Depends on why it crashed - at the moment it looks like Controlled Flight Into Terrain (CFIT).
Also, crashes early on doesn't necessarily mean the death of the program, the Airbus A330 suffered a crash during its development, but has gone on to sell over 1,000 examples since.
If the insulin pump is that easy to break, surely some blame lies there as well?
We are talking about something that should be required to withstand basically a lot of punishment, because the owners life depends on it - if subjecting it to a small amount of radiation (and no matter how the TSA likes to get piled on here, their scanners do emit a small amount of radiation in the scheme of things) in the course of a pretty routine activity, then the pumps manufacturer needs to look to resolving that flaw with their equipment.
Out of interest, what does the "great track record" refer to? The security has historically been consistently horrific, the performance has historically been consistently horrific, the consistency of the language has been consistently horrific, the development of the language has been consistently horrific...
I do miss the documentation, now that was awesome. But I don't miss the rest of it.
Sorry but your view is stupid - a ruling by a court is the courts conclusion, and it can be used to uphold a law, strike down a law or clarify a law. In this case the ruling clarified the law, and gave detail as to that clarification - its the detail of the clarification that is interesting.
The problem is unions - I've seen situations in the US aviation industry where a unionized worker was fired because they violently struck a fellow worker with a tool, and the union protested the sacking and prepared to take action against the employer because it was "union policy to contest all terminations and negative actions toward members by employers". The matter was settled with a payoff, because the employer didn't want his work force walking out on a union strike.
Last time I explained the difference I got modded down, because it would seem no one actually wants a reasoned discussion on this topic - so Im just going to say that, yes, having an end point within a private network (Comcasts is private) is different to having an end point somewhere out there on the public network (the internet is public). There are peering quotas to balance for example.
But Im treading very close to what got me modded into oblivion before, so thats the last thing Im saying in this topic.
No, you don't need network neutrality, you need competition - the whole network neutrality issue is only an issue because there doesn't seem to be healthy competition within the US market.
In the UK market, we have BT as the main incumbent, Virgin Media as a secondary incumbent and a heavily regulated resale market.
Anyone here can buy capacity from BT, anything from a single provisioned ADSL line to a full unbundled service (you get the last mile, and then you can do whatever you wish with it) - and the costs of all of that are heavily regulated, to the point where BT Wholesale cannot charge BT Retail less than they charge Joe Blogs Internet Company.
However, Virgin Media as the lesser incumbent is under no such limitations - you cannot rent capacity on the Virgin Media network at all, other than as an end customer. They have a nice fiber and cable network, but you as an independent ISP cannot get access to that - so its very much like the US market.
So we end up with the situation where we have a huge competitive ADSL based market, but a minute cable market. Network neutrality is protected by the fact that literally anyone can go and get capacity from BT, and have it available pretty much anywhere in the UK - BT cannot impose limitations on your usage as a network provider, so they cannot force you to not be network neutral.
Really? Troll mod? Did I offend some one or something, because I just got at least 4 troll mods in different stories, when the posts are anything but trolls.
I would *love* for someone to explain how the above post is a troll. Come on. Support your moderation.
I guess the mod who slapped a "-1 Troll" on me couldn't answer the basic question - who is holding users hostage? How is this holding users hostage?
Everything in my post is accurate - just because you dont like it, or dont agree with it, doesn't make it a troll. This issue doesnt remove existing apps from the app store, and it doesnt change the situation of developers who were releasing their first version in the app store.
No users are actually suffering at all here - they can either use the existing version or an app (and not know the new one was ever rejected), or they can continue to not use something they werent able to use before anyway. This isn't as if an app hit the store and was pulled from under users noses (like several other times).
This is a difficult issue, not as straight forward as you might think.
There was no problem when the distributors who owned licenses to broadcast over the airwaves were the ones who also provided the content.
There was no problem when the distributors who owned cable networks were the ones who also provided the content.
But all of a sudden because the internet is involved, its now an issue - but only in that very select portion of the distributor/provider area, its still not an issue in the above scenarios.
What you mean to complain about is when content providers and distributors now have a general access product - an ISP element. Thats the problem here.
What I want to know is whether Comcast have actually denied Sony or anyone else the right to put a service end point within the Comcast network, and run a private line back to their main servers - in the same manner as the Comcast Xbox service - or have refused to exempt such a setup in the same manner. Anyone?
