, and again does not address the scenario I am asking about.
I'm not sure at what level your reading comprehension skills are at, but 2 out of 3 of those sentences don't even address the scenario I'm asking about. I also linked to the FAQ to demonstrate the examples used retrieval pricing, rather than the transfer out pricing. So obviously there is ambiguity between the texts.
I think I pointed out the ambiguity. I don't see any reason for your trolling and snarky replies. I would rather work it out on my own then pander to an inconsiderate troll like yourself. When I'm teaching someone something they aren't familiar with, I don't sneer at them and talk to them like they are an idiot for asking a question. It may all seem natural and obvious to you what differentiates those terms for someone who has been using AWS for awhile, but that doesn't give you a right to talk to people like they are idiots. Have some humility.
This is actually helping by differentiating the terms: "Retrieval is pulling something out of a Glacier Vault, whether it is retrieved to an EC2 instance in the same region (no transfer), a non-AWS resource somewhere ("download", and therefore transfer out of the region the Vault is stored in), or to an EC2 instance in a different region (transfer out and and transfer in.)
If you are pulling something out of a vault and then downloading it to your own (non-AWS) system, you will be doing a Retrieval and some amount of Transfer Out."
Had you said this without the snarkyness I might have an ounce of respect for you.
I did read that, and obviously I wouldn't be able to ask a question regarding something I had read if I hadn't actually read it. That would be something of a paradox. You could actually read it yourself, and realize those sentences are dealing with inter-region and region-to-region transfers, and doesn't clarify the scenario that involves region-to-local server transfer (i.e. a download) which "transfer out" and "retrieval" both sound like synonyms for download.
So if someone is guilty of copyright infringement for posting the web address of a file, are they guilty of murder for posting the address of a known murderer?
Current efforts of law enforcement are already being wasted on pursuing linkers, when they should be focused on the publishers of copyrighted material. The people uploading, and the people garnering revenue from those uploads are the criminals. The file sharing sites know that plenty of people will subscribe so that they can download that material. They have an incentive to allow it to occur and turn a blind eye. They should be fined for any revenue they receive from subscribers who download pirated content. Essentially nullifying the revenue from the copyrighted material.
There were no backroom deals here. Certain domains are commonly targetted by malware. If malware, or perhaps another user/IT with malicious intent, modifies your hostfile to redirect facebook.com to a phishing site, it will still appear to be at a legitimate domain of facebook.com but actually serving the phishing site. It won't have SSL but your average user won't notice. So you see, it is in the interests of preventing the hosts file from being a tool for malware or malicious users. It is not in the interest of some backroom deal MS made with facebook.
I agree completely. I don't know what these guys have been smoking that they think they should be configuring each desktop when they should be doing it in their infrastructure. Linux or Windows, if you have physical access to the machine, you can do as you please with enough perseverance. If you're not putting these rules into your firewall/network infrastructure, anyone can plug their laptop into a wall, spoof their desktop's MAC, and do as they please as well.
The hosts file was never meant for implementing IT policies like this. There is a legitimate reason they have made this change. There are plenty of viruses that will modify the host file as a way to block internet access in order to disable anti virus updates or downloads of targeted removal software. For the 1% of us that really know our stuff, we fix this manually, but for the other 99% they sit there with an infected computer for maybe a week or more before they find someone to fix it, all the while their computer is doing the bidding of the malware, spreading or participating in a botnet.
If anything I would expect them to at least popup a notification whenever the host file is modified, and provide an option to opt-out.
This is along the lines of some small business saying "Why would someone want to hack my useless forum?" and then a week later it's full of malware and porn ads.
There's a huge amount of money in this project. It would be a huge risk to leave it wide open on the pretense that no one wants to, simply because you believe that you have both imagined every possible scenario and also believe the potential hacker will come to the same "not worth it" conclusion you did in each scenario. Those are two very big assumptions.
Who else read "Mysterious Sprite Photographed" and instantly thought they were talking the soda and immediately thought "WTF makes a Sprite mysterious?"
There's a big difference between carrying a gun around at all times in your waist band, and having guns in your home should you need to defend your rights if/when the time comes.
Reminds me of a story where some nuclear weapons were armed accidentally during routine transportation across the US, luckily it didn't get worse than that.
