That's the "trying to bring democracy" where a few tens of thousands of innocent deaths are a price well worth paying for a free society with a good human rights record, isn't it?
Tens of thousands is the absolute *minimum* number of deaths, the number verifiable from multiple good sources. The true number therefore is higher, probably several factors higher.
Course, those deaths are nearly all due to nasty foreign extremists. If it weren't for them everything would be peachy. That Al-Zarqawi fella (who, according to Robert Fisk, has very likely been dead for quite a while - that's why they can't find him). The coalition could have never foreseen these events, I mean it's not like Britain had any experience of Iraq (like, say, back in the 1920s and 1930s when the recently minted artificial state, protectorate of the British, suffered a series of uprisings by Kurds and Shias against the installed puppet king. Indeed, Iraq has *never* had a stable and functioning Government other than the Baathists and Saddam.).
History, boring old dusty books about events that will *never* be relevant again - who needs it!
The authorities aren't going to go around arresting everyone,
Tell that to the octagenerian who was detained under the previous Act for heckling at the recent Labour party conference. Or the woman in Scotland detained for several hours for *walking* down a cycle path.
it would bring many lawsuits
Don't think so, the whole point is to make it *legal*.;)
so theoretically, government officials reflect the will of the people in policy making.... From what i've seen, the British people (and western Europeans in general) don't mind giving the government inordinate control over their lives.
Indeed, and according to polls apparently the majority of the British public think locking people up for 90 days without charge (first 7 days without judicial intervention too) *is* a good idea. They're terrorists after all, right? Never mind 90 days, throw away the key!
Then either he is confused, or it's a deliberate oversimplification. The former is impossible obviously;), however the latter is a trap to the uninformed reader.
He never mentions hard-links at all, with which the namespace remains quite hierarchical and cycle-free. Symbolic links suck not because of the multiple-name thing, but because they're an implementation hack that both can turn the namespace into spaghetti and produce inconsistent results across applications due to how exposed their guts are to applications.
Plan9 has lots of interesting ideas here, obviously.
Symbolic links make the Unix file system non-hierarchical, resulting in multiple valid path names for a given file.
You're confused. Files in Unix filesystems have no hierarchy, with or without symbolic links. Files are quite independent of file names. Multiple directories may contain entries for the same file, the names need not even be the same. The same directory may reference the same file with multiple names. Note for examples that renaming a file changes the modification time of the/directory/, but not of the file.
Symbolic links are a bit of a hack though, yes. But mostly because they must expose the limitations of "files are not the same as filenames" - not because they allow multiple paths to the same file.
And the EU *does* fund some CERN projects btw. I'm well aware the Confederatio Helvetia are not in the EU, CERN though is founded and funded by mostly core EU countries, CERN just happens to predate the EU. The Swiss might not be an EU country, but they do participate in pan-European organisations and they can't get away from fact all their borders are with EU members;).
And the web was created by an Englishman paid for by EU grants. So we own the web and you'll have to give it back. Also, we own Boolean logic, if we take that back then the USA has to go back to early-19th century technology - so you'd better be nice or your internet will just disappear altogether.
BTW, the Arabs "own" enough of math to send us all back to dark ages - we'd better be nice to them from now on I think.
It comes down to either (base + offset++) or base++. Whether it's an array or pointer is just not relevant. Further, many CPUs natively support (base + offset) addressing, so there's minimal cost to that extra addition. Finally, I challenge you to be able to even measure the cost of that extra addition on any code that does anything useful on any real-world CPU (embedded or not).
That said: I never saw an AMD commercial in my whole life. Do they exist?
They seem to focus on sports sponsorship deals and advertising at sports events. They used to have ads at a lot of football matches, British premiership particularly and some international matches. They also used to sponsor Liverpool FC. Additionally, they sponsor both Ferrari in F1 and Ducati in MotoGP (though, the logo is barely noticeable on the Ducati motoGP bike). They've also had hoardings at F1 races. Also, they apparently sponsor (or did) some rugby club.