Who is holding users hostage - if the apps are an update to an existing app, the existing app doesnt get pulled from the store. If its a brand new app, the developers are in no different a situation than they were last week.
Dropbox already have a version of the SDK which removes the offending links - its available in the forum thread about the issue.
Nothing, but Apple have had a rule blocking this sort of action for a long while already - the issue is that Dropbox accounts allow then to up sell a user to a Pro account, outside of the Apple in-app purchasing ecosystem. This is an issue that has long been discussed before, and has previously resulted in apps like Kindle Reader removing their store functionality for the same reason.
If you are asking why a user needs an app, its because it does more than a website - its available off line for example (yes, a website can provide an off line mode, but the storage limit is very small compared to that of an actual app).
In this case, they are talking about third party apps integrating with Dropbox using the Dropbox SDK - so the primary reason to install the app is not to replace the Dropbox website, but for whatever the app does.
The simple rule is, the bigger the aircraft, the more it matters because it does have an appreciable effect on range and efficiency - Airbus and Boeing are always looking to cut a tonne here and there out of their aircraft, because it gives them an immediate range increase (for example, cutting a tonne out of an A380s OEW weight gives you anther couple of hundred miles of range - that can make the difference when we are talking about Singapore to LA for example - or it means less fuel need be carried, more payload over the same distance).
The problem is, the energy density of a battery is lower than that of any gasoline based fuels, so the battery pack would be as heavy at least as a full fuel load - lugging that around and then routinely landing with it is going to make the airframe much heavier, and thus less efficient.
We arent talking about a little bit heavier here, we are talking about pushing it toward the maximums - max land weights and max takeoff weights.
Its easier to sequester the output from one powerstation than it is from a thousand homes or vehicles - running vehicles off of energy produced centrally can certainly be cleaner than running their own internal combustion engines.
As you said, it would be relatively pointless, but something to consider when thinking about it is this - fuel gets burned off, batteries do not.
A Boeing 747-8 can carry over 200 tons of fuel - at its destination, it could be carrying as little as 10 tonnes of fuel (or less). The more fuel that gets burned off, the higher the aircraft can cruise, and the longer it can fly because the lighter it gets the more efficient it is at producing lift.
So you would need a much more efficient battery system to counter the effect of still carrying all those batteries the entire distance of the journey - plus the effect of landing an aircraft that would still be at the Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW), which isn't great on the airframe (the Maximum Landing Weight is typically fairly lower than the MTOW, which is why aircraft in emergencies dump fuel or circle to burn off fuel).
In cars, the weight difference between a full fuel tank and an empty fuel tank is near enough negligible to be discounted, but in an aircraft its a real factor.
So, basically the same situation as Android then - no idea when, or even if, you will be upgraded?:)
Seriously, the Galaxy Note is getting a lot of ad time over here in the UK, enough to make me pick it up in a store and take a look at it (i find the form factor to be... interesting, and I'd consider buying one for that - couldn't make a judgement on the OS as it was a dead display unit), but it struck me that it was still on Android 2.3 and I was sure that both Android 3 and 4 had been released (I know that 3 is tablet only).
Sure enough, Android 4 has been out since last November - and Samsung have yet to confirm an upgrade date for the Note. Thats just wrong.
Your complaint is hardly specific to Windows Phone 7 tho - I've not used it (consider that a caveat) so I can't comment on WP7, but I've had my fair share of UI glitches and software slide buttons sticking on both Android (HTC Desire, 2.1 iirc) and iPhone.
I've even had situations where the iPhone wont let me answer a call thats ringing, because the screen isnt responding to the slide - the call goes to voice mail, the screen reverts back to the lock screen, and suddenly everything works again.
I've had situations where I couldn't hang up the call on both the iPhone and Android. Now thats not a great situation to be in!
My iPhone also won't connect to my local pubs wifi, even when Im sat a couple of meters away from the router - won't see it, and if I try and connect manually it won't join the network.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends on why it crashed - at the moment it looks like Controlled Flight Into Terrain (CFIT).
Also, crashes early on doesn't necessarily mean the death of the program, the Airbus A330 suffered a crash during its development, but has gone on to sell over 1,000 examples since.
If the insulin pump is that easy to break, surely some blame lies there as well?
