The TPM chip is not guaranteed hardware on a Mac - for example, it existed in the initial Core based Macs but was removed from initial Core2 based Macs onward and I have yet to see a new Mac with one.
I have never been charged for a bank transfer in the UK - and its a regular occurance between my group of friends, to pay for weekends away et all. Perhaps we are spoiled in the UK, I've heard too many horror stories and oddities about the US system, you guys just don't seem to have personal accounts setup as nicely as we do here.
In Europe you typically pay rent and regular services by either a Standing Order (your bank sends them a set amount of money on a set day) or a Direct Debit (the other party requests money from your bank and it gets paid - Direct Debit has an industry wide guarantee which allows you to claim back from your bank any incorrect amounts payed). I haven't used a cheque in 10 years.
In the UK, when you used a cheque in retail it has to be accompanied by a cheque guarantee card, which the retailer will copy details from - your bank basically gives you a card (usually its combined with your debit or cash withdrawl card, I've never seen a standalone cheque guarantee card) which tells the retailer how much the bank will guarantee to pay in *any* event when they take your cheque, which circumvents people drawing cheques on empty accounts. No cheque guarantee card, no cheque accepted, simple.
That said, pretty much all of the UK retail base phased payment by cheque out in 2008/2009, so its pretty hard to find a place that will accept one these days anyway.
You get a Bank Draft, which is accepted as cash at any bank but for the purposes of the transaction is the same as a cheque - just a convenient single bit of paper. In the UK this is the main alternative to paying for a vehicle by financing - quite a few dealerships will not take several thousand in cash.
Actually, the A350s design timeline is a bit more complicated than you suggest - until the 787, Airbus had always led the way in composites usage, but did not switch to a composite fuselage until very late on in the design (well after the A350 became the A350XWB), and only then made the switch because their customers told them to.
Its also no use comparing 787 orders to A380 - an airline would not buy one in place of the other, either way around.
There was no rudder limitation on the A300 involved in the AA Flight 587 crash, and infact there is no computer involved in the A300 as its not a fly-by-wire aircraft - the pilot was supposed to be aware that full pedal deflection was not available in flight, and full rudder deflection whilst in flight involved much less pedal deflection. The pilot involved reacted to wake turbulence through use of the rudder, which is not an accepted reaction, and he had also been criticised previously for excessive use of the rudder in flight by another pilot.
No aircraft is certified to allow the use of the rudder in such a manner by this pilot - the rudder failed well beyond the ultimate load (150% of the load the aircraft is ever expected to endure in civil operation) and could not have been prevented without redesigning every other aircraft in use today.
The 787 has taken much longer than 6 - the inital research and design of both the fuselage and the wings were started in the 1990s for the Sonic Cruiser, and adapted for the 787.
Boeing does indeed use different CAD versions across its design base, just as Airbus did - the problem with the A380 had nothing to do with disparate CAD versions as this was previously successfully used on the A340/A330. The problem was that the software written to convert between the two versions used for the A380 had bugs in it - which was why it was never noticed until production.
Theres a very nice story about the Concorde and the environmental issues it faced. The New York Port Authority tried to ban supersonic aircraft from landing at JFK, but was overruled by the US Government - however, this did not stop protesters from protesting outside JFK at the inaugural Concorde visit.
A great 'boo!' was heard from the protesters when they heard what they thought was Concorde landing - until someone pointed out that they were 10 minutes late, and the 'much louder aircraft than normal' they were hearing was a standard Boeing 707 and Concorde had already landed. They hadn't even noticed Concorde landing in amongst the normal traffic of the airport.
I suggest you look at the tax breaks Boeing received from the State of Washington, to the tune of several billion dollars, in order for the state to secure the 787 production line.
I also suggest you look at the subsidies and grants supplied to the Japanese wing producers, which essentially paid for the design of the wings and wingbox and setup of the production line.
I even suggest you take a look at the grants and subsidies supplied to the various Tier 1 contractors throughout the world.
All of these are documented, and all of these mean Boeing and its various contractors involved in the 787 had to invest less of their own money in the 787, meaning lower risk of return and more spare cash elsewhere.
Also, the US government would never let Boeing cease trading for whatever reason. You can bet real money on that - they would never surrender the complete civil aviation market to foreign suppliers.
With regard to the 747-500, yes Boeing did offer it but it was rejected by the airlines because it was not a new design - they wanted a cleansheet design, and the A380 was it. At the time, Boeing was not willing to commit to a cleansheet VLA (Very Large Aircraft), and passed on it. The 747-8 was designed primarily for the freight market, and has essentially surrendered the passenger market to the A380 - just as the A380 was primarily designed for the passenger market and surrendered the freight market to the 747 (originally the -400, and now the -8).
