The integrated circuit was invented in 1958. Both Texas Instruments and and Fairchild Semiconductor were working on it, and came up with workable designs at the same time. They were working on it because it was clear to engineers that it was the future. They were sold commerically from 1960 (The SN502 solid circuit flip-flop). This is of course before Kennedy's 1961 'We will go to the moon' speech.
And all together, they cost less than a single shuttle launch. If you look at it that way, and compare the typical success/failure ratio of the individual submissions on a shuttle mission, then it doesn't look so bad.
It's called hedging your bets. An exclusive deal is good for the console vendor, because people might buy the console in order to play the game. It's bad however for the programming house, because they're limiting the sales that they can get with that game. So if they sold only exclusive titles for one console, then they'd be betting the fortunes of the company on that console. By covering two of the leaders, they win no matter which one does best.
Isn't this because his column is syndicated as a humor column? His syndicators are apparently happy to accept the odd column which is serious, but if he strayed outside the bounds of his columns usual style too often, then they'd probably demand their money back.
There is no political correctness to say that America spent a long time establishing itself, with the opening frontier, and because of this, Europe was where the majority of inventions were developed. Obviously this changed over time, but looking at inventions in the late 1800's, Europe definatly contributed the majority.
It shouldn't really make much difference. If there is someone transmitting on a channel, you don't want to use that channel anyway, as you're going to get interfence with your transmittions.
In a commerical setting, "the process" involves the testing, planning, implementation and verification, not just the running of the patch install program. Someone who blindly assumes that he can 'trust a service pack' to work, and not cause any problems is kidding themselves. This is true regardless of the vendor. I'm going to apply a new version of software today, about the 10th version of this software* I've applied in the last year. I've never had any problems with this vendor, but you can be damm sure that I'll be doing the testing through verification.
* = These versions are mainly to add new features, not bugfixes, so this is a good vendor.
Most Americans don't seem to realize that there really isn't much difference between the UK and the US in the ability to be monitored. The difference is that the majority of monitoring in the US is through CCTV in malls, while in the UK, there are a lot less malls, and a lot more on street shopping.
No, de-orbiting is done with the OMS engines, not the main engines. This page has a good image which lets you see them. The three large engines are the mains, the smaller two to the port and starboard of the upper main are the OMS, and on the cowling, you can see the multiple smaller engines of the RCS.
Actually at this phase of landing, it flies like a spacecraft. The air isn't thick enough, and too fast moving for the control surfaces to be effective or safe. So manuvering is done by firing the RCS. These aren't the main engines, but the smaller engines which are all around the nose and tail of the orbiter. This is one reason why it flies under computer control at this phase, as a human pilot wouldn't be able to control the RCS engines fast enough to maintain control.
There is an airlock on the top of the tunnel which connects the orbiter airlock to the spacelab airlock, and therefore the cargo bay being occupied isn't significant. All the other points you raise are true.
No, we never got back to where we were before Challenger. The DOT terminated their involvement in the shuttle program, only completing the missions which were already in planning, and this sucked out a lot of the cash which should have sustained the shuttle program.
According to Victor Keegan, in the UK, Album sales increased by 3%. I recall reading some RIAA stats which showed the same thing. The CD single's sales have collapsed, but the 'real' business is ticking along as before.
Which is why in order to defeat Kaaza, you've got to make it easier & better. Like the poster above said, that means high quality files in the format the people want, then people would use that instead of the existing P2Ps. Anyone who's spent time downloading a file to find it mislabeled, corrupted, or poor quality would.
Emacs is also a lisp interpeter. Any buffer you have open can be executed as lisp code. When you do that, it binds with the GPL'd code which is supplied with Emacs. JordanH has already pointed out that you're wrong about GCC.
Sony have the MEX-HD1, a device which you can put in a CD, and it burns the cd to the internal HD. Sony also have portables such as the MZN-505, which convert mp3's into the minidisc format, or the memorystick walkman, which does the same into the memorystick format. This to me says that Sony electronics has the same basic attitude as Apple - electronic music files sells hardware.
Re:Interesting future indeed..
on
The Future of Java?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I'd be prepared to bet that Mono running.NET will never reach the reliability & security given by Java on Unix/Linux at that same point in time. Microsoft has always had a model of putting software onto the market, then fixing it 5 or 6 revisions down the road. This was acceptable when products were isolated, however in a system where related interactions occur, this means that you never really get a truely stable environment.
Re:Java is NOT in danger, sun is.
on
The Future of Java?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
No it wouldn't. Does Emacs being GPL'd mean that everything you write in Emacs being GPL'd?
If the technique has been known to locksmiths, what makes the author think lockpickers haven't known about it, too?
I'm sure they do. It's obviously possible to make a key if can disemble to lock to see the pins and if there is a master key, then it's going to be the one which isn't the single key.
This technique is only marginally safer (less detectable) than an attack with lockpicking tools.
I'd argue that it's more detectable. You can walk up to a door, and try and pick it. If someone comes, you can quickly walk away. With this attack, you've got to remove and disassemble the lock, which means that if someone walks up, then you're not going to be able to quickly disguise what you've been doing.