This reminds me of the "Everyone should have guns, and then we'd all be safer." Maybe in the extremely rare circumstances where someone has gone postal would some gun toting by-standard be able to stop them. However, IMO there would be a much greater occurrence of "I'm really angry and have lost all sense of judgement, oh and BTW I have a gun to shoot you with, as well as any by-standard who tries to stop me." or "I have gotten really drunk and thought you called me a name so I will shoot you because in my inebriated state that seems like the appropriate response." This is how a game over poker turned into a homicide in the wild west. People make mistakes and poor judgement. When you introduce guns or nuclear weapons into the equation, the consequences of their mistakes or poor judgement increases proportionally with the power of the weapon which they use.
I am not a proponent of gun controls, but I am definitely against every person in the world toting a firearm at all times of the day, and in the same respect I am very much against everyone having nuclear weapons, as well as any country having enough nuclear weapons to wipe out civilization. Not only is it dangerous, but it costs a huge amount of money just to manage, track, and secure the stockpile of nukes. It's wasteful.
Agreed. For any type of real time game, latency has more impact in this architecture. Often with an FPS, there is client side prediction which emulates what the server models. You hit a key and your computer models the reaction so you see the result/feedback immediately. Sometimes you see artifacts where something is repositioned 50ms later, but that only happens when another action that your client wasn't aware of, another player's action, changes things on the server. In most cases, it takes 50ms for anything the server does to arrive at your client, and usually anything you do is immediate.
With a streaming game service, you hit the key, but your computer has no client side prediction because it's just receiving a video stream. You get no feedback. Your keystroke goes to the server(maybe 50ms), and then the server updates its model, and you see the result (50 ms on the way back). Anything as simple as moving the mouse will take 100ms to see the result. For alot of things this would not be a big deal, but mouse movement, that is something that is usually smooth and we are used to it being responsive. It would be like when your computer gets slow and your mouse jerks around.
You could solve this be trying to create some sort of standardized game client, and games would have to be coded in modules so client side predictions and client side interfaces could be transferred. But this would me the client is doing rendering. However you lose two of the main benefits of streamed gaming: 1) Preventing client side hacks like aimbots and walling, 2) Centralizing rendering.
Centralized rendering I think is cool, because if you think about how much idle graphics hardware there is at any point in time, for every person playing a PC game, there's probably ten graphics cards somewhere else in the world sitting idle at that moment. If you centralized that, then it would be like you were playing with 4 graphics cards and still have room to eliminate some hardware to reduce cost. Games designed for this system could offer a much greater level of detail.
Totally agree tepples. On top of the blaring inefficiency and diminished quality of converting vector animations into video, you also lose interactivity. I remember for awhile some companies had these videos where they would pause, and you'd make a choice, and then some other clip would play. Kind of a gimmick and nothing more.
If you look to other options like HTML5, you can see those like Facebook have retreated from that in favor of native mobile code. With something like Flash or native code, you usually get a huge framework to leverage with alot of tooling. Yeh you can build it in HTML5/javascript, but it's not going to be nearly as easy. I've been developing ajax for a few years now, and used Flex(which runs on the Flash platform) for about half a year. Flex is a far supperior language of javascript in my opinion. The only reason I wouldn't use Flex more, is the complexities involves in building a client server application.
Now if you are a small shop, and you don't have the $ to hire/contract all the different skillsets in order to develop a native app for every single possible platform that is accessing your content, then great. But for the rest of us, you flat out can't afford that, so you find a solution that requires the least amount of work even if sacrifices performance, and a big factor in that is something that's easy to develop and deploy to multiple platforms. This is really one of the major driving factors of web applications of all types have become so popular, whether they be a mashup, AJAX, HTML5, Flash, Silverlight, it is simply the ability to abstract away the hurdles posed by the platform. While you don't always get the exact same behavior across all systems, and sometimes have to fight/tweak to get things to work on certain platforms, it by many orders of magnitude is easier and cheaper than building a dedicated app for each platform. Having done work in all of those options, I'd say that Flash is by far the most powerful. It's big drawback, and why I stay away from it, is I only need that power maybe 10% of the time in the types of apps I do, and it is not seamless or easy to try and just have one little flash widget which can communicate with the rest of the non-flash page
I feel ya brother. I use a XPS model P09E at work with a 17" screen and it has a full size numpad, which was one of the reasons I got this laptop.