Well, if you choose to have your array be larger than one hi-word segment (or straddle multiple segments), then the array index method will *also* have to use two adds (array + index *is* a pointer plus index in C). If not, you can just use a 16bit offset - one add. Same difference.
Using pointer arithmetic (32-bit) is slower than using an index register (16-bit) as the array index.
On this arch of yours the pointer arithmetic case will clearly have to use a 16bit offset variable on its pointer (16bit architecture). Same difference.
lower likelihood of programming errors on the array option..... IMHO there is no place for pointer arithmetic in modern software. If someone working for me wrote something like the second option, I would ask them to rewrite it.
You realise that pointer arithmetic and array indices are the same thing, don't you? Ie given:
int b[100]; int i;
The following are equivalent:
b[i++]
*(b + i++)
Arrays *are*/nearly/ equivalent to pointers, indeed an array variable without a subscript degrades to a pointer. Further, note in both cases above i may or may not be in-bounds for the array, the array notation does not help check the bounds at all, and the programmer will have to go to same trouble to check bounds properly regardless.
It sounds to me btw like you're not qualified to decide what place pointer arithmetic have in modern software.
Check out the UTStarcom F1000. Also, Nokia phones are starting to gain WiFi support, eg the N91, and they plan on making VoIP a common thing in their phones apparently. Motorola might also have a GSM+VoWiFi phone somewhere.
As long as his competitors aren't making changes the Nessus code, they don't have to release anything - just include the appropriate license documentation and maybe a ref back to the Nessus website.
Your understanding of the GPL, as demonstrated above, is such that you really should refrain in future from giving answers about what the GPL does and does not require.
His Nessus distributing competitors *would* have to supply sources to customers they distribute to, regardless of whether they do or do not change the code. You can not discharge the obligations of the GPL to provide source by simply giving a "ref back to the... website" if you distribute commercially, rather you must supply the source with the product or provide an offer that/you/ (and no-one else) will provide the source to any 3rd party (valid for 3 years).
I'm always somewhat suspicious of arguments that start with "I don't support terrorism, but...". But as you continue: This is not a legitimate way to deal with any grievances, real or imagined. I'm sure there are situations where violent action can be justified - some of the starkest examples are the assassination attempt on Hitler, the French resistance, Apartheid South Africa - but a society with even barely democratic means that's clearly not the case.
Well, note that others tried to address these grievances, which the provisional IRA tried to "solve" with terrorism, by democratic means. Ie the SDLP, and (iirc) the now (nearly?) defunct Alliance party.
Your argument about countries with functioning democracy, well you have to understand some of the history of Ireland in order to understand why some felt it justified to ignore the democratic path. Namely, that Irish nationalists tried for a *long* time to further Irish interests through democratic means (the most famous leader being Parnell probably). Yet they never achieved much other than some reforms and vague promises of Home Rule, which were invariably never kept. The Northern Unionists, despite being a small minority compared to the main Irish Parliamentary party, often had undue influence as the Conservatives were very sympathetic towards them (Sir Randolph Churchill loved them iirc, as did his more famous son). The latter at least once held government on a tiny majority only because of the support of the few Unionist MPs (the "Orange Card"). They never achieved Home Rule for Ireland. So nothing much had ever been achieved until Sinn Fein (the old original Sinn Feinn - not/exactly/ the same thing as the current Sinn Feinn, though they can trace their origins directly back to it) came along on a platform of non-participation in Westminster democracy and swept the IPP away.
The IPP tried to get Home Rule for over 40 years, and various other Home Rule parliamentarians before them for *many* years before, and failed. Sinn Feinn took nearly all southern seats in 1918, due to the sea-change in public opinion effected by the British governments' handling of the 1916 Easter Rising in Dublin. By 1921 Michael Collins (who had been branded a "terrorist" by the British) and his delegation were in London to meet with Lloyd George, Winston Churchill and others in order to negotiate the Anglo-Irish Treaty of London to establish the Irish Free State. In just 3 years this civil disobedience and militancy achieved more than scores of years of Irish parliamentary representation ever did.