Slashdot Mirror
The ATV being built by ESA to restock the ISS can carry 9 tonnes of stuff. That's plenty of supplies.
The integrated circuit was invented in 1958. Both Texas Instruments and and Fairchild Semiconductor were working on it, and came up with workable designs at the same time. They were working on it because it was clear to engineers that it was the future. They were sold commerically from 1960 (The SN502 solid circuit flip-flop). This is of course before Kennedy's 1961 'We will go to the moon' speech.
And all together, they cost less than a single shuttle launch. If you look at it that way, and compare the typical success/failure ratio of the individual submissions on a shuttle mission, then it doesn't look so bad.
The parachue was installed the right way up, but a sealant had leaked onto it, preventing it from deploying.
It's called hedging your bets. An exclusive deal is good for the console vendor, because people might buy the console in order to play the game. It's bad however for the programming house, because they're limiting the sales that they can get with that game. So if they sold only exclusive titles for one console, then they'd be betting the fortunes of the company on that console. By covering two of the leaders, they win no matter which one does best.
Isn't this because his column is syndicated as a humor column? His syndicators are apparently happy to accept the odd column which is serious, but if he strayed outside the bounds of his columns usual style too often, then they'd probably demand their money back.
There is no political correctness to say that America spent a long time establishing itself, with the opening frontier, and because of this, Europe was where the majority of inventions were developed. Obviously this changed over time, but looking at inventions in the late 1800's, Europe definatly contributed the majority.
It shouldn't really make much difference. If there is someone transmitting on a channel, you don't want to use that channel anyway, as you're going to get interfence with your transmittions.
A worm which is spread by SMTP, like the lovebug, could infect exchange servers even though the server is firewalled.
* = These versions are mainly to add new features, not bugfixes, so this is a good vendor.
Most Americans don't seem to realize that there really isn't much difference between the UK and the US in the ability to be monitored. The difference is that the majority of monitoring in the US is through CCTV in malls, while in the UK, there are a lot less malls, and a lot more on street shopping.
No, de-orbiting is done with the OMS engines, not the main engines. This page has a good image which lets you see them. The three large engines are the mains, the smaller two to the port and starboard of the upper main are the OMS, and on the cowling, you can see the multiple smaller engines of the RCS.
Actually at this phase of landing, it flies like a spacecraft. The air isn't thick enough, and too fast moving for the control surfaces to be effective or safe. So manuvering is done by firing the RCS. These aren't the main engines, but the smaller engines which are all around the nose and tail of the orbiter. This is one reason why it flies under computer control at this phase, as a human pilot wouldn't be able to control the RCS engines fast enough to maintain control.
There is an airlock on the top of the tunnel which connects the orbiter airlock to the spacelab airlock, and therefore the cargo bay being occupied isn't significant. All the other points you raise are true.
No, we never got back to where we were before Challenger. The DOT terminated their involvement in the shuttle program, only completing the missions which were already in planning, and this sucked out a lot of the cash which should have sustained the shuttle program.
On the other hand, long strings of digits have a reduced number of morphs, which will make the recognition easier.
Prices have gone up by 1.53 since 1977, so the $2000 would be $3076 in 2002 dollars.
According to Victor Keegan, in the UK, Album sales increased by 3%. I recall reading some RIAA stats which showed the same thing. The CD single's sales have collapsed, but the 'real' business is ticking along as before.
Which is why in order to defeat Kaaza, you've got to make it easier & better. Like the poster above said, that means high quality files in the format the people want, then people would use that instead of the existing P2Ps. Anyone who's spent time downloading a file to find it mislabeled, corrupted, or poor quality would.
I've just realized I didn't write what I meant to write here. I meant that .NET running on Microsoft, not Mono.
Emacs is also a lisp interpeter. Any buffer you have open can be executed as lisp code. When you do that, it binds with the GPL'd code which is supplied with Emacs. JordanH has already pointed out that you're wrong about GCC.
Sony have the MEX-HD1, a device which you can put in a CD, and it burns the cd to the internal HD. Sony also have portables such as the MZN-505, which convert mp3's into the minidisc format, or the memorystick walkman, which does the same into the memorystick format. This to me says that Sony electronics has the same basic attitude as Apple - electronic music files sells hardware.
I'd be prepared to bet that Mono running .NET will never reach the reliability & security given by Java on Unix/Linux at that same point in time. Microsoft has always had a model of putting software onto the market, then fixing it 5 or 6 revisions down the road. This was acceptable when products were isolated, however in a system where related interactions occur, this means that you never really get a truely stable environment.
No it wouldn't. Does Emacs being GPL'd mean that everything you write in Emacs being GPL'd?
I'm sure they do. It's obviously possible to make a key if can disemble to lock to see the pins and if there is a master key, then it's going to be the one which isn't the single key. This technique is only marginally safer (less detectable) than an attack with lockpicking tools.
I'd argue that it's more detectable. You can walk up to a door, and try and pick it. If someone comes, you can quickly walk away. With this attack, you've got to remove and disassemble the lock, which means that if someone walks up, then you're not going to be able to quickly disguise what you've been doing.