You actually proved my point to a fair degree, though I agree with you for those examples:) Both of those aircraft are ground/surface attack aircraft, not in the air dominence role, and thus have different requirements. Turbofans cannot push an aircraft much past Mach 1, so you need loud powerful turbojets to do that job. The more power, the more of an advantage you have over your enemy as it gives you more time to get to a higher altitude and launch your missiles first. Those aircraft want to loiter over a target for a long period of time, or stay on station for longer, so fuel efficient turbofans work better for them.
The 777 may be certified for overseas flights but it isnt certified for all routes - as I said in my post, see ETOPS (Extended-Range Twin-engine Operations Performance Standards) which governs howfar a twin engine aircraft may be from a diversionary airport at any one time. Certain routes place aircraft outside the 180 minutes that twin engine aircraft can venture, and thus place that route out of bounds for anything with less than 3 engines. This is the reason for the A340 series of aircraft.
Many airlines have declared interest in running the 787 in longhaul capacities, mainly because its more efficient than the longhaul 777s or 747s. If you dont consider the 787 in a longhaul role, then the only roles the 787 will fulfil is the same as that of the shorter range 767 and 747, which isnt the case. The 787 is designed to provide a long range aircraft with a mid range passenger capacity at a low cost.
You make a valid point about popularity for smaller airports, but...
The A380 is designed for the behemoth airlines who live in the hub and spoke system. How many of them are not either in bankrupcy or in danger of being there? That fact alone would scare me if I were Airbus.
It really is only US airlines that are fighting for survival at the moment, European airlines such as Virgin, BA, Air France, and others are all holding their own with a couple suffering that would have suffered anyway, and Asian and Saudi Arabian airlines are actually expanding at a phenominal rate. Dont confuse the US market with the world market.
Oh, and the 787 cant fly certain longhaul routes due to engine regulations (basically twin engine aircraft need to be within 3 hours of a diversion airport at all times, if it exceeds that range then you need more than 2 engines - see ETOPS).
No, no A330 version crashed on its maiden flight, but they did lose a A330-300 in flight testing in 1994, but it was well into the testing program that that happened and it occured when the crew wrongly handled a test case where they simulated shutting down the engines in flight.
THe thing is that the A380 can handle both the H2S and P2P models very well. Currently its aimed at the longhaul routes, which do not work well in the P2P model at the moment due to the smaller number of customers. In 15 years time when P2P becomes viable over longhaul routes, enough airports will have upgraded to take the A380 that it can easily slip into that role as well, as the number of passengers on those routes would have increased as well to make it viable.
The A380 is also designed to be produced in a 2 engine model for short P2P routes like tourist routes (Northern Europe to the Med etc).
The A380 with 550 passengers on board uses 3 litres of fuel per passenger per 100km - on par with a good economy car. Its also quieter. The reason the military uses turbojets is because turbojets provide more power than turbofans can, and in military aircraft such as Air Dominence fighters etc the more power you have, the better chance you have in combat, ie higher speeds, higher climbing characteristics etc.
No, they dont. EU Governments provide whats called Launch Aid to Airbus, which is equal to 1/3rd development costs of the aircraft and consists of loans to that amount at national interest rates - yes Airbus pays back that aid with interest, so get your facts right. Launch Aid is something Boeing agreed to under the 1992 transatlantic industry agreement on competition.
Some governments subsidise local production plants, but this is exactly the same as Boeing getting a $20billion tax break from Washington State to move its 777 production plant to that state.
Its interesting that everyone seems to comment on this portion of the BK license without actually understanding what it really means. THe license does not say 'thou shalt not work on a competing SCM system' it DOES say however 'thou shalt not use BK to develop a competing product' and this only applies to the no cost version of the BK client. Basically it says 'you havent paid for this software with cash, so do us a favour and dont use it to develop a competing product'.
Since Linus is no longer using BK, hes perfectly in the clear. Since Linus was using the paid for version of BK as well, he would have been in the clear anyway.