It's on that basis that many distrusted what could be achieved through democracy in Westminster. Further, with the Irish Free State (and later the Republic), Northern Irish representation in Westminster was dominated by Unionists (who still had their "Orange Card" to an extent by way of the conservative party), and the modern Northern Irish Sinn Feinn of course rejected participation in Westminster. Leaving just a few parties such as the SDLP and a very few other moderates to try affect things there.
Google for words like "Redmond" "Parnell" "Home Rule" "Irish Parliamentarian Party" "Arthur Griffith" "Sinn Feinn".
it seems clear that the majority of the population in NI would benefit more from a cessation of sectarian activity than either side suceeding.
Oh absolutely. There seems to have been great progress to that goal in the last decade thankfully.
No, I don't think I am. If there's a shootout between criminals and the police, and an innocent bystander gets killed, do you blame the police or the criminals?
What if the police are criminals (or at least, collude with some)? And/or act directly in representation of a majority of society which oppress a (significa
Even if that does violate the DMCA, only certain people would have standing to sue about it...mostly Sony. Anyone else getting a piece of the profits would,
As I understand the DMCA, violating the no-circumvention clauses are a *criminal* offense if done "willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage". Seems to me that:
a) Sony are getting a commercial advantage by placating users who complain about the horrid DRM schemes they want to us by providing them with circumvention information.
b) There is no protection from criminal liability simply cause it's own your copyrighted work (the anti-circumvention knowledge they give out could be used on their poor competitors' products - won't someone think of the poor starving record exec^W^Wartists!).
Hence:
Sony should have the full weight of the DMCA applied against them.
Re:then why was the black box tampered with/switch
on
Airbus A380 Under Fire
·
· Score: 1
Even if the FDR *was* tampered with to remove 3s to make the pilot look more culpable, it doesn't matter - he had already made lots of mistakes.
According to the accident report, yes there was, and it was a very basic piloting error:
The problem with the altimeter was, again, due to pilot error. Barometric altimeters derive altitude by measuring air pressure (obviously;) ), however this means they are highly susceptible to variance, eg due to weather (as all pilots are well aware of). They must be carefully calibrated at the beginning of each flight, and sometimes recalibrated during flight. Further, the barometric altimeter measures altitude from sea-level (ASL), not from the ground (descending to X thousand feet ASL can be fatal if the ground is higher than that;) ). The pilot got this wrong and miscalibrated the barometric altimeter so it was off by 70 feet or so.
However, that shouldn't have mattered, as all half-modern airliners have highly accurate radio-altimeters (which measure/relative/ altitude using radio ranging - bouncing radio signal off the ground and measuring the delay, RADAR but without the Direction). The pilot though for some unknown reason decided not to rely on the highly-accurate radio altimeter, but flew by the barometric altitude instead. He also decided to ignore the audio ground-proximity warning which was triggered by the radio-altimeter, which should have woken him up to the miscalibration of the baro-altimeter, deciding instead the radio-altimeter must have been wrong.
So yes, altimeter problem, again the pilot's fault.
You fail to mention that the cockpit also has secondary gas masks with standalone gas bottles, should the main supply fail.
Yes, there is redundancy obviously:). The ones I've seen though have a toggle switch to select between different supplies. You don't have to change your mask to change between supplies. (They presumably carry spare masks just in case).
Ground avoidance radar is a military term for it. If it goes off at 10,000ft, chances are it's malfunctioning, or you're flying over a mountain range. I'd like to think a few people were awake before it actually sounded at 2,000ft ASL.
The radio altimeter does not show ASL, it shows relative altitude. The barometric altimeter shows ASL. It doesn't "sound", it functions all the time. FWIW, the "Pull up!" warning tends to be/really/ low, much lower than 2k ft relative altitude (depends on whether the avionics have ways of knowing whether or not the aircraft is in landing configuration or not I guess).
Of course I know about ILS. And great, if the plane is actually within range of an airport, it might even pick up an ILS beacon. While it's in the middle of the atlantic though, those signals tend to get a bit weak. Have a read up on DGPS. It's where the fun is at these days.
