the extra loss is likely do to the formatting of the drive,and I'm not sure how it's actually structured but it's also likely that it contains more then one volume. that loss that your seeing is probably due to part of the drive being reserved for the iPod software/config/and Ipod file management
The extra loss is.1 gig. That's why I get 18.5 gig instead of 18.6 gig like it says in the article. RTFA!
According to the lawsuit, computer hard drive capacities are described in promotional material in decimal notation, but the computer reads and writes data to the drives in a binary system.
The result is that a hard drive described as being 20 gigabytes would actually have only 18.6 gigabytes of readable capacity, the lawsuit said.
The real reason PC beats Console for this kind of thing is the keyboard alone
When FFXI comes out, I'm getting it (on da HD) and the PS2 network adaptor, and I'll plug my keyboard (on wich I'm typing right now) straigth in the USB port next to the controller port on my PS2.
Without a keyboard for chat purposes, you end up just doing canned pre-translated phrases and emoticons.
I doubt anyone who learned English as a second language would be able to read the scrambled words as easily as most Slashdotters.
I can.
And I learned english as a second.5 language, learned some spanish before english (but never mastered that one). However, I have a way with languages...and I use english a lot.
Remember, the Pentagon is a miliatary structure and was MEANT to withstand attack. It's a VERY solid structure. I would dare say it's built like a fort.
a) the pentagon was a much more dense building than the wtc. The wtc was a very lightweight construction on the interior and it makes sense that a plane hitting it would go most of the way through and some parts would come out the other side.
Indeed, you can even see debris flying out of the WTC when the second plane hits.
b) that first image you posted that is being used as evidence of there not being a big hole from the initial impact, is a picture of the area to the side of the impact, not the impact site itself. Compare some of the structual features in that pic to a pic of the whole side of the building.
c) The pentagon was made of steel and concrete. The WTC was made of a steel outer shell and much lighter materials on the inside. The planes that hit the WTC only had to go through the outer wall then it was fairly clear sailing. The pentagon on the other hand, was much denser construction and a plane blowing through it would have been ripped to shreds. There wouldn't be any large pieces left, and what pieces there were would be buried in the rubble of the building, not laying out on the lawn for everyone to take pictures of.
OK, I did a little computation. The height of the pentagon is ~77 feet From these pictures under extra info at cnn. The first three explosion shots at a guessed 30/sec frame rate show an explosion expanding at one building height every 2 frames, or 77*30/2= ~1155 ft/sec, not unreasonable for a fuel air explosion. Now, the low end air speed of an approaching plane is 250 and the high end is 600 mph that means that the plane was moving at ~1000 ft/sec at the fastest and should have been viewable for three or four frames. So were are the images of the impacting plane?
Further the explosion originates at the outer edge of the building and shows no forward momentum in the debris expansion as would be expected of a frontal impact.
In other words: "I do not know the precise location where it crashed (how could I?). I know it is somewhere around the east coast of the U.S.A. because that is where all the action was going on, and I assume that it crashed in water because that would explain why no one found any piece of it."
You imply that the US military shot the plane down. If this is true, there would have been a report of a plane crash (ala the other plane (90??) that the passengers revolted on.)
Considering the media frenzy at that time, I would assume it would have been covered in the media if it happened.
The media did report it. They said it crashed on the pentagon. </obvious>
I don't recall hearing of any such thing.
You haven't heard the story about the plane hitting the pentagon? Where have you been the last 2 years??? </sarcasm>
I don't recall hearing of any such thing. Therefore, it did not happen.
Step right up folks! Come see the Amazing All Knowing Anonymous Coward! Only 25 cents ladies and gents! If he hasn't heard of it, it doesn't exist! Step right up! </carnie>
Actually, dropping marbles (carefully) from multi-story buildings is an amusing experiment.
You tried it? Did you try with different sizes of marbles? Because I know the small ones are pretty hard to break, but when I was a kid I had some large ones break in my marble bag...
