The GPLed branch will only act as a safety net if it's kept up to date with features introduced in the dominant branch (Oracles), or if it becomes the dominant branch in the very near future and removes Oracles ownership over the future.
If neither of those happens, the GPLed branch will be the one to fade into the past. I'm not a Java user, so can someone who is possibly chip in and give us an indication of how it's looking?
With regard to the story, it does reek of the OSGi throwing their toys out of the pram because their pet wasn't chosen.
I've dealt with people at the GAO, they have a lot of expertise in house on many subjects, and aren't afraid to seek advice externally to come to decisions. It's one of those branches of government that it's actually nice to have.
I never did get the "rigidity" a lot of AD&D hard core players had in their material - if it wasnt in the book, its not allowed, if it isnt done on a dice role, it isnt allowed etc. I walked away from a lot of groups between the ages of 16 and 22 or so because of that.
Some of the best role playing I have ever done was with a DM who didn't use any books, didnt use any dice, and jotted rough layouts on paper when they were needed - everything came out of his mind, he made the decisions and the story.
So, what I think I am trying to say, is that I agree with you in sticking to the 1st edition - and I hope you stick loosely to it;)
More seriously, why wouldn't groundside testing notice that there was a rag in the line?
Yup, why wouldn't it?
Obviously it didn't. Multiple times. In multiple different situations - this isn't the first space mission to be ruined because of something left where it shouldn't have been.
The obvious answer to your question might be because it didn't block anything during testing, so there was the appearance of nothing wrong. Turn on the fuel flow, after the experience of the launch, and it might have been jostled free from wherever it had chosen to hide - from there it might be a short ride to a bottle necking point such as a crimp in the line, a sharp bend, or a valve, and thus begins the blockage.
You can use tiny squares of cloth, impregnated with cleaning solution, to clean the inside of valves and metal lines - gets rid of metal filings which are left over from the boring process.
Quite easy to leave one behind. Which is why there are processes in place designed to prevent such issues.
In my experience, repairs across the entire A380 fleet would run to a few tens of millions of dollars at most (the repair is a stop drilling and a doubler) while the result of the loss of a plane due to this issue would run into hundreds of millions.
The math sides with doing the repair. So why isn't Airbus doing that? Because it's not a critical issue.
Well that's an easy one - if the engineers sign off on something in the face of evidence that they have not done their job, then they lose the ability to work as. Licensed engineer. Anywhere.
Losing your career is a pretty big thing.
Not to mention the lawsuits they become personally open to.
It's not a composite material, it's a grade of aluminium used in a non-load bearing rib in the wing, used to maintain the wings aerodynamic shape. The cracks were found on one of the feet on the rib, which attach the rib to the wing skin. There are multiple other routes for the load, which is why this is considered non-load bearing and not an issue.
Fly by wire is different to hydraulically actuated surfaces - hydraulically actuated surfaces are not by themselves considered fly by wire, but do add more power to the pilots inputs.
Yes you can see the other pilots control stick from your position, and no, you need to do more than make an input to gain control - there is a priority switch you have to push.
Airbus have issued an inspection notice saying it's a materials issue, and that airlines should inspect at an aircrafts 4 year inspection interval. They would not do so, and would be overruled by the European safety body EASA, if they thought otherwise.
This has been discussed to death on aviation industry forums, and the general consensus is it's a non-issue - the calls for grounding are being headed by an industry union, not a regulatory body.
Every aircraft has cracks in it, even brand new ones - in this case, it's in a non-critical location and is non-load bearing. A check at the 4 year point is adequate for this type of discovery.
McDonalds sell a million hamburgers a day, so does that mean every hamburger seller must do what McDonalds do?
Android phones range from tacky cheap to quality expensive, so do all it's mainstream competitors need to cover the same range? Of course not. So as usual, pure sales figures are meaningless.
Your point is wrong, because my original 50% ownership entitles me to 50% of the company, regardless of worth - so if you invest $1 to make the companies worth $2, then my share becomes $1.
Devaluing my ownership is what is in question here - and the ownership stands completely apart from company worth. Just because the company suddenly becomes twice as rich doesn't mean my ownership devalues of its own accord.
There are two ways for the investment to be made - as a fixed return, or by taking an ownership in the company for a potential return later on.
If the return is fixed, then its a monetary cost to the company, not a cost to the shareholders.
If the return is an ownership of the company, then that ownership needs to come from somewhere - it should come from an unissued pool retained by the company for this opportunity, or it can come from existing share holders. If it comes from an unissued pool, then that counts against the 50% of the company I do not own and thus does not affect my share holding so long as the new issuing does not cause all issued shares to exceed 100% at the original percentage value (so if they issue 25% to the new investor, and I already hold 50%, but there are two other investors which hold 15% each, then we have an issue as now we have 110% of the company issued - since it cannot be more than 100% of the company, that means there is a 10% devaluation of everyones issued shares...)