With regard to your Palm Treo SMS thoughts - the iPhone has an IM like SMS view, with entire conversations dating back to the first message available in the history as speech bubbles. Its quite nice.
Aircraft are designed for stresses in particular ways - apply stresses in other ways and its easy to bring down the plane.
You don't have to hit the cockpit, fuel tanks or wings - you simply have to disrupt the fuselage structure itself, which is actually fairly trivial to do. Once the fuselage structure has lost integrity, there is no aircraft.
You can't do any of those things on an Xbox that has never been connected to Live - I know, I have one (6 months old, never bothered plugging in the ethernet cable).
I have an Xbox 360 thats never been connected to Live, and I can't use it as a Windows Media Center. They haven't removed any functionality from a banned console...
If your Xbox is modded, and as you've been banned from Live then thats probable, then sure - there is nothing stopping you from connecting to another service provider. Whether anyone is providing such a service is another question.
No, we heard that someone was ensuring the Windows codebase was 128bit safe, not that Microsoft was targetting 128bit architectures. People made the same mistake in that story as well...
It doesn't matter - MSDN licences are per named person in most cases (the very large site licences are not, but even volume licences are named user only), and educational sales are by the same limitation.
Try prosecution under the Misuse of Computers Act, specifically for unauthorised access to the accounts - which this fits perfectly. He stole and used usernames and passwords, nuff said.
So what you are trying to say is that any product that does not sell out on the first day is doomed to failure?
No, Im wondering why there wasn't the same sudden rush to the Android platform that the iPhone enjoyed, if Android is supposedly so much better?
Slow and steady wins the race.
Slow and steady wins the race? In kindergarten maybe, but in the real world slow and steady means low market penetration for years, while your quick competitor builds critical mass years before you. It also isn't mutually exclusive - Apple can be quick to begin with, and then slow and steady later on. Which runner is in front then?
This isn't an endurance race, its a sprint - build that market share, build the revenue streams surrounding the market share, and *then* keep it. But if you don't build it first, then theres nothing to keep.
Analysts are predicting 2012 for Android to routinely outsell the iphone.
Predicting. Based on what I have yet to see explained.
What you also have to remember is that almost anyone who wants an iphone has one, as of July 2010 it will have been released in every western nation for two years which is the standard plan length in our nations. This is going to affect iphone sales a lot.
And yet the iPhone is still selling extremely well, and has sold massively well in pretty much every quarter since it was released. Not everyone ran out at the start and bought the iPhone, and not everyone upgraded to the new models when given the opportunity.
the iphone didn't take that much away from competitors, certainly the likes of RIM and NOKIA aren't hurting, the iphone hasn't taken much from the smart phone market, most of the iphones market share comes from the consumer phone market.
Hmm, so where did the millions of iPhone users and a not insignificant market share come from? The Easter Bunny? It came from the competitors, the market didn't suddenly increase because of the iPhone.
I have to wonder how you came to that conclusion, you seem to have a pretty fixed opinion about Android despite never actually using it?
Funnily enough, I can have an opinion on a situation without having an opinion on the product. The two are not intertwined and I don't have any opinion about Android itself.
So why was there a big explosion of sales for the iPhone? People seem to expect Android to exceed the iPhone, almost as if it was a divine right - its quite amusing to see.
Thats utter bollocks - the first thing I do when I install a Windows server is update.Net to the latest version, being 3.5 SP1 these days, and I've installed enough SQL Servers in the past 6 months to know that what you claim is a total fabrication, as SQL Server goes on after the.Net updates.
SQL Server 2000, 2005 or 2008 have no problems installing onto a Windows Server 2003 R2, 2008 or 2008 R2 system with.Net 3.5 SP1 already installed on it. You are talking utter shite.
With Android-based phones cranking up, how long will it be before Apple loses their market share due to these shenanigans?
Android was first released in October 2008, with the first device being available the same month - thats over a year ago. According to Apple, the iPhone sold more than 4 million units in the first 200 days, so wheres the equivalent Android sales explosion? Analysts are expecting Android sales to outstrip iPhone sales by 2012, but why is it going to take that long if Android is such a good competitor? It didn't take the iPhone anywhere near two and a half years to take a significant chunk of the market from competitors.
I'm not an Android hater, I haven't used it so I don't hold an opinion on it, but it seems to be held as the ultimate saviour on/., and I'm struggling to see why. Its not the iPhone I am worried about, its the Android series of phones...
Slashdot Mirror
The TPM chip is not guaranteed hardware on a Mac - for example, it existed in the initial Core based Macs but was removed from initial Core2 based Macs onward and I have yet to see a new Mac with one.