All this whole incident proved is that when your development is determined by the whims of a single entity you run a very significant chance of getting burned.
Sorry, but this arguement just falls down flat. Linus seems to be having no problems moving away from BK to another solution, so the kernels development is NOT determined by the whims of a single entity other than Linus himself. Since BK made a significantly positive contribution to the workflow of the kernel developers, I would offer the opinion that the whole Bitkeeper saga has been nothing but positive from the start to the end, despite what RMS and others may have you think.
I believe that sourcecode should be at the control of whoever created it or paid them to create it, its their investment so why should a random person have the ability to fork it on a whim, unless the codes owners agree to that in the first place by CHOOSING to embrace such a move and opensourcing their code by freewill.
Ok, how about this one. Two UK bankers are currently facing extradition to Texas because they dealt with Enron. US Federal investigators say that they defrauded a UK bank, while in the UK, by depositing the banks money with a UK arm of Enron in an undisclosed account. UK regulators have said that theres no case to answer, the UK bank has said that the bankers did not defraud them and they did nothing wrong, yet these men face extradition to the US for the 'crime', solely because they held an account at Enron (this has nothing to do with Enrons collapse), which in itself is not illegal.
Hows that for US law reaching into another country?
Sex with minors is legal in certain countries, yet if you leave the US for that purpose, you can be arrested, charged and imprisoned for that act, despite the fact that the sex would be fully legal in the other country.
Firefly was OK - the first time I watched it I was disappointed, but subsequent times gave me a chance to catch the subtlety and depth of the characters without having to concentrate on the plot too much.
One series I have really enjoyed but doesnt seem to get much attention is Lost. Fantastic premise, great characters and a setting that is brilliant, Im hooked and I recommend the series to anyone I can. Plus it has Mira Furlan from B5:)
Because it also protects the Solaris code from being plundered for other OSes. When the origional 'Solaris is being opensourced' stories hit, I had the distinct impression that comments along the lines of 'Great, now we can port Solaris feature X to Linux!' vastly outnumbered comments about improving Solaris.
By putting it under its own license, you have the freedom of improving Solaris if you need to (and thus have many of the advantages of opensource that is often touted about Linux), and the code is safe from wholesale plundering.
If the OS crashed because of the problem, then I would agree, but in this case it didnt - the application failed due to database overflow, which locked out the controls. Think about it this way, how can you blame linux when mysql cant handle the data given to it? Thats what this boils down to.
Nice to see bad reporting is still happening. Windows NT was not the cause of the Navys experience, a badly written database application was (and since they dont say what the database application was, we cant go around namecalling). Im not a Microsoft fanboi (jesus, why do I have to even write that?!) but to just attribute a Ship Management failure to the OS when the article said that it was the application and database itself is just FUD pure and simple.
So whats stopping a remote 'trouble' client reporting the correct hash, and deliberately sending duff data, resulting in either at best the client having to get it again, or at worst the client assembling a bad whole? Do the current BT clients drop the bad peer after so many bad segments to prevent this sort of thing or what?
I did Science at GCSE level (UK highschool exams), and went on to do chemistry and physics at ALevel (2 year further education before University) and on the first day at Alevel standard, they told us 'forget everything youve learnt up until now, its all untrue, just a means of getting some basic science education'. And true to form, everything that we had learnt at GCSE wasnt any help at all at Alevel standard.
And Ive been told that if you went on to do degree level physics and chemistry, you are pretty much told exactly the same. Whats the point, why not just teach the real facts at all levels?!
I can handle both a trackpad and a trackpoint very well with one hand - a finger for the pointer and a finger or thumb for the button(s). Ive been doing this for years. How is this new?
Slashdot Mirror
You actually proved my point to a fair degree, though I agree with you for those examples :) Both of those aircraft are ground/surface attack aircraft, not in the air dominence role, and thus have different requirements. Turbofans cannot push an aircraft much past Mach 1, so you need loud powerful turbojets to do that job. The more power, the more of an advantage you have over your enemy as it gives you more time to get to a higher altitude and launch your missiles first. Those aircraft want to loiter over a target for a long period of time, or stay on station for longer, so fuel efficient turbofans work better for them.