Look at the width of that hole (that wasn't the original damage, the original damage was much smaller, this is after the collapse during the fire). You do know that planes have wings right? Where did the wings hit? Where did the fireball go?
I was more concerned about the whole "how do you hit the front of a 2 stories building with a plane and nothing else?"
You miss. You aim the plane down at the outer ring of the pentagon and accidentally undershoot by a few feet. The plane hits low on the wall of the building and most of the energy goes into the ground instead of the structure.
Nope, not what happened. You can clearly see that the area in front, around, and behind the small portion that was hit did not suffer from giant-fireball damage nor from kinetic heavy-plane damage.
Bonus question: Why bother faking a plane strike with a truck bomb instead of just hijacking another plane?
You're mistaken on who did the plane-faking. Hint: It wasn't Oussama or his murdering buddies.
Now, find footage of the second plane hitting the second tower. Look (frame by frame as it hits) at the huge plane-shaped hole it punched in the building, then at the gigantic fireball it set off.
Look at your picture of the pentagon again. If that was a plane that hit, it had a pilot with incredibly good aim, no wings, no fuel, and no fuselage to be left behind. I can't find a link to one, but theyre are pictures of jet engines and chunks of airplanes around the WTC from 9/11. Yet, the pentagon's plane mysteriously disintegrated?
If the pentagon was hit with a truck bomb, and not a plane, then where the hell did the plane go?
On 9/11, after it becaime clear that the united states was under attack by people using commercial airplanes as bombs, the news made an obvious announcement: A general of the airforce ordered any plane not responding to the order to get the hell away would be shot down. Later in the day, a spokesperson from the whitehouse said that that general did not have the authority to issue such an order, and that under no circumstances would the US military ever shoot US civilians.
where the hell did the plane go?
I don't know. But I know why they needed a cover story.
Its so you won't ask that question: They premptively gave you an awnser, before you ever thought to ask the question. And its not like they never lied to you before, or since. :(
Well, I've got an answer for the "why did they pour sand on the lawn?" paranoid bit.
Heavy rescue equipment. You don't want them to turn the lawn into a friggin mud pit.
Hmmm... That's interesting.
I never shared that guy's interest in the sand though, I was more concerned about the whole "how do you hit the front of a 2 stories building with a plane and nothing else?" bit, the "How come the damage is limited to a hole the size of my living room followed by a small fire when a plane is freaking huge and full of fuel?" bit, and so forth.
But to have a rational, practical explanation for the sand...maybe you should email him : )
9/11, 3-4 stolen lear jets evading 1-2 F-16s, ground hugging L-39s, heat seaking shoulder mounted SAMs aimed at elevators climbing the cable, Sharks with friggin laser beams (mounted in van filled with salt water)... ?
What in the hell are you alking about? There weren't any planes in restricted airspace on 9/11/01.
Unless you actually believe the blatant department of defense lies about what happened to them on 9/11?
Slashdot Mirror
MAN in LAB COAT: Throw the switch!
IGOR throws the switch.
MAN in LAB COAT: Its alive...ALIIIIIIIVE!!!!!!!!
What science needs to create now is a pill [...] without any side effects.
Its on the agenda. Right after that perpetual motion device and the time machine...
no it's 20 GB. maybe only 18.6 GiB, but it doesn't say 20GiB anywhere
Not just anywhere, it says so right onApple's own web page!
Also, it says so righ on the backof the iPod!
The extra loss is
That's why I get 18.5 gig instead of 18.6 gig like it says in the article. RTFA!
From the article:
E. coli easily stick to gummy bears
EVERYTHING sticks to gummy bears.
Stupid journalists, scientists.
Look, I have a 20gig iPod. Actual capacity? 18,5 gig.
That's not right.
What if you went to buy a liter of milk and only got 900 mililiters. 10 times in a row and you lost one whole liter!