That's nice but you specifically mentioned airports having to be equipped with "differential GPS", nothing to do with mid-atlantic. Even mid-atlantic you can navigate auto-matically across without GPS, INS has been standard equipment on long-haul aircraft for decades, accurate to within about 10km across the atlantic. But again, your claim was that we "are a long way off" with aircraft landing themselves, and that's quite wrong, it's been possible for a *long* time, and is a mandatory capability for Cat-III (there's some wiggle room here in the details though). There's no GPS involved at all, good old 1960s technology, when auto-land systems were first demonstrated.
So my 400 odd hours as a commercial pilot (albeit not a passenger airliner pilot) doesn't count?
Well they count, sure. But I don't understand in that how case how you manage to state so many things incorrectly. I'm guessing your experience was limited to flying light/small aircraft commercially? (In which case, why try talk about stuff you don't know about, like auto-land systems?).
Also, don't forget that the cockpit oxygen masks drop down before the main cabin
Cockpit masks don't "drop down" - They're a far more robust (and bulky) construction than the el-cheapo plastic cup+bag things the passenger cabin has, and anyway the space above the pilots tends to be occupied by switch gear and breakers. They're stowed within easy reach of each pilot (to the side, under the seat).
- the cockpit pressure sensor is pegged at a higher level, so that if there is a slow leak, the pilots can don their masks early and do a more controlled descent.
Lower level surely you mean (be it in terms of altitude or barometric pressure). I'll have to ask to find out if this is true, it doesn't ring true at all with me though.
modern aircraft are fitted with ground avoidance radar (what causes the 'whoop-whoop, pull up!' scenario).
The radio altimeter you mean? The one which provides highly accurate relative readings, but only when you're reasonably close to the ground (ie within 1 or 2k feet)? I've never heard it called "ground avoidance radar"...
But, as for the plane landing itself... well, we're still a fair way off with that one. Airports have to be equipeed with differential GPS beacons that allow the plane to determine its position down to about half a metre.
Ok, now I know you're definitely not a pilot but a troll. If you were a pilot you would know that ILS and auto-land systems have existed since at least the 1960's which can guide an aeroplane to within 50ft or so of the runway and that more recent ILS (since the 80s or so? i don't quite know, maybe before then) can bring the aeroplane to 0ft. You'd also know that ILS uses two polarised planes of radio waves - GPS doesn't come into it at all.
You, sir, are a troll. Mods: please undo parent's "interesting" moderation.
(FWIW, my father *really* is a retired commercial aviation pilot).
but the short version is that the pilot tried to throttle up because the plane was too low, and the fly-by-wire system overrode him due to a fault.
If there was a fault anywhere it was in the engine. The pilot claims it didn't spool up fast enough, it may have suffered a stall. The official accident report concluded he simply applied throttle way too later (some conspiracy theories say the FDR was hacked by 3s to make it look like he left it too late). That said, even if that claim of the captain's was true he still furked in several other ways, which led him to be flying 30ft off a runway, when he had intended to be at 100ft (and he would never have hit those trees then..).
Ie, it was definitely compound pilot error (as is often the case), and possibly a (what should have been) problem with an engine. "Computer overrides pilot and flies into trees!" is catchier though, but simply not true - no matter how many times people repeat it.
Hehe, of course you should be careful. For example, if you need to have web content outside/var/www/html, the solution is not to relax the SELinux protection around httpd, but rather to relabel the web content:
Yep. And I don't think this scales very far (different files that you want/multiple/ people to access).
Yeah. Maybe in the network filesystem case we should just trust the existing layer.
POSIX ACLs would work too, so you'd allow both httpd and AFS daemon users to access it. Far more standard, simple and portable too.
Slashdot Mirror
The whole point of Niagara is to get higher throughput *despite* memory latencies.
That's the "trying to bring democracy" where a few tens of thousands of innocent deaths are a price well worth paying for a free society with a good human rights record, isn't it?
Tens of thousands is the absolute *minimum* number of deaths, the number verifiable from multiple good sources. The true number therefore is higher, probably several factors higher.
