In 1979, after the Iranian people overthrow the despot whom the Americans supported, the Iranians immediately established a brutal, authoritarian theocracy.
Because the despot whom the Americans supported had previously crushed on all opposition until the gang around Khomeini was the strongest, and such became the obvious leader of the opposition. After the opposition had won the revolution, the strongest party then turned on the others. Not because it had the majority behind them, but because it had violent force.
Other people have noted that with an 85% turnout, common sense suggests this should favor the challenger. that is, angry people are more motivated to turn out. But while perhaps compelling it's not a hard rule. Iceland had a recent election where something like 70% turned out and the incumbent won.
Pardon? Iceland recently had an election, yes. But turnout was 85.1% compared to last election's 83.6% - not a big change (and lower than the turnout in the election before 87.5% were there was no change in government). Yes, the winner was the incumbent - on a technicality, because the coalition only came in power a few weeks before after the previous government coalition, (close) winners of the last election (by 1 seat) had resigned after massive public protests.
So MacOS X users, please disable Java in your web browser.
Others: make sure you have updated Java and still disable it in your web browser: it's a huge attack surface and it suffers from many other security vulnerabilities.
Oh, and to all who pointed out that Sun had patched this months ago - have you updated Java since then?
for various reasons, Java is usually poorly updated:
The Sun Java update mechanism isn't tied to the operating system update system on the Windows platform. Personal users and companies don't update it often, some of them do have processes in place to deal with Microsoft's patch Tuesdays but don't for other software updates.
Many companies are using web applications or Java software that rely on a specific Java version. It may be tedious to update Java because it would break many things. This may be the reason why Apple's Java updates are so infrequent.
Some Linux distributions don't support Sun's JRE (proprietary software) despite making it available. When I asked Ubuntu to fix this vulnerability, they fixed OpenJDK quickly but told me the Sun JRE was not supported (despite being available by default on the latest LTS Ubuntu release).
So why did people write viruses for Windows 64 (and exclusive to Windows 64) when it was still in Beta? For both variants each, IA64 and x86-64, mind you. At a time when the machines able to run those betas counted a few thousands? Marketshare my ass.
Fuck, you are crazy. In 1998, no wait, make that 2003, Windows was like swiss cheese, and Blaster made the Internet almost unbearable not only for Windows users. And you say "Apple is now at the point where Microsoft was in 1998"? I proclaim you Fanboi Numero Uno.
According to the German Google News http://news.google.de/news?pz=1&ned=de&hl=de&q=vom+meteorit+getroffenthere are 5 articles in German about this. One of course by infamous Bild.de - "Space attack on Gerrit". The meteorite sure hasn't hit the news here... Do I see some skeptic editors?
After they named one element they discovered -Hassium- after the state where they are, and another -Darmstadtium- after their city, why not another after a castle nearby -Frankensteinium-
And if you had actually read the actual report instead of the Boeing fanboi edited Wikipedia article, you'd know that the pilot overrode the autopilot, which is why the plane crashed. Yawn.
And the First Officer shouldn't have pressed the Take Off/Go-Around button just before landing, and the pilot should have then gone through with the go-around instead of forcing a landing.
The pilot did attempt a go-around, but the computer thought it knew better and ignored him at that point.
Do you even read the sources you are quoting? It clearly says that the autopilot was told to do a go-around, and the pilot still tried to force a landing - which is a clear no-no.
And that's the point: The computer overrode pilot input to the control system because it believed it knew better than the pilot what to do with the plane.
Excuse me? If the autopilot had overridden the pilots actions, it would have done a go-around. Instead the pilot reduced throttle and forced the plane down, overriding the auto and causing a stall.
It's a philosophical choice in system design, and one which (as a Programmer) I would *never* make myself.
But Boeing-fanboism is a philosophical choice you did make.
But it's Airbus's call how they program their flight computers, not mine. There are probably counter examples of where a plane has been saved by ignoring incorrect input from a pilot... But I'm at a loss to think of any.