The only downside is it is missing the "proper" arrangement of the Ins/Home/PgUp/Del... etc. the 6 navigation keys. I use these a whole lot and the fact that most laptop keyboards have them spread all over the place drives me nuts.
No I haven't missed out on 30 years of history. You have intentionally misread what I'm saying just to grasp an opportunity to be a dick to someone you don't know on the internet. WTF is with people and their incapability to have a civilized discussion without insulting people? WTF is wrong with you that you have such a insecurity complex that you have to come here and troll people? If you had 1st grade reading comprehension skills, then you would see that I acknowledged in the first words of my post that "McCain might be right". I'm only citing a previous example of similar shortsightedness as a caution. McCain's statement is narrowly based on current enemy's capabilities, which is not something that will remain static. Who our enemies are and what their capabilities are can both change. I'm not arguing for or against the F-22. I would be all for well thought out elimination of excessive military expenditures. I simply think trying to justify eliminating it based on the fact that right at this moment we are fighting enemies where it isn't needed, is pretty short sighted. There are potential enemies out there with much more advanced air capabilities than what we are currently fighting, and if someone like McCain was going to make a case against developing fighter craft then the future scenarios involving those enemies should be considered. Along the lines of what McCain is saying, based on our current enemies, there probably isn't a great need to build a bunch of any advanced fighter, rather simply refine/test for now, and should an enemy come to light where they are needed, then ramp up production. I am less receptive to an argument that seems to say they are not and never will be needed.
I am in favor of careful reduction in military expenditures (and for those "OMG you want to rob the men who defend our country" hyper-patriots... no, that's not what I want. There's a huge amount of spending that could be reduced and instead flow into pathways that would produce jobs so that when soldiers finish their duty with the military, they can come home and be able to find a job instead of facing high unemployment rates. The hyper-patriots can't be bothered to think that far ahead about the well being of soldiers. The same way the hyper-patriots accused those who were opposed to the Iraq war as being anti-American soldier-haters, and the hyper-patriots were the ones who were ready to rush those soldiers off into harms way and then did an about face and said we needed to bring them home when they realized the consequences of war and the fact that Iraq was not the source of terrorist attacks on America. All they really wanted, which many of them stated openly without shame, is that we needed to go over there and indiscriminately kill 3,000 Muslims.).
As far as decades of supremacy, I don't think citing military expenditures is a legitimate measure of supremacy anyhow, as it is probably a diminishing return. I would bet that the relationship between $ expended and effective military capability is logarithmic. By that same logarithmic relationship, probably a large amount of our expenditures could be eliminated without significantly reducing our military power. I've worked for contractors, where at the end of the year they are basically scrambling to come up with proposals of how to burn up the money that commanders have left to spend, because they want to ensure that there budgets are not reduced based on the previous year's reduced spending.
Regardless of what the Mustangs intended role was, they did have to engage in dogfights with the MiG. The only advantage the Mustang had was a sharper turning, which was used to turn into the MiG for head on passes.
Slashdot Mirror
"Data transfer "in" and "out" refers to transfer into and out of an AWS Region." - Based on this, one would guess that downloading data would probably be a data transfer out. However, the examples in the FAQ use the retrieval pricing, and not the data transfer pricing, and so my guess/assumption seemed wrong.
"There is no Data Transfer charge for data transferred between Amazon EC2 and Amazon Glacier within the same Region." - This is address intra-region transfer and is not relevant to the scenario I am asking about.
"Data transferred between Amazon EC2 and Amazon Glacier across all other Regions will be charged at Internet Data Transfer rates on both sides of the transfer." - This is a region-to-region transfer, and again does not address the scenario I am asking about.
I'm not sure at what level your reading comprehension skills are at, but 2 out of 3 of those sentences don't even address the scenario I'm asking about. I also linked to the FAQ to demonstrate the examples used retrieval pricing, rather than the transfer out pricing. So obviously there is ambiguity between the texts.