Course, those deaths are nearly all due to nasty foreign extremists. If it weren't for them everything would be peachy. That Al-Zarqawi fella (who, according to Robert Fisk, has very likely been dead for quite a while - that's why they can't find him). The coalition could have never foreseen these events, I mean it's not like Britain had any experience of Iraq (like, say, back in the 1920s and 1930s when the recently minted artificial state, protectorate of the British, suffered a series of uprisings by Kurds and Shias against the installed puppet king. Indeed, Iraq has *never* had a stable and functioning Government other than the Baathists and Saddam.).
History, boring old dusty books about events that will *never* be relevant again - who needs it!
--paulj
The authorities aren't going to go around arresting everyone,
;)
... From what i've seen, the British people (and western Europeans in general) don't mind giving the government inordinate control over their lives.
Tell that to the octagenerian who was detained under the previous Act for heckling at the recent Labour party conference. Or the woman in Scotland detained for several hours for *walking* down a cycle path.
it would bring many lawsuits
Don't think so, the whole point is to make it *legal*.
so theoretically, government officials reflect the will of the people in policy making.
Indeed, and according to polls apparently the majority of the British public think locking people up for 90 days without charge (first 7 days without judicial intervention too) *is* a good idea. They're terrorists after all, right? Never mind 90 days, throw away the key!
--paulj
legally allowed to hold you with no evidence whatsoever that you've done anything wrong, just because they suspect you might have.
Oh no, even better than that: Just because they suspect you maybe will.
And this a country which is a part of a coalition trying to "bring democracy" to others.
--paulj
Then either he is confused, or it's a deliberate oversimplification. The former is impossible obviously ;), however the latter is a trap to the uninformed reader.
He never mentions hard-links at all, with which the namespace remains quite hierarchical and cycle-free. Symbolic links suck not because of the multiple-name thing, but because they're an implementation hack that both can turn the namespace into spaghetti and produce inconsistent results across applications due to how exposed their guts are to applications.
Plan9 has lots of interesting ideas here, obviously.
Symbolic links make the Unix file system non-hierarchical, resulting in multiple valid path names for a given file.
/directory/, but not of the file.
You're confused. Files in Unix filesystems have no hierarchy, with or without symbolic links. Files are quite independent of file names. Multiple directories may contain entries for the same file, the names need not even be the same. The same directory may reference the same file with multiple names. Note for examples that renaming a file changes the modification time of the
Symbolic links are a bit of a hack though, yes. But mostly because they must expose the limitations of "files are not the same as filenames" - not because they allow multiple paths to the same file.
--paulj
Oops, s/EU/European/ then.
;).
And the EU *does* fund some CERN projects btw. I'm well aware the Confederatio Helvetia are not in the EU, CERN though is founded and funded by mostly core EU countries, CERN just happens to predate the EU. The Swiss might not be an EU country, but they do participate in pan-European organisations and they can't get away from fact all their borders are with EU members
Since there's already a market value for the drug,
You're confused. The maker has a monopoly on the drug thanks to patents hence it can name any price, that's not a market value.
--paulj
Humour is a new concept to you isn't it?
Also, if "the web" is public domain, then isn't the internet too?
And the web was created by an Englishman paid for by EU grants. So we own the web and you'll have to give it back. Also, we own Boolean logic, if we take that back then the USA has to go back to early-19th century technology - so you'd better be nice or your internet will just disappear altogether.
BTW, the Arabs "own" enough of math to send us all back to dark ages - we'd better be nice to them from now on I think.
--paulj
It comes down to either (base + offset++) or base++. Whether it's an array or pointer is just not relevant. Further, many CPUs natively support (base + offset) addressing, so there's minimal cost to that extra addition. Finally, I challenge you to be able to even measure the cost of that extra addition on any code that does anything useful on any real-world CPU (embedded or not).
That said: I never saw an AMD commercial in my whole life. Do they exist?