The 777 may be certified for overseas flights but it isnt certified for all routes - as I said in my post, see ETOPS (Extended-Range Twin-engine Operations Performance Standards) which governs howfar a twin engine aircraft may be from a diversionary airport at any one time. Certain routes place aircraft outside the 180 minutes that twin engine aircraft can venture, and thus place that route out of bounds for anything with less than 3 engines. This is the reason for the A340 series of aircraft.
Many airlines have declared interest in running the 787 in longhaul capacities, mainly because its more efficient than the longhaul 777s or 747s. If you dont consider the 787 in a longhaul role, then the only roles the 787 will fulfil is the same as that of the shorter range 767 and 747, which isnt the case. The 787 is designed to provide a long range aircraft with a mid range passenger capacity at a low cost.
You make a valid point about popularity for smaller airports, but...
The A380 is designed for the behemoth airlines who live in the hub and spoke system. How many of them are not either in bankrupcy or in danger of being there? That fact alone would scare me if I were Airbus.
It really is only US airlines that are fighting for survival at the moment, European airlines such as Virgin, BA, Air France, and others are all holding their own with a couple suffering that would have suffered anyway, and Asian and Saudi Arabian airlines are actually expanding at a phenominal rate. Dont confuse the US market with the world market.
Oh, and the 787 cant fly certain longhaul routes due to engine regulations (basically twin engine aircraft need to be within 3 hours of a diversion airport at all times, if it exceeds that range then you need more than 2 engines - see ETOPS).
No, no A330 version crashed on its maiden flight, but they did lose a A330-300 in flight testing in 1994, but it was well into the testing program that that happened and it occured when the crew wrongly handled a test case where they simulated shutting down the engines in flight.
THe thing is that the A380 can handle both the H2S and P2P models very well. Currently its aimed at the longhaul routes, which do not work well in the P2P model at the moment due to the smaller number of customers. In 15 years time when P2P becomes viable over longhaul routes, enough airports will have upgraded to take the A380 that it can easily slip into that role as well, as the number of passengers on those routes would have increased as well to make it viable.
The A380 is also designed to be produced in a 2 engine model for short P2P routes like tourist routes (Northern Europe to the Med etc).
The A380 with 550 passengers on board uses 3 litres of fuel per passenger per 100km - on par with a good economy car. Its also quieter. The reason the military uses turbojets is because turbojets provide more power than turbofans can, and in military aircraft such as Air Dominence fighters etc the more power you have, the better chance you have in combat, ie higher speeds, higher climbing characteristics etc.
No, they dont. EU Governments provide whats called Launch Aid to Airbus, which is equal to 1/3rd development costs of the aircraft and consists of loans to that amount at national interest rates - yes Airbus pays back that aid with interest, so get your facts right. Launch Aid is something Boeing agreed to under the 1992 transatlantic industry agreement on competition.
Some governments subsidise local production plants, but this is exactly the same as Boeing getting a $20billion tax break from Washington State to move its 777 production plant to that state.
Pick your team, they are exactly the same.
at Airliners.net.
Depends what you touch afterward.....
Again, only the FREE (no cost) version, not the paid for version that Linus was using. There are two different clients with two different licenses.
Its interesting that everyone seems to comment on this portion of the BK license without actually understanding what it really means. THe license does not say 'thou shalt not work on a competing SCM system' it DOES say however 'thou shalt not use BK to develop a competing product' and this only applies to the no cost version of the BK client. Basically it says 'you havent paid for this software with cash, so do us a favour and dont use it to develop a competing product'.
Since Linus is no longer using BK, hes perfectly in the clear. Since Linus was using the paid for version of BK as well, he would have been in the clear anyway.