So yes, someone is stealing here because the issue is not that of original investment, its one of ownership of the company. You gave me 50% of the company in return for whatever my original investment was - that doesn't limit my entitlement to 50c of the company, it limits my entitlement to 50% of the company whatever that may be. If you cause my entitlement to drop below 50% without recompense, then you have stolen some of the company from me.
There is no law, but thats not the point - if the original investor paid $X for Y% ownership of the company through share issuances, and now the company is diluting that Y% ownership to Y/2% ownership, then the company is effectively stealing from the original investor and he has a right to challenge that.
There is no right to profit, but there is a right to not be stolen from - if it takes a threat to the existence to the company to stop it, then that sounds fair.
If people are linking third parties to their own account, rather than using a shared folder, then they are actual retards and deserve the issues they get - especially as its obvious that they haven't read anything in the help center!
Their copyright and patent stance is also something that is preventing myself from taking them seriously - the market for personal entertainment is absolutely huge, so allowing copying where there is no financial incentive will have a not insignificant impact on the economy. However honourable their position might be, I disagree with it.
Their stance on drug patents is also a bit disconnected - sure, they say they will replace the pharmaceutical industries 15% of R&D investment with 20%, in exchange for removing patents altogether, but this isn't a fair replacement. For a start, the pharmaceutical industry is largely split into those firms who invest and gain the patents, and those firms that produce and supply generics with no investment - regardless of how much R&D funding you give the former, it doesn't stop the revenue being spread further among the industry from the first day of production. The firms doing the R&D will still lose out.
Also, the BBC doesn't own most of its content - its licensed from the production companies, same as other networks. The BBC may commission productions, but they don't pay the full cost in quite a few circumstances. By requiring the BBC to shift those works to Creative Commons you are essentially going to force the BBC to pay more for them in the first place (as the production companies lose ancillary revenue from syndication etc) - who is going to fund that?
I've been using Dropbox since their first public release, and the whole device linking "issue" has been known about and clarified since day one. Again, it was someone coming to the party two years later, ignoring topics already discussed in the forums and help centre topics, and blowing into a major story for their own page views and publicity.
You link your device to your account, the password is superfluous for that device afterward. You can unlink the device from your web control panel at any time. Again, all explained in the help centre.
It's similar to assigning public and private keys to your ssh account - changing your ssh password doesn't invalidate those keys...
Slashdot Mirror
Is loitering illegal?
The GPLed branch will only act as a safety net if it's kept up to date with features introduced in the dominant branch (Oracles), or if it becomes the dominant branch in the very near future and removes Oracles ownership over the future.
If neither of those happens, the GPLed branch will be the one to fade into the past. I'm not a Java user, so can someone who is possibly chip in and give us an indication of how it's looking?
With regard to the story, it does reek of the OSGi throwing their toys out of the pram because their pet wasn't chosen.
Is he? Consumers seem hell bent on altering the deal as well...
I'm actually having difficulty deciding which side you mean....
Will a webcam do? ;)
I've dealt with people at the GAO, they have a lot of expertise in house on many subjects, and aren't afraid to seek advice externally to come to decisions. It's one of those branches of government that it's actually nice to have.
I never did get the "rigidity" a lot of AD&D hard core players had in their material - if it wasnt in the book, its not allowed, if it isnt done on a dice role, it isnt allowed etc. I walked away from a lot of groups between the ages of 16 and 22 or so because of that.
Some of the best role playing I have ever done was with a DM who didn't use any books, didnt use any dice, and jotted rough layouts on paper when they were needed - everything came out of his mind, he made the decisions and the story.
So, what I think I am trying to say, is that I agree with you in sticking to the 1st edition - and I hope you stick loosely to it ;)
More seriously, why wouldn't groundside testing notice that there was a rag in the line?
Yup, why wouldn't it?
Obviously it didn't. Multiple times. In multiple different situations - this isn't the first space mission to be ruined because of something left where it shouldn't have been.
The obvious answer to your question might be because it didn't block anything during testing, so there was the appearance of nothing wrong. Turn on the fuel flow, after the experience of the launch, and it might have been jostled free from wherever it had chosen to hide - from there it might be a short ride to a bottle necking point such as a crimp in the line, a sharp bend, or a valve, and thus begins the blockage.
You can use tiny squares of cloth, impregnated with cleaning solution, to clean the inside of valves and metal lines - gets rid of metal filings which are left over from the boring process.
Quite easy to leave one behind. Which is why there are processes in place designed to prevent such issues.
At least one of the recent Soyuz failures was put down to a similar issue - debris left in a fuel line by a worker.
In my experience, repairs across the entire A380 fleet would run to a few tens of millions of dollars at most (the repair is a stop drilling and a doubler) while the result of the loss of a plane due to this issue would run into hundreds of millions.
The math sides with doing the repair. So why isn't Airbus doing that? Because it's not a critical issue.
Well that's an easy one - if the engineers sign off on something in the face of evidence that they have not done their job, then they lose the ability to work as. Licensed engineer. Anywhere.
Losing your career is a pretty big thing.
Not to mention the lawsuits they become personally open to.