They seem to focus on sports sponsorship deals and advertising at sports events. They used to have ads at a lot of football matches, British premiership particularly and some international matches. They also used to sponsor Liverpool FC. Additionally, they sponsor both Ferrari in F1 and Ducati in MotoGP (though, the logo is barely noticeable on the Ducati motoGP bike). They've also had hoardings at F1 races. Also, they apparently sponsor (or did) some rugby club.
Well, if you choose to have your array be larger than one hi-word segment (or straddle multiple segments), then the array index method will *also* have to use two adds (array + index *is* a pointer plus index in C). If not, you can just use a 16bit offset - one add. Same difference.
Using pointer arithmetic (32-bit) is slower than using an index register (16-bit) as the array index.
On this arch of yours the pointer arithmetic case will clearly have to use a 16bit offset variable on its pointer (16bit architecture). Same difference.
lower likelihood of programming errors on the array option. .... IMHO there is no place for pointer arithmetic in modern software. If someone working for me wrote something like the second option, I would ask them to rewrite it.
/nearly/ equivalent to pointers, indeed an array variable without a subscript degrades to a pointer. Further, note in both cases above i may or may not be in-bounds for the array, the array notation does not help check the bounds at all, and the programmer will have to go to same trouble to check bounds properly regardless.
You realise that pointer arithmetic and array indices are the same thing, don't you? Ie given:
int b[100];
int i;
The following are equivalent:
b[i++]
*(b + i++)
Arrays *are*
It sounds to me btw like you're not qualified to decide what place pointer arithmetic have in modern software.
Check out the UTStarcom F1000. Also, Nokia phones are starting to gain WiFi support, eg the N91, and they plan on making VoIP a common thing in their phones apparently. Motorola might also have a GSM+VoWiFi phone somewhere.
As long as his competitors aren't making changes the Nessus code, they don't have to release anything - just include the appropriate license documentation and maybe a ref back to the Nessus website.
... website" if you distribute commercially, rather you must supply the source with the product or provide an offer that /you/ (and no-one else) will provide the source to any 3rd party (valid for 3 years).
Your understanding of the GPL, as demonstrated above, is such that you really should refrain in future from giving answers about what the GPL does and does not require.
His Nessus distributing competitors *would* have to supply sources to customers they distribute to, regardless of whether they do or do not change the code. You can not discharge the obligations of the GPL to provide source by simply giving a "ref back to the
I'm always somewhat suspicious of arguments that start with "I don't support terrorism, but...". But as you continue: This is not a legitimate way to deal with any grievances, real or imagined. I'm sure there are situations where violent action can be justified - some of the starkest examples are the assassination attempt on Hitler, the French resistance, Apartheid South Africa - but a society with even barely democratic means that's clearly not the case.
/exactly/ the same thing as the current Sinn Feinn, though they can trace their origins directly back to it) came along on a platform of non-participation in Westminster democracy and swept the IPP away.
Well, note that others tried to address these grievances, which the provisional IRA tried to "solve" with terrorism, by democratic means. Ie the SDLP, and (iirc) the now (nearly?) defunct Alliance party.
Your argument about countries with functioning democracy, well you have to understand some of the history of Ireland in order to understand why some felt it justified to ignore the democratic path. Namely, that Irish nationalists tried for a *long* time to further Irish interests through democratic means (the most famous leader being Parnell probably). Yet they never achieved much other than some reforms and vague promises of Home Rule, which were invariably never kept. The Northern Unionists, despite being a small minority compared to the main Irish Parliamentary party, often had undue influence as the Conservatives were very sympathetic towards them (Sir Randolph Churchill loved them iirc, as did his more famous son). The latter at least once held government on a tiny majority only because of the support of the few Unionist MPs (the "Orange Card"). They never achieved Home Rule for Ireland. So nothing much had ever been achieved until Sinn Fein (the old original Sinn Feinn - not
The IPP tried to get Home Rule for over 40 years, and various other Home Rule parliamentarians before them for *many* years before, and failed. Sinn Feinn took nearly all southern seats in 1918, due to the sea-change in public opinion effected by the British governments' handling of the 1916 Easter Rising in Dublin. By 1921 Michael Collins (who had been branded a "terrorist" by the British) and his delegation were in London to meet with Lloyd George, Winston Churchill and others in order to negotiate the Anglo-Irish Treaty of London to establish the Irish Free State. In just 3 years this civil disobedience and militancy achieved more than scores of years of Irish parliamentary representation ever did.
