... I can't see how they can justify their existence.
Do you mean legally? Or from a user perspective? The answer to the former is they can't, and the answer to the latter is because nobody else provides the functionality they do.
As I understand it, the difference between a cartridge and something like a USB drive is one of level of integration. In the case of a cartrige, the logic in the cartridge is basically directly interfaced with the system hardware, and becomes part of the execution path directly. With a USB drive, there are layers of obfuscation separating the data on the drive from the computer (USB drivers, the filesystem, the OS, etc.) It's probably a subjective line to draw, but in the case of cartridges vs. USB drives it's pretty clear.
That's the great thing about styling... it's subjective. So although you are correct, someone could tell you that you're wrong, and they'd be correct as well.
Sadly, this is not what happens in the real world. Software updates are often tied to other deadlines which are "set in stone," or at least enough so that no amount of complaining from the people doing the software will change them. What should result is a negotiated (perhaps reduced) set of functionality that might be decided literally at the last second, but that's OK, because it's agreed upon. What usually results instead is "buggy" software because these types of negotiations always take time and when they happen at the "last second" there is almost always someone left out of the loop.
As I understand, Spaceship 2 didn't use the same technology, and the mechanism of actuation that supposedly caused the crash was initiated by a human, so it wasn't an accidental deployment as far as the craft's systems are concerned.
To make a somewhat haphazard analogy, you're saying that we shouldn't have ABS on vehicles, because there was an instance of someone crashing their car while applying the throttle pedal.
This is generally correct, although Boeing is moving more towards the Airbus model than previously, with automation taking a more prominent role on 787 and future airplane designs.
Slashdot Mirror
... I can't see how they can justify their existence.
Do you mean legally? Or from a user perspective? The answer to the former is they can't, and the answer to the latter is because nobody else provides the functionality they do.
That's awesome. What additional equipment do you need to do that?
Wiill it be on Wii?
Almost made 1st. Keep trying!
This is awesome... but more importantly, can they find a way to un-break a yolk?!
you must be new here.
As I understand it, the difference between a cartridge and something like a USB drive is one of level of integration. In the case of a cartrige, the logic in the cartridge is basically directly interfaced with the system hardware, and becomes part of the execution path directly. With a USB drive, there are layers of obfuscation separating the data on the drive from the computer (USB drivers, the filesystem, the OS, etc.) It's probably a subjective line to draw, but in the case of cartridges vs. USB drives it's pretty clear.
Aren't they running Frodo?
HIdden communicaTions doN't reallY take that muCh efforT tO create. Many cOuld be cReated in Relatively Overt Ways.
I am not a security expert, but what non-nefarious purpose does this product serve?
That's the great thing about styling... it's subjective. So although you are correct, someone could tell you that you're wrong, and they'd be correct as well.
Thank you, that made my day...
Thank you.
That stuff isn't always fact-checked or verified. What you get with /. is the second-to-none integrity of the information that's provided.
...but I insist you reactivate the 00s!
From a user's point of view, "hot" probably means "hot to the touch" and not "CPU die temp is higher." I don't want to rest my hands on my heatsink.
[...] your daughter [...] one big piece of suckage" and [...] good stuff [...]
Hey now... there's no need to start hurling insults around!
Sadly, this is not what happens in the real world. Software updates are often tied to other deadlines which are "set in stone," or at least enough so that no amount of complaining from the people doing the software will change them. What should result is a negotiated (perhaps reduced) set of functionality that might be decided literally at the last second, but that's OK, because it's agreed upon. What usually results instead is "buggy" software because these types of negotiations always take time and when they happen at the "last second" there is almost always someone left out of the loop.
This is what happens in my industry, at least.
Fuck yeah!
Surely you must be joking.
As I understand, Spaceship 2 didn't use the same technology, and the mechanism of actuation that supposedly caused the crash was initiated by a human, so it wasn't an accidental deployment as far as the craft's systems are concerned.
To make a somewhat haphazard analogy, you're saying that we shouldn't have ABS on vehicles, because there was an instance of someone crashing their car while applying the throttle pedal.
Feel free to keep playing CS 1.6, it's a good game too.
Good idea; I would gladly wipe my ass with Jar Jar Binks' face.
Star Wars the FLAME THROWER!
This is generally correct, although Boeing is moving more towards the Airbus model than previously, with automation taking a more prominent role on 787 and future airplane designs.
Hehe, thanks for the good laugh.