I think I pointed out the ambiguity. I don't see any reason for your trolling and snarky replies. I would rather work it out on my own then pander to an inconsiderate troll like yourself. When I'm teaching someone something they aren't familiar with, I don't sneer at them and talk to them like they are an idiot for asking a question. It may all seem natural and obvious to you what differentiates those terms for someone who has been using AWS for awhile, but that doesn't give you a right to talk to people like they are idiots. Have some humility.
This is actually helping by differentiating the terms:
"Retrieval is pulling something out of a Glacier Vault, whether it is retrieved to an EC2 instance in the same region (no transfer), a non-AWS resource somewhere ("download", and therefore transfer out of the region the Vault is stored in), or to an EC2 instance in a different region (transfer out and and transfer in.)
If you are pulling something out of a vault and then downloading it to your own (non-AWS) system, you will be doing a Retrieval and some amount of Transfer Out."
Had you said this without the snarkyness I might have an ounce of respect for you.
I did read that, and obviously I wouldn't be able to ask a question regarding something I had read if I hadn't actually read it. That would be something of a paradox. You could actually read it yourself, and realize those sentences are dealing with inter-region and region-to-region transfers, and doesn't clarify the scenario that involves region-to-local server transfer (i.e. a download) which "transfer out" and "retrieval" both sound like synonyms for download.
The examples all use the Retrieval pricing:
http://aws.amazon.com/glacier/faqs/
Not having ever used AWS, I'm wondering what is the difference between a "Transfer Out" and a "Retrieval"?
So if someone is guilty of copyright infringement for posting the web address of a file, are they guilty of murder for posting the address of a known murderer?
Current efforts of law enforcement are already being wasted on pursuing linkers, when they should be focused on the publishers of copyrighted material. The people uploading, and the people garnering revenue from those uploads are the criminals. The file sharing sites know that plenty of people will subscribe so that they can download that material. They have an incentive to allow it to occur and turn a blind eye. They should be fined for any revenue they receive from subscribers who download pirated content. Essentially nullifying the revenue from the copyrighted material.
There were no backroom deals here. Certain domains are commonly targetted by malware. If malware, or perhaps another user/IT with malicious intent, modifies your hostfile to redirect facebook.com to a phishing site, it will still appear to be at a legitimate domain of facebook.com but actually serving the phishing site. It won't have SSL but your average user won't notice. So you see, it is in the interests of preventing the hosts file from being a tool for malware or malicious users. It is not in the interest of some backroom deal MS made with facebook.
I agree completely. I don't know what these guys have been smoking that they think they should be configuring each desktop when they should be doing it in their infrastructure. Linux or Windows, if you have physical access to the machine, you can do as you please with enough perseverance. If you're not putting these rules into your firewall/network infrastructure, anyone can plug their laptop into a wall, spoof their desktop's MAC, and do as they please as well.
The hosts file was never meant for implementing IT policies like this. There is a legitimate reason they have made this change. There are plenty of viruses that will modify the host file as a way to block internet access in order to disable anti virus updates or downloads of targeted removal software. For the 1% of us that really know our stuff, we fix this manually, but for the other 99% they sit there with an infected computer for maybe a week or more before they find someone to fix it, all the while their computer is doing the bidding of the malware, spreading or participating in a botnet.
If anything I would expect them to at least popup a notification whenever the host file is modified, and provide an option to opt-out.
This is along the lines of some small business saying "Why would someone want to hack my useless forum?" and then a week later it's full of malware and porn ads.
There's a huge amount of money in this project. It would be a huge risk to leave it wide open on the pretense that no one wants to, simply because you believe that you have both imagined every possible scenario and also believe the potential hacker will come to the same "not worth it" conclusion you did in each scenario. Those are two very big assumptions.
There are no? If you have a southern draw like me though, you just run it together and it sounds the same.
Even apes know how to use tools.
Who else read "Mysterious Sprite Photographed" and instantly thought they were talking the soda and immediately thought "WTF makes a Sprite mysterious?"
Thanks, I'm sure everyone completely misunderstood what was meant due to my misuse of a hyphen. I'll be sure to edit it before it goes to press.
There's a big difference between carrying a gun around at all times in your waist band, and having guns in your home should you need to defend your rights if/when the time comes.
Reminds me of a story where some nuclear weapons were armed accidentally during routine transportation across the US, luckily it didn't get worse than that.