The real reason PC beats Console for this kind of thing is the keyboard alone
When FFXI comes out, I'm getting it (on da HD) and the PS2 network adaptor, and I'll plug my keyboard (on wich I'm typing right now) straigth in the USB port next to the controller port on my PS2.
Without a keyboard for chat purposes, you end up just doing canned pre-translated phrases and emoticons.
lol! : )
Very cool saber fight, but:
Only siths have red sabers.
I doubt anyone who learned English as a second language would be able to read the scrambled words as easily as most Slashdotters.
I can.
And I learned english as a second.5 language, learned some spanish before english (but never mastered that one). However, I have a way with languages...and I use english a lot.
(And to awnser your question: French)
Remember, the Pentagon is a miliatary structure and was MEANT to withstand attack. It's a VERY solid structure. I would dare say it's built like a fort.
Good point.
a) the pentagon was a much more dense building than the wtc. The wtc was a very lightweight construction on the interior and it makes sense that a plane hitting it would go most of the way through and some parts would come out the other side.
Indeed, you can even see debris flying out of the WTC when the second plane hits.
b) that first image you posted that is being used as evidence of there not being a big hole from the initial impact, is a picture of the area to the side of the impact, not the impact site itself. Compare some of the structual features in that pic to a pic of the whole side of the building.
Here's a better pic of the scene.
c) The pentagon was made of steel and concrete. The WTC was made of a steel outer shell and much lighter materials on the inside. The planes that hit the WTC only had to go through the outer wall then it was fairly clear sailing. The pentagon on the other hand, was much denser construction and a plane blowing through it would have been ripped to shreds. There wouldn't be any large pieces left, and what pieces there were would be buried in the rubble of the building, not laying out on the lawn for everyone to take pictures of.
Look at the above picture.
Where did the wings hit?
OK, I did a little computation.
The height of the pentagon is ~77 feet
From these pictures under extra info at cnn. The first three explosion shots at a guessed 30/sec frame rate show an explosion expanding at one building height every 2 frames, or 77*30/2= ~1155 ft/sec, not unreasonable for a fuel air explosion. Now, the low end air speed of an approaching plane is 250 and the high end is 600 mph that means that the plane was moving at ~1000 ft/sec at the fastest and should have been viewable for three or four frames. So were are the images of the impacting plane?
Further the explosion originates at the outer edge of the building and shows no forward momentum in the debris expansion as would be expected of a frontal impact.
Your point being?
where the hell did the plane go?
I don't know.
In other words, "Oops, I forgot about that..."
Er, no.
In other words: "I do not know the precise location where it crashed (how could I?). I know it is somewhere around the east coast of the U.S.A. because that is where all the action was going on, and I assume that it crashed in water because that would explain why no one found any piece of it."
You imply that the US military shot the plane down. If this is true, there would have been a report of a plane crash (ala the other plane (90??) that the passengers revolted on.)
Considering the media frenzy at that time, I would assume it would have been covered in the media if it happened.
The media did report it. They said it crashed on the pentagon.
</obvious>
I don't recall hearing of any such thing.
You haven't heard the story about the plane hitting the pentagon? Where have you been the last 2 years???
</sarcasm>
I don't recall hearing of any such thing.
Therefore, it did not happen.
Step right up folks! Come see the Amazing All Knowing Anonymous Coward! Only 25 cents ladies and gents! If he hasn't heard of it, it doesn't exist! Step right up!
</carnie>
Actually, dropping marbles (carefully) from multi-story buildings is an amusing experiment.
You tried it?
Did you try with different sizes of marbles? Because I know the small ones are pretty hard to break, but when I was a kid I had some large ones break in my marble bag...
At the pentagon, any remnants of the plane would be right there.
Right WHERE?
Look at the width of that hole (that wasn't the original damage, the original damage was much smaller, this is after the collapse during the fire). You do know that planes have wings right? Where did the wings hit? Where did the fireball go?