It's on that basis that many distrusted what could be achieved through democracy in Westminster. Further, with the Irish Free State (and later the Republic), Northern Irish representation in Westminster was dominated by Unionists (who still had their "Orange Card" to an extent by way of the conservative party), and the modern Northern Irish Sinn Feinn of course rejected participation in Westminster. Leaving just a few parties such as the SDLP and a very few other moderates to try affect things there.
That's the historical background anyway, IMLU.
See:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/easterrising/prof iles/po15.shtml
Google for words like "Redmond" "Parnell" "Home Rule" "Irish Parliamentarian Party" "Arthur Griffith" "Sinn Feinn".
it seems clear that the majority of the population in NI would benefit more from a cessation of sectarian activity than either side suceeding.
Oh absolutely. There seems to have been great progress to that goal in the last decade thankfully.
No, I don't think I am. If there's a shootout between criminals and the police, and an innocent bystander gets killed, do you blame the police or the criminals?
What if the police are criminals (or at least, collude with some)? And/or act directly in representation of a majority of society which oppress a (significa
Even if that does violate the DMCA, only certain people would have standing to sue about it...mostly Sony. Anyone else getting a piece of the profits would,
As I understand the DMCA, violating the no-circumvention clauses are a *criminal* offense if done "willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage". Seems to me that:
a) Sony are getting a commercial advantage by placating users who complain about the horrid DRM schemes they want to us by providing them with circumvention information.
b) There is no protection from criminal liability simply cause it's own your copyrighted work (the anti-circumvention knowledge they give out could be used on their poor competitors' products - won't someone think of the poor starving record exec^W^Wartists!).
Hence:
Sony should have the full weight of the DMCA applied against them.
Even if the FDR *was* tampered with to remove 3s to make the pilot look more culpable, it doesn't matter - he had already made lots of mistakes.
According to the accident report, yes there was, and it was a very basic piloting error:
;) ), however this means they are highly susceptible to variance, eg due to weather (as all pilots are well aware of). They must be carefully calibrated at the beginning of each flight, and sometimes recalibrated during flight. Further, the barometric altimeter measures altitude from sea-level (ASL), not from the ground (descending to X thousand feet ASL can be fatal if the ground is higher than that ;) ). The pilot got this wrong and miscalibrated the barometric altimeter so it was off by 70 feet or so.
/relative/ altitude using radio ranging - bouncing radio signal off the ground and measuring the delay, RADAR but without the Direction). The pilot though for some unknown reason decided not to rely on the highly-accurate radio altimeter, but flew by the barometric altitude instead. He also decided to ignore the audio ground-proximity warning which was triggered by the radio-altimeter, which should have woken him up to the miscalibration of the baro-altimeter, deciding instead the radio-altimeter must have been wrong.
The problem with the altimeter was, again, due to pilot error. Barometric altimeters derive altitude by measuring air pressure (obviously
However, that shouldn't have mattered, as all half-modern airliners have highly accurate radio-altimeters (which measure
So yes, altimeter problem, again the pilot's fault.
You fail to mention that the cockpit also has secondary gas masks with standalone gas bottles, should the main supply fail.
:). The ones I've seen though have a toggle switch to select between different supplies. You don't have to change your mask to change between supplies. (They presumably carry spare masks just in case).
/really/ low, much lower than 2k ft relative altitude (depends on whether the avionics have ways of knowing whether or not the aircraft is in landing configuration or not I guess).
Yes, there is redundancy obviously
Ground avoidance radar is a military term for it. If it goes off at 10,000ft, chances are it's malfunctioning, or you're flying over a mountain range. I'd like to think a few people were awake before it actually sounded at 2,000ft ASL.