This reminds me of the "Everyone should have guns, and then we'd all be safer." Maybe in the extremely rare circumstances where someone has gone postal would some gun toting by-standard be able to stop them. However, IMO there would be a much greater occurrence of "I'm really angry and have lost all sense of judgement, oh and BTW I have a gun to shoot you with, as well as any by-standard who tries to stop me." or "I have gotten really drunk and thought you called me a name so I will shoot you because in my inebriated state that seems like the appropriate response." This is how a game over poker turned into a homicide in the wild west. People make mistakes and poor judgement. When you introduce guns or nuclear weapons into the equation, the consequences of their mistakes or poor judgement increases proportionally with the power of the weapon which they use.
I am not a proponent of gun controls, but I am definitely against every person in the world toting a firearm at all times of the day, and in the same respect I am very much against everyone having nuclear weapons, as well as any country having enough nuclear weapons to wipe out civilization. Not only is it dangerous, but it costs a huge amount of money just to manage, track, and secure the stockpile of nukes. It's wasteful.
Agreed. For any type of real time game, latency has more impact in this architecture. Often with an FPS, there is client side prediction which emulates what the server models. You hit a key and your computer models the reaction so you see the result/feedback immediately. Sometimes you see artifacts where something is repositioned 50ms later, but that only happens when another action that your client wasn't aware of, another player's action, changes things on the server. In most cases, it takes 50ms for anything the server does to arrive at your client, and usually anything you do is immediate.
With a streaming game service, you hit the key, but your computer has no client side prediction because it's just receiving a video stream. You get no feedback. Your keystroke goes to the server(maybe 50ms), and then the server updates its model, and you see the result (50 ms on the way back). Anything as simple as moving the mouse will take 100ms to see the result. For alot of things this would not be a big deal, but mouse movement, that is something that is usually smooth and we are used to it being responsive. It would be like when your computer gets slow and your mouse jerks around.
You could solve this be trying to create some sort of standardized game client, and games would have to be coded in modules so client side predictions and client side interfaces could be transferred. But this would me the client is doing rendering. However you lose two of the main benefits of streamed gaming: 1) Preventing client side hacks like aimbots and walling, 2) Centralizing rendering.
Centralized rendering I think is cool, because if you think about how much idle graphics hardware there is at any point in time, for every person playing a PC game, there's probably ten graphics cards somewhere else in the world sitting idle at that moment. If you centralized that, then it would be like you were playing with 4 graphics cards and still have room to eliminate some hardware to reduce cost. Games designed for this system could offer a much greater level of detail.
what is a DINOSORE?
Totally agree tepples. On top of the blaring inefficiency and diminished quality of converting vector animations into video, you also lose interactivity. I remember for awhile some companies had these videos where they would pause, and you'd make a choice, and then some other clip would play. Kind of a gimmick and nothing more.
If you look to other options like HTML5, you can see those like Facebook have retreated from that in favor of native mobile code. With something like Flash or native code, you usually get a huge framework to leverage with alot of tooling. Yeh you can build it in HTML5/javascript, but it's not going to be nearly as easy. I've been developing ajax for a few years now, and used Flex(which runs on the Flash platform) for about half a year. Flex is a far supperior language of javascript in my opinion. The only reason I wouldn't use Flex more, is the complexities involves in building a client server application.
Now if you are a small shop, and you don't have the $ to hire/contract all the different skillsets in order to develop a native app for every single possible platform that is accessing your content, then great. But for the rest of us, you flat out can't afford that, so you find a solution that requires the least amount of work even if sacrifices performance, and a big factor in that is something that's easy to develop and deploy to multiple platforms. This is really one of the major driving factors of web applications of all types have become so popular, whether they be a mashup, AJAX, HTML5, Flash, Silverlight, it is simply the ability to abstract away the hurdles posed by the platform. While you don't always get the exact same behavior across all systems, and sometimes have to fight/tweak to get things to work on certain platforms, it by many orders of magnitude is easier and cheaper than building a dedicated app for each platform. Having done work in all of those options, I'd say that Flash is by far the most powerful. It's big drawback, and why I stay away from it, is I only need that power maybe 10% of the time in the types of apps I do, and it is not seamless or easy to try and just have one little flash widget which can communicate with the rest of the non-flash page
What kind of experience, education, and qualifications would you look for in a potential one-wayer?