Bullshit, as has been pointed out a million times by now. You could point to errors made by Airbus, including lacking indicators of what the autopilot was doing - but the crash was not caused by the autopilot overriding the pilot, but instead by the pilot overriding the auto including the final "save everyones ass" Alpha-Floor function. http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19940426-0
BTW: Boeing 767 crash at Schiphol : So much for Boeings and TOGAs.
FTA... "The aircraft, a Turkish Airlines Boeing 737-800..." Do you even read your sources? They were not executing a TO/GA. In fact, had they executed a TO/GA the plane would probably have saved itself.
This was not a case of the computer overriding pilot inputs... This was a case of the crew not bothering to watch their airspeed. Any aircraft will do stupid things if you let it run on autopilot with faulty sensors and don't bother to pay attention to what it's doing. Only Airbuses (allegedly) will ignore your attempts to correct the plane's mistakes...
Oooh, sorry, I actually typed 767 instead of 737 - that must mean I was wrong. Anyway, this was the case of a Boeing crashing after the pilots had disabled autopilot and had "full control" of the plane - clearly a sign of Boeing's superior quality.
At approximately 900 feet, the flaps were selected to 40 by the crew and the speed continued to decrease. At approximately 770 feet, the crew set the selected airspeed to 144 knots. At that moment the actual airspeed was 144 knots. The autothrottle system should have maintained the speed selected by the crew but, with the thrust levers at idle, speed continued to decay. Because the auto pilot wanted to maintain the glide scope, the automatic flight system, in response, commanded increasing nose up pitch and applied nose up stabiliser trim.
The stick shakers activated at approximately 460 feet, warning the crew that the angle of attack (AOA) was too high. The data of the digital flight data recorder show that the thrust levers were immediately advanced but moved back to idle. When the thrust levers returned to idle, the autothrottle was disengaged. Whether these actions we
You know, you are about the 20th person to bring that up but a simple google search would have shown that the computer controls act differently during take off and landings and the plane didn't reach enough altitude or speed to change flight characteristics controls.
So why do Boeing fanbois bring up China Airlines Flight 140 as proof that Airbus computers override pilot input? You guys are a hoot and a half.
And the First Officer shouldn't have pressed the Take Off/Go-Around button just before landing, and the pilot should have then gone through with the go-around instead of forcing a landing. 2 active mistakes vs. 1 passive. 2 common wisdom "do not dos" vs. 1 "WTF, that can never happen".
The plane started warning about something that a) should not be possible, and b) was not possible until Boeing shifted from a mechanical to an computer controlled system. Sure the pilots should have - errm, what exactly? Shut down the engine and landed with just the other one just in case?
The simple fact is that Airbuses have tended to fall out of the sky too frequently, and another fact is that this has most often been due to its fly-by-wire design.
So the fact that more Boeings fall out of the sky proofs what?
And, errrr the Hudson landing thing was done in an Airbus. Somehow the pilot managed to steer and land an Airbus with no engines even though the computers were fighting him and obstructing his every move.
Yeah, but if it had been a Boeing, the landing would have been smooth, and he would have reached port on his own.
A well trained pilot would know when to trust the computers and when not to. They would also know how to maneuver and react in situations. It's like the pilot that landed his plane in the river after losing an engine to birds. I don't think a computer would have taken that option and not only would it have been likely that all the passengers would have been killed, but bystanders as the planes computer attempted to correct and eventually goes down in a populated street.
Well, that's mighty odd. How did Sullenberger manage to land an Airbus in a river after all? Shouldn't have been possible according to the smart asses here.
Lauda Air Flight 004 was a route from Hong Kong to Vienna. On 26 May 1991 the software of the Boeing 767 decided it was a good idea to activate the thrust reverser on one of the two engines at . The pilot had no time to do anything, the plane stalled and disintegrated - superior American product. The difference - no pilot error.
Nice try - why would anybody, even rich men, pay for art just so you (or anybody else) can get it for free? They would make sure there are no available copies for anybody but themselves.
You have no alternative to todays system, you just don't want to pay for music - fucking admit that already
So you want back the times where many artists were financed by nobility. Where did that money come from again? Taxes - so you want a music creation tax to pay for your free music. It's as simple as that.
