And shoplifting undermines a shops business model - should we also make that legal again? This isn't technological progress, so stop hiding behind that rhetoric - this is the wilfull ability of people being able to get things for free, so they do.
No, a copyright holder doesn't have the right to make money, but they do have the right to try.
Its the usage patterns that are different - desktop usage is typically significantly higher than phone-based usage, its quite easy to tell which is which.
There was a cascade failure - the aircraft was sending maintenance messages to its maintenance base at the time of the crash, which told Airbus quite a bit of information, including the fact that the computers had decided to exclude themselves from decision making (which is extremely serious).
Another thing to note is that the Hudson A320 was still in Alternate Law when it ditched (none of the failures were severe enough to push the computers to take themselves out of the loop, and neither pilot took the measures necessary to do that manually) - the pilots had assistance from the computers to land the aircraft and they still managed to land their plane safely! How could that be if the Airbus system is so unsafe?
Just a note on your comment - Airbus aircraft have several levels of control law:
Normal Law - the every day flight is done under this set of laws
Alternate Law - there are two alternate laws which apply, both of which have decreased level of protections but the flight computers are still in control
Direct Law - this is the law where a pilot has direct control of everything through the flight computers, no protections are given
Mechanical Law - the flight computers are completely out of the loop, pilot inputs go directly to the control surfaces
By all accounts, the A330 in this situation had regressed into Direct Law (not either of the Alternate Laws), meaning the computers knew they were making unreliable decisions and removed themselves from the decision making loop, allowing the pilots to make all the decisions.
This issue has nothing to do with fly-by-wire or glass cockpits, it has everything to do with false and misleading information being presented while the aircrew is in a situation where they cannot easily determine that said information is false, nor determine the correct information.
Take for example Birgenair Flight 301, a Boeing 757 (which is non-FBW, non-glass cockpit - a traditionly controlled aircraft in every sense of the word) - during a routine wash before the flight took off, a ground crew member taped over the pitot static ports to prevent damage. However, he never removed the tape before handing the aircraft over to the air crew, and they never spotted it during their preflight walk.
The aircraft took off, but it wasnt untila couple of minutes into the flight that the errors in the information compounded themselves, resulting in errant readings being presented to both the pilots and the autopilot - the autopilot eventually gave up and disconnected, and the pilots could not orientated themselves even when presented with obviously wrong information (their airspeed indicators gave a speed of 200 KIAS and falling, even with increased application of throttle).
5 minutes into the flight, the aircraft crashed into the sea.
The flight was a night flight - the aircrew had no external points of reference to fix on, and thus could not orientate themselves as to the correct pitch, yaw or speed of the aircraft. They were essentially doomed once they took off.
This Airbus crash is very similar - a pitot static system with known flaws (already identified by Airbus and due to be changed out by Air France) failed at a time when the aircrew had no external reference points (they were in a dense storm front, they had no horizon or other reference points) and the computer systems gave up.
Note that even with Airbus aircraft, the computers can be overridden - and they themselves know when they are talking bollocks, and will regress into various modes of flight control assistance. One of the messages given out by the aircraft over the maintenance link was that the aircraft systems had regressed into Direct Law - or in other words, the computers took themselves out of the decision making process and started acting as a direct messenger between the control inputs by the pilots and the flight surfaces.
Your "Boeings system is trusted and Airbuses is not" is common fud and bullshit in the aviation industry and the aviation enthusiast following - its not absolutely no basis in fact and Airbuses control system can fail safe in just the same way as Boeings - the difference is that in standard control law (Normal Law), Airbus provides several flight protection measures, including alpha protection, bank protection and airframe stress protection. Boeing also provide these, but to a lesser extent - however, both systems can either fail back to or be deliberately put into a direct stick-to-surface control mode.
I saw the trailer for "Source Code" when I went to the cinema on Saturday - I actually laughed out loud, so loud infact that my wife poked he hard in the ribs and people six rows away turned to see what was going on. I then laughed all the way through the feature itself, for much the same reasons.
Really, if you want a no-brains action film, "Battle: Los Angeles" will steal two hours of your life from you, but don't expect anything more.