As I said, hydraulically actuated surfaces are not considered fly by wire, which is a whole another set of criteria and features.
I never said there were still direct connections...
No, not all ribs are load bearing in modern aircraft.
Someone always has priority, it's not like you lose it after a period of time....
It's not a composite material, it's a grade of aluminium used in a non-load bearing rib in the wing, used to maintain the wings aerodynamic shape. The cracks were found on one of the feet on the rib, which attach the rib to the wing skin. There are multiple other routes for the load, which is why this is considered non-load bearing and not an issue.
Fly by wire is different to hydraulically actuated surfaces - hydraulically actuated surfaces are not by themselves considered fly by wire, but do add more power to the pilots inputs.
Yes you can see the other pilots control stick from your position, and no, you need to do more than make an input to gain control - there is a priority switch you have to push.
Airbus have issued an inspection notice saying it's a materials issue, and that airlines should inspect at an aircrafts 4 year inspection interval. They would not do so, and would be overruled by the European safety body EASA, if they thought otherwise.
This has been discussed to death on aviation industry forums, and the general consensus is it's a non-issue - the calls for grounding are being headed by an industry union, not a regulatory body.
Every aircraft has cracks in it, even brand new ones - in this case, it's in a non-critical location and is non-load bearing. A check at the 4 year point is adequate for this type of discovery.
McDonalds sell a million hamburgers a day, so does that mean every hamburger seller must do what McDonalds do?
Android phones range from tacky cheap to quality expensive, so do all it's mainstream competitors need to cover the same range? Of course not. So as usual, pure sales figures are meaningless.
Your point is wrong, because my original 50% ownership entitles me to 50% of the company, regardless of worth - so if you invest $1 to make the companies worth $2, then my share becomes $1.
Devaluing my ownership is what is in question here - and the ownership stands completely apart from company worth. Just because the company suddenly becomes twice as rich doesn't mean my ownership devalues of its own accord.
There are two ways for the investment to be made - as a fixed return, or by taking an ownership in the company for a potential return later on.
If the return is fixed, then its a monetary cost to the company, not a cost to the shareholders.
If the return is an ownership of the company, then that ownership needs to come from somewhere - it should come from an unissued pool retained by the company for this opportunity, or it can come from existing share holders. If it comes from an unissued pool, then that counts against the 50% of the company I do not own and thus does not affect my share holding so long as the new issuing does not cause all issued shares to exceed 100% at the original percentage value (so if they issue 25% to the new investor, and I already hold 50%, but there are two other investors which hold 15% each, then we have an issue as now we have 110% of the company issued - since it cannot be more than 100% of the company, that means there is a 10% devaluation of everyones issued shares...)
So yes, someone is stealing here because the issue is not that of original investment, its one of ownership of the company. You gave me 50% of the company in return for whatever my original investment was - that doesn't limit my entitlement to 50c of the company, it limits my entitlement to 50% of the company whatever that may be. If you cause my entitlement to drop below 50% without recompense, then you have stolen some of the company from me.
So yes, dilution is happening.
There is no law, but thats not the point - if the original investor paid $X for Y% ownership of the company through share issuances, and now the company is diluting that Y% ownership to Y/2% ownership, then the company is effectively stealing from the original investor and he has a right to challenge that.
There is no right to profit, but there is a right to not be stolen from - if it takes a threat to the existence to the company to stop it, then that sounds fair.
If people are linking third parties to their own account, rather than using a shared folder, then they are actual retards and deserve the issues they get - especially as its obvious that they haven't read anything in the help center!
If that includes you, then so be it.
Their copyright and patent stance is also something that is preventing myself from taking them seriously - the market for personal entertainment is absolutely huge, so allowing copying where there is no financial incentive will have a not insignificant impact on the economy. However honourable their position might be, I disagree with it.
Their stance on drug patents is also a bit disconnected - sure, they say they will replace the pharmaceutical industries 15% of R&D investment with 20%, in exchange for removing patents altogether, but this isn't a fair replacement. For a start, the pharmaceutical industry is largely split into those firms who invest and gain the patents, and those firms that produce and supply generics with no investment - regardless of how much R&D funding you give the former, it doesn't stop the revenue being spread further among the industry from the first day of production. The firms doing the R&D will still lose out.
Also, the BBC doesn't own most of its content - its licensed from the production companies, same as other networks. The BBC may commission productions, but they don't pay the full cost in quite a few circumstances. By requiring the BBC to shift those works to Creative Commons you are essentially going to force the BBC to pay more for them in the first place (as the production companies lose ancillary revenue from syndication etc) - who is going to fund that?
I've been using Dropbox since their first public release, and the whole device linking "issue" has been known about and clarified since day one. Again, it was someone coming to the party two years later, ignoring topics already discussed in the forums and help centre topics, and blowing into a major story for their own page views and publicity.
You link your device to your account, the password is superfluous for that device afterward. You can unlink the device from your web control panel at any time. Again, all explained in the help centre.
It's similar to assigning public and private keys to your ssh account - changing your ssh password doesn't invalidate those keys...