The radio altimeter does not show ASL, it shows relative altitude. The barometric altimeter shows ASL. It doesn't "sound", it functions all the time. FWIW, the "Pull up!" warning tends to be
Of course I know about ILS. And great, if the plane is actually within range of an airport, it might even pick up an ILS beacon. While it's in the middle of the atlantic though, those signals tend to get a bit weak. Have a read up on DGPS. It's where the fun is at these days.
That's nice but you specifically mentioned airports having to be equipped with "differential GPS", nothing to do with mid-atlantic. Even mid-atlantic you can navigate auto-matically across without GPS, INS has been standard equipment on long-haul aircraft for decades, accurate to within about 10km across the atlantic. But again, your claim was that we "are a long way off" with aircraft landing themselves, and that's quite wrong, it's been possible for a *long* time, and is a mandatory capability for Cat-III (there's some wiggle room here in the details though). There's no GPS involved at all, good old 1960s technology, when auto-land systems were first demonstrated.
So my 400 odd hours as a commercial pilot (albeit not a passenger airliner pilot) doesn't count?
Well they count, sure. But I don't understand in that how case how you manage to state so many things incorrectly. I'm guessing your experience was limited to flying light/small aircraft commercially? (In which case, why try talk about stuff you don't know about, like auto-land systems?).
Also, don't forget that the cockpit oxygen masks drop down before the main cabin
Cockpit masks don't "drop down" - They're a far more robust (and bulky) construction than the el-cheapo plastic cup+bag things the passenger cabin has, and anyway the space above the pilots tends to be occupied by switch gear and breakers. They're stowed within easy reach of each pilot (to the side, under the seat).
- the cockpit pressure sensor is pegged at a higher level, so that if there is a slow leak, the pilots can don their masks early and do a more controlled descent.
Lower level surely you mean (be it in terms of altitude or barometric pressure). I'll have to ask to find out if this is true, it doesn't ring true at all with me though.
modern aircraft are fitted with ground avoidance radar (what causes the 'whoop-whoop, pull up!' scenario).
The radio altimeter you mean? The one which provides highly accurate relative readings, but only when you're reasonably close to the ground (ie within 1 or 2k feet)? I've never heard it called "ground avoidance radar"...
But, as for the plane landing itself... well, we're still a fair way off with that one. Airports have to be equipeed with differential GPS beacons that allow the plane to determine its position down to about half a metre.
Ok, now I know you're definitely not a pilot but a troll. If you were a pilot you would know that ILS and auto-land systems have existed since at least the 1960's which can guide an aeroplane to within 50ft or so of the runway and that more recent ILS (since the 80s or so? i don't quite know, maybe before then) can bring the aeroplane to 0ft. You'd also know that ILS uses two polarised planes of radio waves - GPS doesn't come into it at all.
You, sir, are a troll. Mods: please undo parent's "interesting" moderation.
(FWIW, my father *really* is a retired commercial aviation pilot).
but the short version is that the pilot tried to throttle up because the plane was too low, and the fly-by-wire system overrode him due to a fault.
If there was a fault anywhere it was in the engine. The pilot claims it didn't spool up fast enough, it may have suffered a stall. The official accident report concluded he simply applied throttle way too later (some conspiracy theories say the FDR was hacked by 3s to make it look like he left it too late). That said, even if that claim of the captain's was true he still furked in several other ways, which led him to be flying 30ft off a runway, when he had intended to be at 100ft (and he would never have hit those trees then..).
Ie, it was definitely compound pilot error (as is often the case), and possibly a (what should have been) problem with an engine. "Computer overrides pilot and flies into trees!" is catchier though, but simply not true - no matter how many times people repeat it.
Hehe, of course you should be careful. For example, if you need to have web content outside /var/www/html, the solution is not to relax the SELinux protection around httpd, but rather to relabel the web content:
/multiple/ people to access).
Yep. And I don't think this scales very far (different files that you want
Yeah. Maybe in the network filesystem case we should just trust the existing layer.
POSIX ACLs would work too, so you'd allow both httpd and AFS daemon users to access it. Far more standard, simple and portable too.
Anyway..