Slashdot Mirror
In 1979, after the Iranian people overthrow the despot whom the Americans supported, the Iranians immediately established a brutal, authoritarian theocracy.
Because the despot whom the Americans supported had previously crushed on all opposition until the gang around Khomeini was the strongest, and such became the obvious leader of the opposition. After the opposition had won the revolution, the strongest party then turned on the others. Not because it had the majority behind them, but because it had violent force.
Other people have noted that with an 85% turnout, common sense suggests this should favor the challenger. that is, angry people are more motivated to turn out. But while perhaps compelling it's not a hard rule. Iceland had a recent election where something like 70% turned out and the incumbent won.
Pardon? Iceland recently had an election, yes. But turnout was 85.1% compared to last election's 83.6% - not a big change (and lower than the turnout in the election before 87.5% were there was no change in government). Yes, the winner was the incumbent - on a technicality, because the coalition only came in power a few weeks before after the previous government coalition, (close) winners of the last election (by 1 seat) had resigned after massive public protests.
Oh, and to all who pointed out that Sun had patched this months ago - have you updated Java since then?
Do you understand the difference between choosing not to update, and being unable to update?
Fuck you're a retard.
So you choose to be vulnerable - yeah, you are obviously the smart one.
So MacOS X users, please disable Java in your web browser. Others: make sure you have updated Java and still disable it in your web browser: it's a huge attack surface and it suffers from many other security vulnerabilities.
Oh, and to all who pointed out that Sun had patched this months ago - have you updated Java since then?
for various reasons, Java is usually poorly updated:
So does Apple also prevent Sun from releasing BSD versions for Java? Let alone BeOS, VMX, Amiga...
So why did people write viruses for Windows 64 (and exclusive to Windows 64) when it was still in Beta? For both variants each, IA64 and x86-64, mind you. At a time when the machines able to run those betas counted a few thousands? Marketshare my ass.
Fuck, you are crazy. In 1998, no wait, make that 2003, Windows was like swiss cheese, and Blaster made the Internet almost unbearable not only for Windows users. And you say "Apple is now at the point where Microsoft was in 1998"? I proclaim you Fanboi Numero Uno.
And twapture would be when all the good twits go to heaven?
According to the German Google News http://news.google.de/news?pz=1&ned=de&hl=de&q=vom+meteorit+getroffenthere are 5 articles in German about this. One of course by infamous Bild.de - "Space attack on Gerrit". The meteorite sure hasn't hit the news here... Do I see some skeptic editors?
After they named one element they discovered -Hassium- after the state where they are, and another -Darmstadtium- after their city, why not another after a castle nearby -Frankensteinium-
So everything you don't agree with was written by a fanboy?
Interesting. I would suggest that it says more about you then anyone else.
Everything that is quite obviously wrong was probably written by a fanboi. What does it say about you that you write so many obviously wrong things?
And if you had actually read the actual report instead of the Boeing fanboi edited Wikipedia article, you'd know that the pilot overrode the autopilot, which is why the plane crashed. Yawn.
The pilot did attempt a go-around, but the computer thought it knew better and ignored him at that point.
Do you even read the sources you are quoting? It clearly says that the autopilot was told to do a go-around, and the pilot still tried to force a landing - which is a clear no-no.
And that's the point: The computer overrode pilot input to the control system because it believed it knew better than the pilot what to do with the plane.
Excuse me? If the autopilot had overridden the pilots actions, it would have done a go-around. Instead the pilot reduced throttle and forced the plane down, overriding the auto and causing a stall.
It's a philosophical choice in system design, and one which (as a Programmer) I would *never* make myself.
But Boeing-fanboism is a philosophical choice you did make.
But it's Airbus's call how they program their flight computers, not mine. There are probably counter examples of where a plane has been saved by ignoring incorrect input from a pilot... But I'm at a loss to think of any.
Bullshit, as has been pointed out a million times by now. You could point to errors made by Airbus, including lacking indicators of what the autopilot was doing - but the crash was not caused by the autopilot overriding the pilot, but instead by the pilot overriding the auto including the final "save everyones ass" Alpha-Floor function. http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19940426-0
FTA... "The aircraft, a Turkish Airlines Boeing 737-800..." Do you even read your sources? They were not executing a TO/GA. In fact, had they executed a TO/GA the plane would probably have saved itself.