I have never been charged for a bank transfer in the UK - and its a regular occurance between my group of friends, to pay for weekends away et all. Perhaps we are spoiled in the UK, I've heard too many horror stories and oddities about the US system, you guys just don't seem to have personal accounts setup as nicely as we do here.
In Europe you typically pay rent and regular services by either a Standing Order (your bank sends them a set amount of money on a set day) or a Direct Debit (the other party requests money from your bank and it gets paid - Direct Debit has an industry wide guarantee which allows you to claim back from your bank any incorrect amounts payed). I haven't used a cheque in 10 years.
In the UK, when you used a cheque in retail it has to be accompanied by a cheque guarantee card, which the retailer will copy details from - your bank basically gives you a card (usually its combined with your debit or cash withdrawl card, I've never seen a standalone cheque guarantee card) which tells the retailer how much the bank will guarantee to pay in *any* event when they take your cheque, which circumvents people drawing cheques on empty accounts. No cheque guarantee card, no cheque accepted, simple.
That said, pretty much all of the UK retail base phased payment by cheque out in 2008/2009, so its pretty hard to find a place that will accept one these days anyway.
You get a Bank Draft, which is accepted as cash at any bank but for the purposes of the transaction is the same as a cheque - just a convenient single bit of paper. In the UK this is the main alternative to paying for a vehicle by financing - quite a few dealerships will not take several thousand in cash.
Actually, the A350s design timeline is a bit more complicated than you suggest - until the 787, Airbus had always led the way in composites usage, but did not switch to a composite fuselage until very late on in the design (well after the A350 became the A350XWB), and only then made the switch because their customers told them to.
Its also no use comparing 787 orders to A380 - an airline would not buy one in place of the other, either way around.
There was no rudder limitation on the A300 involved in the AA Flight 587 crash, and infact there is no computer involved in the A300 as its not a fly-by-wire aircraft - the pilot was supposed to be aware that full pedal deflection was not available in flight, and full rudder deflection whilst in flight involved much less pedal deflection. The pilot involved reacted to wake turbulence through use of the rudder, which is not an accepted reaction, and he had also been criticised previously for excessive use of the rudder in flight by another pilot.
No aircraft is certified to allow the use of the rudder in such a manner by this pilot - the rudder failed well beyond the ultimate load (150% of the load the aircraft is ever expected to endure in civil operation) and could not have been prevented without redesigning every other aircraft in use today.
The 787 has taken much longer than 6 - the inital research and design of both the fuselage and the wings were started in the 1990s for the Sonic Cruiser, and adapted for the 787.
Boeing does indeed use different CAD versions across its design base, just as Airbus did - the problem with the A380 had nothing to do with disparate CAD versions as this was previously successfully used on the A340/A330. The problem was that the software written to convert between the two versions used for the A380 had bugs in it - which was why it was never noticed until production.
Theres a very nice story about the Concorde and the environmental issues it faced. The New York Port Authority tried to ban supersonic aircraft from landing at JFK, but was overruled by the US Government - however, this did not stop protesters from protesting outside JFK at the inaugural Concorde visit.
A great 'boo!' was heard from the protesters when they heard what they thought was Concorde landing - until someone pointed out that they were 10 minutes late, and the 'much louder aircraft than normal' they were hearing was a standard Boeing 707 and Concorde had already landed. They hadn't even noticed Concorde landing in amongst the normal traffic of the airport.
I suggest you look at the tax breaks Boeing received from the State of Washington, to the tune of several billion dollars, in order for the state to secure the 787 production line.
I also suggest you look at the subsidies and grants supplied to the Japanese wing producers, which essentially paid for the design of the wings and wingbox and setup of the production line.
I even suggest you take a look at the grants and subsidies supplied to the various Tier 1 contractors throughout the world.
All of these are documented, and all of these mean Boeing and its various contractors involved in the 787 had to invest less of their own money in the 787, meaning lower risk of return and more spare cash elsewhere.
Also, the US government would never let Boeing cease trading for whatever reason. You can bet real money on that - they would never surrender the complete civil aviation market to foreign suppliers.
With regard to the 747-500, yes Boeing did offer it but it was rejected by the airlines because it was not a new design - they wanted a cleansheet design, and the A380 was it. At the time, Boeing was not willing to commit to a cleansheet VLA (Very Large Aircraft), and passed on it. The 747-8 was designed primarily for the freight market, and has essentially surrendered the passenger market to the A380 - just as the A380 was primarily designed for the passenger market and surrendered the freight market to the 747 (originally the -400, and now the -8).