All this whole incident proved is that when your development is determined by the whims of a single entity you run a very significant chance of getting burned.
Sorry, but this arguement just falls down flat. Linus seems to be having no problems moving away from BK to another solution, so the kernels development is NOT determined by the whims of a single entity other than Linus himself. Since BK made a significantly positive contribution to the workflow of the kernel developers, I would offer the opinion that the whole Bitkeeper saga has been nothing but positive from the start to the end, despite what RMS and others may have you think.
I believe that sourcecode should be at the control of whoever created it or paid them to create it, its their investment so why should a random person have the ability to fork it on a whim, unless the codes owners agree to that in the first place by CHOOSING to embrace such a move and opensourcing their code by freewill.
Ok, how about this one. Two UK bankers are currently facing extradition to Texas because they dealt with Enron. US Federal investigators say that they defrauded a UK bank, while in the UK, by depositing the banks money with a UK arm of Enron in an undisclosed account. UK regulators have said that theres no case to answer, the UK bank has said that the bankers did not defraud them and they did nothing wrong, yet these men face extradition to the US for the 'crime', solely because they held an account at Enron (this has nothing to do with Enrons collapse), which in itself is not illegal.
Hows that for US law reaching into another country?
Sex with minors is legal in certain countries, yet if you leave the US for that purpose, you can be arrested, charged and imprisoned for that act, despite the fact that the sex would be fully legal in the other country.
In a sense, SharpDevelop has been ported - http://www.monodevelop.com/
Firefly was OK - the first time I watched it I was disappointed, but subsequent times gave me a chance to catch the subtlety and depth of the characters without having to concentrate on the plot too much.
:)
One series I have really enjoyed but doesnt seem to get much attention is Lost. Fantastic premise, great characters and a setting that is brilliant, Im hooked and I recommend the series to anyone I can. Plus it has Mira Furlan from B5
Why are they limiting themselves in this fashion?
Because it also protects the Solaris code from being plundered for other OSes. When the origional 'Solaris is being opensourced' stories hit, I had the distinct impression that comments along the lines of 'Great, now we can port Solaris feature X to Linux!' vastly outnumbered comments about improving Solaris.
By putting it under its own license, you have the freedom of improving Solaris if you need to (and thus have many of the advantages of opensource that is often touted about Linux), and the code is safe from wholesale plundering.
If the OS crashed because of the problem, then I would agree, but in this case it didnt - the application failed due to database overflow, which locked out the controls. Think about it this way, how can you blame linux when mysql cant handle the data given to it? Thats what this boils down to.
Links are routinely broken midline for me, so I will go with that.
Nice to see bad reporting is still happening. Windows NT was not the cause of the Navys experience, a badly written database application was (and since they dont say what the database application was, we cant go around namecalling). Im not a Microsoft fanboi (jesus, why do I have to even write that?!) but to just attribute a Ship Management failure to the OS when the article said that it was the application and database itself is just FUD pure and simple.
Sounds like a Gary Larson, The Far Side cartoon to me.
So whats stopping a remote 'trouble' client reporting the correct hash, and deliberately sending duff data, resulting in either at best the client having to get it again, or at worst the client assembling a bad whole? Do the current BT clients drop the bad peer after so many bad segments to prevent this sort of thing or what?
If you cant watch them 24/7 then why do you expect someone else to when you arent?
I did Science at GCSE level (UK highschool exams), and went on to do chemistry and physics at ALevel (2 year further education before University) and on the first day at Alevel standard, they told us 'forget everything youve learnt up until now, its all untrue, just a means of getting some basic science education'. And true to form, everything that we had learnt at GCSE wasnt any help at all at Alevel standard.
And Ive been told that if you went on to do degree level physics and chemistry, you are pretty much told exactly the same. Whats the point, why not just teach the real facts at all levels?!
I can handle both a trackpad and a trackpoint very well with one hand - a finger for the pointer and a finger or thumb for the button(s). Ive been doing this for years. How is this new?