I was pleasantly surprised, however, by the depiction of the alien invasion troops - they acted like actual troops, using hand signals to communicate and pulling back wounded comrades - in no other film have I seen this done, and it did add some aspect of realism to them thats missing in most alien invasion films.
Flying from Heathrow to Johannesburg on British Airways, the stewardess explicitly said Flight Mode was not acceptable("turn the device off even if the device has a flight mode"), the device had to be off. Flying back from Johannesburg to Amsterdam on KLM, the stewardess explicitly said Flight Mode was acceptable ("turn the device off or put it into flight mode"). The outbound flight was on a 747-400 and the flight back was on a 777-200.
That phrase has always bugged me, since the L1011 ended production in 1984 and The West Wing didn't start airing until 15 years later... come on, get the time lines correct! Other than that, brilliant series and very sad to see it go:(
Most video is streamed via RTMP, which HTML5 cannot handle, so there is no point in converting the player since the video is not part of the original file.
When I was living in Poland (you said 'the world', so this would apply), as a teenager, I had mobile phone updates on my Nokia 3120, and later a Nokia 6310i (my father's old mobile phones - He changed phones a lot) to tell me when to get out of an area because of the Polish mafia doing stuff in an area. I'm pretty sure a few minutes difference could have been problematic for me.
There, I gave you one and it was from when I was a teenager when I was a student - The quoted statement above is shown to be invalid. Of course you're probably going to try to reword it now or something in a follow up post.
I don't think your contrived "example" invalidates the statement at all - as we are talking about cell phones within the school environment, what warning to you would be so serious that it would not apply to the student sat next to you, or two rows away, or the next class? What warning would be so specific that *you* would have to leave the class room and no one else? What warning would be so specific that a call to the school main number and given generally would not be the preferential course of action?
Students should not have mobile phones while in class. And that includes for inbound calls - they are just as disruptive as outbound ones or text messages.
Unfortunately you are slightly off base as well when it comes to the UK:)
In the UK 'a college' most commonly refers to an educational establishment that sits roughly between secondary education and university - its not required before you go to university, but it offers courses at levels that usually neither a secondary school nor a university offers (diplomas, HNCs etc). You typically go to college in support of vocational training, apprenticeships and the like, as well as to retake GCSE or A-Level certificates later on in life.
Colleges are usually non-residential, but its not uncommon for them to have residential students either.
In the UK, dorms (and what I am taking your version of college to be) are called Halls of Residence.
Uhm, not in the UK it isn't - there are no laws forbidding you from photographing or videoing the police while on duty....
Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.
But there is a good reason why IE6 usage jumps from 9AM to 5PM Mon through Fri, and that is because millions of dollars worth of corporate Intranet apps are written around IE6. Was it stupid? Of course.
Why was it stupid? IE6 came out in 2001, these people have had a decade of good use out of their expenditure, using features that in many cases you still cannot replicate using Javascript and HTML5 - and they've been able to force the vendor (Microsoft) to support them by continuing to support their browser of choice for that decade! Sounds pretty intelligent to me....
It makes sense to completely dismiss ActiveX *now* and write a rich application in Javascript (jQuery) and HTML5, but that option simply did not exist in 2001, 2002, 2003 etc.
Yup, you typically get a copy of Windows included with corporate MSDN licenses as well - but SQL Server et al are testing and evaluation licenses only, you can never use them in a production sense.
You might want to check the licensing on the stuff you downloaded - with MSDN and Technet you can use the software for testing and development, but not for production, commercial or otherwise (other than specific licenses, such as Visual Studio, Office etc, but those are enumerated in the agreement).
I'd be very surprised if the Adademic licensing is any different - infact, your rights may expire once you leave the educational institution.
So if you are using that software, I'd double check your license:)
Ahhh, I get a flamebait mod because some idiot doesn't like what I said.... Suck it up, your favourite tool is generally regarded as a nuisance. Just because you don't like being told that doesn't mean its not true.
Mod me whichever way you like, it won't change anything in the long run - your favourite tool has a poor reputation.
Fine evidence that you didn't even read my post - yes, the same thing can be done with VNC, however I am not routinely removing VNC from unsuspecting users computers (infact, I have never come across a VNC install that the user didnt expressly know about in the first place).