We are talking about something that should be required to withstand basically a lot of punishment, because the owners life depends on it - if subjecting it to a small amount of radiation (and no matter how the TSA likes to get piled on here, their scanners do emit a small amount of radiation in the scheme of things) in the course of a pretty routine activity, then the pumps manufacturer needs to look to resolving that flaw with their equipment.
@html.actionlink("link","blah", new { Page = Page });
More concise, and much more resilient to route changes.
Out of interest, what does the "great track record" refer to? The security has historically been consistently horrific, the performance has historically been consistently horrific, the consistency of the language has been consistently horrific, the development of the language has been consistently horrific...
I do miss the documentation, now that was awesome. But I don't miss the rest of it.
Because the iPad you have isn't faulty, and this upgrade isn't a fix for anything, it's an improvement.
You are not entitled to anything more than you bought.
Stacker vs Microsoft.
One word - Rugby.
I'm not mistaken, I've done my research.
Sorry but your view is stupid - a ruling by a court is the courts conclusion, and it can be used to uphold a law, strike down a law or clarify a law. In this case the ruling clarified the law, and gave detail as to that clarification - its the detail of the clarification that is interesting.
The problem is unions - I've seen situations in the US aviation industry where a unionized worker was fired because they violently struck a fellow worker with a tool, and the union protested the sacking and prepared to take action against the employer because it was "union policy to contest all terminations and negative actions toward members by employers". The matter was settled with a payoff, because the employer didn't want his work force walking out on a union strike.
Last time I explained the difference I got modded down, because it would seem no one actually wants a reasoned discussion on this topic - so Im just going to say that, yes, having an end point within a private network (Comcasts is private) is different to having an end point somewhere out there on the public network (the internet is public). There are peering quotas to balance for example.
But Im treading very close to what got me modded into oblivion before, so thats the last thing Im saying in this topic.
No, you don't need network neutrality, you need competition - the whole network neutrality issue is only an issue because there doesn't seem to be healthy competition within the US market.
In the UK market, we have BT as the main incumbent, Virgin Media as a secondary incumbent and a heavily regulated resale market.
Anyone here can buy capacity from BT, anything from a single provisioned ADSL line to a full unbundled service (you get the last mile, and then you can do whatever you wish with it) - and the costs of all of that are heavily regulated, to the point where BT Wholesale cannot charge BT Retail less than they charge Joe Blogs Internet Company.
However, Virgin Media as the lesser incumbent is under no such limitations - you cannot rent capacity on the Virgin Media network at all, other than as an end customer. They have a nice fiber and cable network, but you as an independent ISP cannot get access to that - so its very much like the US market.
So we end up with the situation where we have a huge competitive ADSL based market, but a minute cable market. Network neutrality is protected by the fact that literally anyone can go and get capacity from BT, and have it available pretty much anywhere in the UK - BT cannot impose limitations on your usage as a network provider, so they cannot force you to not be network neutral.
Really? Troll mod? Did I offend some one or something, because I just got at least 4 troll mods in different stories, when the posts are anything but trolls.
I would *love* for someone to explain how the above post is a troll. Come on. Support your moderation.
I guess the mod who slapped a "-1 Troll" on me couldn't answer the basic question - who is holding users hostage? How is this holding users hostage?
Everything in my post is accurate - just because you dont like it, or dont agree with it, doesn't make it a troll. This issue doesnt remove existing apps from the app store, and it doesnt change the situation of developers who were releasing their first version in the app store.
No users are actually suffering at all here - they can either use the existing version or an app (and not know the new one was ever rejected), or they can continue to not use something they werent able to use before anyway. This isn't as if an app hit the store and was pulled from under users noses (like several other times).
This is a difficult issue, not as straight forward as you might think.
There was no problem when the distributors who owned licenses to broadcast over the airwaves were the ones who also provided the content.
There was no problem when the distributors who owned cable networks were the ones who also provided the content.
But all of a sudden because the internet is involved, its now an issue - but only in that very select portion of the distributor/provider area, its still not an issue in the above scenarios.
What you mean to complain about is when content providers and distributors now have a general access product - an ISP element. Thats the problem here.
What I want to know is whether Comcast have actually denied Sony or anyone else the right to put a service end point within the Comcast network, and run a private line back to their main servers - in the same manner as the Comcast Xbox service - or have refused to exempt such a setup in the same manner. Anyone?