This was not a case of the computer overriding pilot inputs... This was a case of the crew not bothering to watch their airspeed. Any aircraft will do stupid things if you let it run on autopilot with faulty sensors and don't bother to pay attention to what it's doing. Only Airbuses (allegedly) will ignore your attempts to correct the plane's mistakes...
Oooh, sorry, I actually typed 767 instead of 737 - that must mean I was wrong. Anyway, this was the case of a Boeing crashing after the pilots had disabled autopilot and had "full control" of the plane - clearly a sign of Boeing's superior quality.
The verdict what actually caused the crash is still out, but it's certainly not as simple as the Boeing fanbois would want it to: http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20090225-0
At approximately 900 feet, the flaps were selected to 40 by the crew and the speed continued to decrease. At approximately 770 feet, the crew set the selected airspeed to 144 knots. At that moment the actual airspeed was 144 knots. The autothrottle system should have maintained the speed selected by the crew but, with the thrust levers at idle, speed continued to decay. Because the auto pilot wanted to maintain the glide scope, the automatic flight system, in response, commanded increasing nose up pitch and applied nose up stabiliser trim.
The stick shakers activated at approximately 460 feet, warning the crew that the angle of attack (AOA) was too high. The data of the digital flight data recorder show that the thrust levers were immediately advanced but moved back to idle. When the thrust levers returned to idle, the autothrottle was disengaged. Whether these actions we
You know, you are about the 20th person to bring that up but a simple google search would have shown that the computer controls act differently during take off and landings and the plane didn't reach enough altitude or speed to change flight characteristics controls.
So why do Boeing fanbois bring up China Airlines Flight 140 as proof that Airbus computers override pilot input? You guys are a hoot and a half.
BTW: Boeing 767 crash at Schiphol : So much for Boeings and TOGAs.
The plane started warning about something that a) should not be possible, and b) was not possible until Boeing shifted from a mechanical to an computer controlled system. Sure the pilots should have - errm, what exactly? Shut down the engine and landed with just the other one just in case?
The simple fact is that Airbuses have tended to fall out of the sky too frequently, and another fact is that this has most often been due to its fly-by-wire design.
So the fact that more Boeings fall out of the sky proofs what?
GP is not about the Hudson "landing", but the crash a month later in NY state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colgan_Air_Flight_3407#Crash
And, errrr the Hudson landing thing was done in an Airbus. Somehow the pilot managed to steer and land an Airbus with no engines even though the computers were fighting him and obstructing his every move.
Yeah, but if it had been a Boeing, the landing would have been smooth, and he would have reached port on his own.
A well trained pilot would know when to trust the computers and when not to. They would also know how to maneuver and react in situations. It's like the pilot that landed his plane in the river after losing an engine to birds. I don't think a computer would have taken that option and not only would it have been likely that all the passengers would have been killed, but bystanders as the planes computer attempted to correct and eventually goes down in a populated street.
Well, that's mighty odd. How did Sullenberger manage to land an Airbus in a river after all? Shouldn't have been possible according to the smart asses here.
Lauda Air Flight 004 was a route from Hong Kong to Vienna. On 26 May 1991 the software of the Boeing 767 decided it was a good idea to activate the thrust reverser on one of the two engines at . The pilot had no time to do anything, the plane stalled and disintegrated - superior American product. The difference - no pilot error.
You have no alternative to todays system, you just don't want to pay for music - fucking admit that already
So you want back the times where many artists were financed by nobility. Where did that money come from again? Taxes - so you want a music creation tax to pay for your free music. It's as simple as that.
So if there were no music you could copy, you would finally be happy.
Digital works are a lot like pharmeceuticals.
Massive capital expenditure, minimal marginal cost.
And if the RIAA gets its way, soon to be intertwined with government regulation.
You forgot massive expenditures by the creators that don't show up in the "marginal costs" per unit. Gee, how fitting.