How many people use it as a remote admin tool over Windows Remote Desktop, VNC etc etc? Now, how many people use it as a silently installed backdoor into a computer that they can use without the owners permission?
You can bitch about it all you want, but at the end of the day the usage demographic is what defines the tools market - and I have only ever heard of this "tool" in the context of removing it from unsuspecting users computers, the same as any other virus, trojan or rootkit.
Having delved into writing software for the Blackberry, I would have to say that my experiences were much the same as his...
Heres what I had to say on the subject:
I have, for the past two days, been trying to get a working Blackberry Developer environment setup so I can do some Blackberry development - and you know what? Its been the worst possible nightmare I have yet experienced in software development.
The suggested environment is a mix of the Open Source IDE Eclipse and the Blackberry JDK plugin collection - how hard can it be? As it turns out, quite hard.
Blackberry offer a download package called "BlackBerry Java Plug-in for Eclipse v1.1 (full installer)", which according to the instructions you are supposed to install over an Eclipse 3.5 installation - however, this gave me an Eclipse install which had the necessary files in the plugins directory, but no hint of anything Blackberry related in the actual IDE itself.
No errors, no warnings, nothing - infact, the plugin installation log has a steady stream of "Success" entries.
A second option presented itself from the Blackberry forums, which was that the aforementioned package actually includes a fully working copy of Eclipse itself, which it will install for you if you point it at an empty destination directory. Tried this, same result.
Back to the forums and blog posts I went, this time coming across two alternative methods of installing the plugin - using raw archive files. Unfortunately, even for posts just a few months old, all the links to pages on the Blackberry site results in 404 error messages - thanks Blackberry!
A fourth option is to install the plugin from within Eclipse, by adding the Blackberry JDK site to the target list for the "Install Software" option (under Help). Both suggested urls gave errors, and finally the third url (http://www.blackberry.com/go/eclipseUpdate/3.5/java) allowed me to conduct an install.
Unfortunately, the install ended with the same result as before - completely successful install, completely pristine Blackberry-less Eclipse.
Someone then mentioned something useful - Blackberry list "Java® SE Development Kit (JDK) 6, update 10 or later." in the prerequisites for the Java Plug-in for Eclipse, however there is a known issue with update 21 which causes issues with Eclipse. Blackberry never mention this, it would be good to know! So, off to hunt for an JDK 6 Update 20 link (which involved trial and error changing of the urk on the Oracle java site as they do not offer SE JDK 6 update 20 for download, only JDK with EE, which installs a metric ton of stuff I dont want).
So, tried loading Eclipse with JDK 6u20 installed instead of u21. Well well well, we now have a Blackberry Project option:)
Unfortunately, creating a new project results in a dialog box stating:
"Blackberry preprocessor is being configured. Eclipse will restart to take effect and re-build the workspace."
So, restart Eclipse and... get the same dialog. Restart again and... well, this looks familiar. Great, a restart cycle that you cannot get out of...
Luckily, this is fixed by adding the following to the Eclipse config.ini file ($ECLIPSE_HOME/configuration/config.ini)"
And now I have an IDE which includes a Blackberry project option and a usable editor - surely it can only get better from here on in?
And no, it didn't get any better from there on in - buggy VMs, issues installing the fucking keys (there are three keys BB require you to install to sign their stuff, the "install keys" option disappears from the right click menu after the first time you use it but it turns out that it only installs one of the three keys - so once you realise this, you have to hunt around the preferences for the right place to install the other two!), and generally a pain in the arse development system.
Slashdot Mirror
And shoplifting undermines a shops business model - should we also make that legal again? This isn't technological progress, so stop hiding behind that rhetoric - this is the wilfull ability of people being able to get things for free, so they do.
No, a copyright holder doesn't have the right to make money, but they do have the right to try.
When did you become ruler of the world and get to determine the meaning of words?
Its the usage patterns that are different - desktop usage is typically significantly higher than phone-based usage, its quite easy to tell which is which.
There was a cascade failure - the aircraft was sending maintenance messages to its maintenance base at the time of the crash, which told Airbus quite a bit of information, including the fact that the computers had decided to exclude themselves from decision making (which is extremely serious).