Who is holding users hostage - if the apps are an update to an existing app, the existing app doesnt get pulled from the store. If its a brand new app, the developers are in no different a situation than they were last week.
Dropbox already have a version of the SDK which removes the offending links - its available in the forum thread about the issue.
No users are suffering here.
Nothing, but Apple have had a rule blocking this sort of action for a long while already - the issue is that Dropbox accounts allow then to up sell a user to a Pro account, outside of the Apple in-app purchasing ecosystem. This is an issue that has long been discussed before, and has previously resulted in apps like Kindle Reader removing their store functionality for the same reason.
If you are asking why a user needs an app, its because it does more than a website - its available off line for example (yes, a website can provide an off line mode, but the storage limit is very small compared to that of an actual app).
In this case, they are talking about third party apps integrating with Dropbox using the Dropbox SDK - so the primary reason to install the app is not to replace the Dropbox website, but for whatever the app does.
The simple rule is, the bigger the aircraft, the more it matters because it does have an appreciable effect on range and efficiency - Airbus and Boeing are always looking to cut a tonne here and there out of their aircraft, because it gives them an immediate range increase (for example, cutting a tonne out of an A380s OEW weight gives you anther couple of hundred miles of range - that can make the difference when we are talking about Singapore to LA for example - or it means less fuel need be carried, more payload over the same distance).
The problem is, the energy density of a battery is lower than that of any gasoline based fuels, so the battery pack would be as heavy at least as a full fuel load - lugging that around and then routinely landing with it is going to make the airframe much heavier, and thus less efficient.
We arent talking about a little bit heavier here, we are talking about pushing it toward the maximums - max land weights and max takeoff weights.
Its easier to sequester the output from one powerstation than it is from a thousand homes or vehicles - running vehicles off of energy produced centrally can certainly be cleaner than running their own internal combustion engines.
What about the increased fatigue on the airframe due to the extra weight it has to land with, as battery packs are not burned off during the journey?
As you said, it would be relatively pointless, but something to consider when thinking about it is this - fuel gets burned off, batteries do not.
A Boeing 747-8 can carry over 200 tons of fuel - at its destination, it could be carrying as little as 10 tonnes of fuel (or less). The more fuel that gets burned off, the higher the aircraft can cruise, and the longer it can fly because the lighter it gets the more efficient it is at producing lift.
So you would need a much more efficient battery system to counter the effect of still carrying all those batteries the entire distance of the journey - plus the effect of landing an aircraft that would still be at the Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW), which isn't great on the airframe (the Maximum Landing Weight is typically fairly lower than the MTOW, which is why aircraft in emergencies dump fuel or circle to burn off fuel).
In cars, the weight difference between a full fuel tank and an empty fuel tank is near enough negligible to be discounted, but in an aircraft its a real factor.
Sounds like you are doing it wrong then, because there's a whole ecosystem of .Net developers out there who seem to get things done just fine...
So, basically the same situation as Android then - no idea when, or even if, you will be upgraded? :)
Seriously, the Galaxy Note is getting a lot of ad time over here in the UK, enough to make me pick it up in a store and take a look at it (i find the form factor to be ... interesting, and I'd consider buying one for that - couldn't make a judgement on the OS as it was a dead display unit), but it struck me that it was still on Android 2.3 and I was sure that both Android 3 and 4 had been released (I know that 3 is tablet only).
Sure enough, Android 4 has been out since last November - and Samsung have yet to confirm an upgrade date for the Note. Thats just wrong.
Your complaint is hardly specific to Windows Phone 7 tho - I've not used it (consider that a caveat) so I can't comment on WP7, but I've had my fair share of UI glitches and software slide buttons sticking on both Android (HTC Desire, 2.1 iirc) and iPhone.
I've even had situations where the iPhone wont let me answer a call thats ringing, because the screen isnt responding to the slide - the call goes to voice mail, the screen reverts back to the lock screen, and suddenly everything works again.
I've had situations where I couldn't hang up the call on both the iPhone and Android. Now thats not a great situation to be in!
My iPhone also won't connect to my local pubs wifi, even when Im sat a couple of meters away from the router - won't see it, and if I try and connect manually it won't join the network.
So execution is really lacking all round.