Look at footage of the second plane hitting the second tower. You can see what happens when a boeing hits a building, and you can see what happens aftewards.
Look at the pictures of the pentagon, you can see, with your own eyes that that isn't what happened.
I'm not telling you to take my word on it here, I'm telling you look for yourself.
I don't recall hearing of any such thing.
Therefore, it did not happen.
I can see why you posted that as AC. Jeez...
You miss. You aim the plane down at the outer ring of the pentagon and accidentally undershoot by a few feet. The plane hits low on the wall of the building and most of the energy goes into the ground instead of the structure.
Nope, not what happened.
You can clearly see that the area in front, around, and behind the small portion that was hit did not suffer from giant-fireball damage nor from kinetic heavy-plane damage.
Bonus question: Why bother faking a plane strike with a truck bomb instead of just hijacking another plane?
You're mistaken on who did the plane-faking.
Hint: It wasn't Oussama or his murdering buddies.
Did you see the whole section that was replaced? They completely replaced an entire section of the building.
Yes, I saw, yes, I know.
The initial dammage was a hole the size of my living room.
The explosion started a fire, the fire spread in the building (its what fire does), and dammaged all the burned area visible in that pretty satellite picture you linked.
Now, find footage of the second plane hitting the second tower. Look (frame by frame as it hits) at the huge plane-shaped hole it punched in the building, then at the gigantic fireball it set off.
Look at your picture of the pentagon again. If that was a plane that hit, it had a pilot with incredibly good aim, no wings, no fuel, and no fuselage to be left behind.
I can't find a link to one, but theyre are pictures of jet engines and chunks of airplanes around the WTC from 9/11. Yet, the pentagon's plane mysteriously disintegrated?
If the pentagon was hit with a truck bomb, and not a plane, then where the hell did the plane go?
:(
On 9/11, after it becaime clear that the united states was under attack by people using commercial airplanes as bombs, the news made an obvious announcement: A general of the airforce ordered any plane not responding to the order to get the hell away would be shot down.
Later in the day, a spokesperson from the whitehouse said that that general did not have the authority to issue such an order, and that under no circumstances would the US military ever shoot US civilians.
where the hell did the plane go?
I don't know.
But I know why they needed a cover story.
Its so you won't ask that question: They premptively gave you an awnser, before you ever thought to ask the question.
And its not like they never lied to you before, or since.
To quote Monty Python: "You're a looney."
Yo, Bub, learn to aim, you replied to the wrond dude here!
the air space around the elevator would be restricted
That was my point...
Remeber, the pentagon was attacked with a car
Well, I've got an answer for the "why did they pour sand on the lawn?" paranoid bit.
Heavy rescue equipment. You don't want them to turn the lawn into a friggin mud pit.
Hmmm...
That's interesting.
I never shared that guy's interest in the sand though, I was more concerned about the whole "how do you hit the front of a 2 stories building with a plane and nothing else?" bit, the "How come the damage is limited to a hole the size of my living room followed by a small fire when a plane is freaking huge and full of fuel?" bit, and so forth.
But to have a rational, practical explanation for the sand...maybe you should email him : )
Same reason if you throw a sheet of paper off a tall building, no one is hurt. You throw a marble instead, and you can split a skull.
;-)
THIS is a job for: Empirical experimentation!
-1 Jailbait
9/11, 3-4 stolen lear jets evading 1-2 F-16s, ground hugging L-39s, heat seaking shoulder mounted SAMs aimed at elevators climbing the cable, Sharks with friggin laser beams (mounted in van filled with salt water) ... ?
What in the hell are you alking about? There weren't any planes in restricted airspace on 9/11/01.
Unless you actually believe the blatant department of defense lies about what happened to them on 9/11?
Remeber, the pentagon was attacked with a car (well, truck, actually) bomb.
That what's the news said on 9/11.
But how will they protect it from, well, planes at altitudes below 100,000 feet?
3 words: Restricted air space.