Another thing to note is that the Hudson A320 was still in Alternate Law when it ditched (none of the failures were severe enough to push the computers to take themselves out of the loop, and neither pilot took the measures necessary to do that manually) - the pilots had assistance from the computers to land the aircraft and they still managed to land their plane safely! How could that be if the Airbus system is so unsafe?
By all accounts, the A330 in this situation had regressed into Direct Law (not either of the Alternate Laws), meaning the computers knew they were making unreliable decisions and removed themselves from the decision making loop, allowing the pilots to make all the decisions.
This issue has nothing to do with fly-by-wire or glass cockpits, it has everything to do with false and misleading information being presented while the aircrew is in a situation where they cannot easily determine that said information is false, nor determine the correct information.
Take for example Birgenair Flight 301, a Boeing 757 (which is non-FBW, non-glass cockpit - a traditionly controlled aircraft in every sense of the word) - during a routine wash before the flight took off, a ground crew member taped over the pitot static ports to prevent damage. However, he never removed the tape before handing the aircraft over to the air crew, and they never spotted it during their preflight walk.
The aircraft took off, but it wasnt untila couple of minutes into the flight that the errors in the information compounded themselves, resulting in errant readings being presented to both the pilots and the autopilot - the autopilot eventually gave up and disconnected, and the pilots could not orientated themselves even when presented with obviously wrong information (their airspeed indicators gave a speed of 200 KIAS and falling, even with increased application of throttle).
5 minutes into the flight, the aircraft crashed into the sea.
The flight was a night flight - the aircrew had no external points of reference to fix on, and thus could not orientate themselves as to the correct pitch, yaw or speed of the aircraft. They were essentially doomed once they took off.
This Airbus crash is very similar - a pitot static system with known flaws (already identified by Airbus and due to be changed out by Air France) failed at a time when the aircrew had no external reference points (they were in a dense storm front, they had no horizon or other reference points) and the computer systems gave up.
Note that even with Airbus aircraft, the computers can be overridden - and they themselves know when they are talking bollocks, and will regress into various modes of flight control assistance. One of the messages given out by the aircraft over the maintenance link was that the aircraft systems had regressed into Direct Law - or in other words, the computers took themselves out of the decision making process and started acting as a direct messenger between the control inputs by the pilots and the flight surfaces.
Your "Boeings system is trusted and Airbuses is not" is common fud and bullshit in the aviation industry and the aviation enthusiast following - its not absolutely no basis in fact and Airbuses control system can fail safe in just the same way as Boeings - the difference is that in standard control law (Normal Law), Airbus provides several flight protection measures, including alpha protection, bank protection and airframe stress protection. Boeing also provide these, but to a lesser extent - however, both systems can either fail back to or be deliberately put into a direct stick-to-surface control mode.
I saw the trailer for "Source Code" when I went to the cinema on Saturday - I actually laughed out loud, so loud infact that my wife poked he hard in the ribs and people six rows away turned to see what was going on. I then laughed all the way through the feature itself, for much the same reasons.
Really, if you want a no-brains action film, "Battle: Los Angeles" will steal two hours of your life from you, but don't expect anything more.
I was pleasantly surprised, however, by the depiction of the alien invasion troops - they acted like actual troops, using hand signals to communicate and pulling back wounded comrades - in no other film have I seen this done, and it did add some aspect of realism to them thats missing in most alien invasion films.
Flying from Heathrow to Johannesburg on British Airways, the stewardess explicitly said Flight Mode was not acceptable("turn the device off even if the device has a flight mode"), the device had to be off. Flying back from Johannesburg to Amsterdam on KLM, the stewardess explicitly said Flight Mode was acceptable ("turn the device off or put it into flight mode"). The outbound flight was on a 747-400 and the flight back was on a 777-200.
Considering the amount of equipment on an aircraft, do you have any idea how much weight that would add to the MWZF?
That phrase has always bugged me, since the L1011 ended production in 1984 and The West Wing didn't start airing until 15 years later ... come on, get the time lines correct! Other than that, brilliant series and very sad to see it go :(
Most video is streamed via RTMP, which HTML5 cannot handle, so there is no point in converting the player since the video is not part of the original file.