Why is URL shortening evil, but the DNS system not? Its not as if any URL has to be descriptive of the content you will be viewing...
With regard to your Palm Treo SMS thoughts - the iPhone has an IM like SMS view, with entire conversations dating back to the first message available in the history as speech bubbles. Its quite nice.
Aircraft are designed for stresses in particular ways - apply stresses in other ways and its easy to bring down the plane.
You don't have to hit the cockpit, fuel tanks or wings - you simply have to disrupt the fuselage structure itself, which is actually fairly trivial to do. Once the fuselage structure has lost integrity, there is no aircraft.
You can't do any of those things on an Xbox that has never been connected to Live - I know, I have one (6 months old, never bothered plugging in the ethernet cable).
Sorry, I meant 'Windows Media Center extender'.
I have an Xbox 360 thats never been connected to Live, and I can't use it as a Windows Media Center. They haven't removed any functionality from a banned console...
If your Xbox is modded, and as you've been banned from Live then thats probable, then sure - there is nothing stopping you from connecting to another service provider. Whether anyone is providing such a service is another question.
I think thats enough of a claim to warrant evidence before it should be taken as the truth.
No, we heard that someone was ensuring the Windows codebase was 128bit safe, not that Microsoft was targetting 128bit architectures. People made the same mistake in that story as well...
It doesn't matter - MSDN licences are per named person in most cases (the very large site licences are not, but even volume licences are named user only), and educational sales are by the same limitation.
Try prosecution under the Misuse of Computers Act, specifically for unauthorised access to the accounts - which this fits perfectly. He stole and used usernames and passwords, nuff said.
So what you are trying to say is that any product that does not sell out on the first day is doomed to failure?
No, Im wondering why there wasn't the same sudden rush to the Android platform that the iPhone enjoyed, if Android is supposedly so much better?
Slow and steady wins the race.
Slow and steady wins the race? In kindergarten maybe, but in the real world slow and steady means low market penetration for years, while your quick competitor builds critical mass years before you. It also isn't mutually exclusive - Apple can be quick to begin with, and then slow and steady later on. Which runner is in front then?
This isn't an endurance race, its a sprint - build that market share, build the revenue streams surrounding the market share, and *then* keep it. But if you don't build it first, then theres nothing to keep.
Analysts are predicting 2012 for Android to routinely outsell the iphone.
Predicting. Based on what I have yet to see explained.
What you also have to remember is that almost anyone who wants an iphone has one, as of July 2010 it will have been released in every western nation for two years which is the standard plan length in our nations. This is going to affect iphone sales a lot.
And yet the iPhone is still selling extremely well, and has sold massively well in pretty much every quarter since it was released. Not everyone ran out at the start and bought the iPhone, and not everyone upgraded to the new models when given the opportunity.
the iphone didn't take that much away from competitors, certainly the likes of RIM and NOKIA aren't hurting, the iphone hasn't taken much from the smart phone market, most of the iphones market share comes from the consumer phone market.
Hmm, so where did the millions of iPhone users and a not insignificant market share come from? The Easter Bunny? It came from the competitors, the market didn't suddenly increase because of the iPhone.
I have to wonder how you came to that conclusion, you seem to have a pretty fixed opinion about Android despite never actually using it?
Funnily enough, I can have an opinion on a situation without having an opinion on the product. The two are not intertwined and I don't have any opinion about Android itself.
So why was there a big explosion of sales for the iPhone? People seem to expect Android to exceed the iPhone, almost as if it was a divine right - its quite amusing to see.
Thats utter bollocks - the first thing I do when I install a Windows server is update .Net to the latest version, being 3.5 SP1 these days, and I've installed enough SQL Servers in the past 6 months to know that what you claim is a total fabrication, as SQL Server goes on after the .Net updates.
.Net 3.5 SP1 already installed on it. You are talking utter shite.
SQL Server 2000, 2005 or 2008 have no problems installing onto a Windows Server 2003 R2, 2008 or 2008 R2 system with
With Android-based phones cranking up, how long will it be before Apple loses their market share due to these shenanigans?
Android was first released in October 2008, with the first device being available the same month - thats over a year ago. According to Apple, the iPhone sold more than 4 million units in the first 200 days, so wheres the equivalent Android sales explosion? Analysts are expecting Android sales to outstrip iPhone sales by 2012, but why is it going to take that long if Android is such a good competitor? It didn't take the iPhone anywhere near two and a half years to take a significant chunk of the market from competitors.
I'm not an Android hater, I haven't used it so I don't hold an opinion on it, but it seems to be held as the ultimate saviour on /., and I'm struggling to see why. Its not the iPhone I am worried about, its the Android series of phones...