You are giving them a lot of credit, to assume the had such a layer.
Quote from the About page where they claim to be exclusively about tech/IT, or STFU:
http://slashdot.org/faq/slashmeta.shtml
This is the truth. There's lots of things I would happily pay for, if it weren't for the fact that they're tied to some horrendous system.
1) Stop spending money on server based DRM. Stop spending money on anti piracy advocates. Stop spending money on prosecuting pirates.
Now you product is more affordable.
2) Cut that price in half. (Publishers with games on Steam know all about the impact of this. You can get a lot of impulse buys like this.)
You might end up with the same amount of profits in the end with the money saved and increased sales.
Look at sites like emusic. I have spent more money there in a matter of months than I have in 30 years of my life.
I feel ya brother. I use a XPS model P09E at work with a 17" screen and it has a full size numpad, which was one of the reasons I got this laptop.
The only downside is it is missing the "proper" arrangement of the Ins/Home/PgUp/Del... etc. the 6 navigation keys. I use these a whole lot and the fact that most laptop keyboards have them spread all over the place drives me nuts.
Good luck.
What are they referring to here? This seems like a quote pulled out of context and now it makes no sense.
"It's only 40 lines, but every line carried some careful thought. "
No I haven't missed out on 30 years of history. You have intentionally misread what I'm saying just to grasp an opportunity to be a dick to someone you don't know on the internet. WTF is with people and their incapability to have a civilized discussion without insulting people? WTF is wrong with you that you have such a insecurity complex that you have to come here and troll people? If you had 1st grade reading comprehension skills, then you would see that I acknowledged in the first words of my post that "McCain might be right". I'm only citing a previous example of similar shortsightedness as a caution. McCain's statement is narrowly based on current enemy's capabilities, which is not something that will remain static. Who our enemies are and what their capabilities are can both change. I'm not arguing for or against the F-22. I would be all for well thought out elimination of excessive military expenditures. I simply think trying to justify eliminating it based on the fact that right at this moment we are fighting enemies where it isn't needed, is pretty short sighted. There are potential enemies out there with much more advanced air capabilities than what we are currently fighting, and if someone like McCain was going to make a case against developing fighter craft then the future scenarios involving those enemies should be considered. Along the lines of what McCain is saying, based on our current enemies, there probably isn't a great need to build a bunch of any advanced fighter, rather simply refine/test for now, and should an enemy come to light where they are needed, then ramp up production. I am less receptive to an argument that seems to say they are not and never will be needed.
I am in favor of careful reduction in military expenditures (and for those "OMG you want to rob the men who defend our country" hyper-patriots... no, that's not what I want. There's a huge amount of spending that could be reduced and instead flow into pathways that would produce jobs so that when soldiers finish their duty with the military, they can come home and be able to find a job instead of facing high unemployment rates. The hyper-patriots can't be bothered to think that far ahead about the well being of soldiers. The same way the hyper-patriots accused those who were opposed to the Iraq war as being anti-American soldier-haters, and the hyper-patriots were the ones who were ready to rush those soldiers off into harms way and then did an about face and said we needed to bring them home when they realized the consequences of war and the fact that Iraq was not the source of terrorist attacks on America. All they really wanted, which many of them stated openly without shame, is that we needed to go over there and indiscriminately kill 3,000 Muslims.).
As far as decades of supremacy, I don't think citing military expenditures is a legitimate measure of supremacy anyhow, as it is probably a diminishing return. I would bet that the relationship between $ expended and effective military capability is logarithmic. By that same logarithmic relationship, probably a large amount of our expenditures could be eliminated without significantly reducing our military power. I've worked for contractors, where at the end of the year they are basically scrambling to come up with proposals of how to burn up the money that commanders have left to spend, because they want to ensure that there budgets are not reduced based on the previous year's reduced spending.
Was writing this post that much easier then trying to use Google? Fucking troll.
Regardless of what the Mustangs intended role was, they did have to engage in dogfights with the MiG. The only advantage the Mustang had was a sharper turning, which was used to turn into the MiG for head on passes.