When I was living in Poland (you said 'the world', so this would apply), as a teenager, I had mobile phone updates on my Nokia 3120, and later a Nokia 6310i (my father's old mobile phones - He changed phones a lot) to tell me when to get out of an area because of the Polish mafia doing stuff in an area. I'm pretty sure a few minutes difference could have been problematic for me.
There, I gave you one and it was from when I was a teenager when I was a student - The quoted statement above is shown to be invalid. Of course you're probably going to try to reword it now or something in a follow up post.
I don't think your contrived "example" invalidates the statement at all - as we are talking about cell phones within the school environment, what warning to you would be so serious that it would not apply to the student sat next to you, or two rows away, or the next class? What warning would be so specific that *you* would have to leave the class room and no one else? What warning would be so specific that a call to the school main number and given generally would not be the preferential course of action?
Students should not have mobile phones while in class. And that includes for inbound calls - they are just as disruptive as outbound ones or text messages.
Plus the police just recently halved the estimated number, after doing a more accurate estimate....
And "six of the best" isn't an encroachment on rights?
Unfortunately you are slightly off base as well when it comes to the UK :)
In the UK 'a college' most commonly refers to an educational establishment that sits roughly between secondary education and university - its not required before you go to university, but it offers courses at levels that usually neither a secondary school nor a university offers (diplomas, HNCs etc). You typically go to college in support of vocational training, apprenticeships and the like, as well as to retake GCSE or A-Level certificates later on in life.
Colleges are usually non-residential, but its not uncommon for them to have residential students either.
In the UK, dorms (and what I am taking your version of college to be) are called Halls of Residence.
Source: The police themselves! http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm
Do you know who doesn't have to support the infrastructure for those downloads, nor has to support the creation of the content of those downloads?
Yup, The Pirate Bay.
Its easy to be the best at competing when you don't have the same costs...
Why was it stupid? IE6 came out in 2001, these people have had a decade of good use out of their expenditure, using features that in many cases you still cannot replicate using Javascript and HTML5 - and they've been able to force the vendor (Microsoft) to support them by continuing to support their browser of choice for that decade! Sounds pretty intelligent to me....
It makes sense to completely dismiss ActiveX *now* and write a rich application in Javascript (jQuery) and HTML5, but that option simply did not exist in 2001, 2002, 2003 etc.
Yup, you typically get a copy of Windows included with corporate MSDN licenses as well - but SQL Server et al are testing and evaluation licenses only, you can never use them in a production sense.
You might want to check the licensing on the stuff you downloaded - with MSDN and Technet you can use the software for testing and development, but not for production, commercial or otherwise (other than specific licenses, such as Visual Studio, Office etc, but those are enumerated in the agreement).
:)
I'd be very surprised if the Adademic licensing is any different - infact, your rights may expire once you leave the educational institution.
So if you are using that software, I'd double check your license
Would you rather they clamped down on you?
What is it with people feeling entitled to everything right now, this second, immediately? Do MS really owe you this SDK?
Of course this is a good thing. Sheesh.
Ahhh, I get a flamebait mod because some idiot doesn't like what I said.... Suck it up, your favourite tool is generally regarded as a nuisance. Just because you don't like being told that doesn't mean its not true.
Mod me whichever way you like, it won't change anything in the long run - your favourite tool has a poor reputation.
Fine evidence that you didn't even read my post - yes, the same thing can be done with VNC, however I am not routinely removing VNC from unsuspecting users computers (infact, I have never come across a VNC install that the user didnt expressly know about in the first place).
How many people use it as a remote admin tool over Windows Remote Desktop, VNC etc etc? Now, how many people use it as a silently installed backdoor into a computer that they can use without the owners permission?
You can bitch about it all you want, but at the end of the day the usage demographic is what defines the tools market - and I have only ever heard of this "tool" in the context of removing it from unsuspecting users computers, the same as any other virus, trojan or rootkit.
Heres what I had to say on the subject:
And no, it didn't get any better from there on in - buggy VMs, issues installing the fucking keys (there are three keys BB require you to install to sign their stuff, the "install keys" option disappears from the right click menu after the first time you use it but it turns out that it only installs one of the three keys - so once you realise this, you have to hunt around the preferences for the right place to install the other two!), and generally a pain in the arse development system.