Free, yes, but its still being released in tranches to those systems eligible for upgrade, so not everyone that can upgrade has been able to do so thus far.
If everyone had had full access to the "upgrade now" button at launch, you might have a point, but right now its not any indication of a failure at all.
If its the "duh, obvious!" aspect you are going for, do you want to know how many people my wife see's as a GP who have entire religious texts that they have "received from their deity" and written down? Its not uncommon for people to write significant texts down that they believe have been gifted to them by a "god".
So the possibilities we have here are:
1. The text is older than thought and it was co-opted to form the basis of Islam 2. The timelines are screwed up and everything actually fits together as understood 3. The parchment is old, but was reused to create the Koran that was tested
Possibilities 2 and 3 leads on to... a. Muhammad received it from heaven b. Muhammad made it up deliberately c. Muhammad made it up delusionally
Those scholars you quote think that the truth is actually possibility 1, while Muhammads claim could equally cover options a and c as sources, from his perspective.
The BBC recently have been forced to take on spending that they would otherwise not have to take on - for example, several of the regional channels for Wales, Cornwall and Scotland now fall under normal BBC funding rather than direct government grants (and the BBC don't receive extra funding for these channels, so its a net reduction in their funding), and the BBC TV License is now free for older persons (again without extra funding, so its again a net reduction in their funding).
So its no surprise if they have to cut funding in other areas - why subsidise the Met Office if the service can be provided cheaper by another entity.
The advent of the 707 kicked off the package tour holiday craze of the 1950s and 1960s here in the UK, so air travel definitely wasn't just for the elite when the 747 and Concorde were being designed:)
Since when have Airbus or the EU "whined or blamed the evil US government" when Boeing "wins"?
Airbus has achieved more orders in the last 7 out of 10 full sales years than Boeing, and also delivered more aircraft than Boeing in 7 out of the last 10 full sales years.
Is it also worth noting that the Boeing 737 was introduced in 1968 with low bypass turbofan engines, which had the same noise issues as the 707? Infact, the 737 didn't receive high bypass turbofan engines until the mid-1980s!
It does need to be noted that Concorde flew mostly while turbofans were the norm, so most planes were quieter than it. The 707 flew when most other planes were still prop-driven, and it was only in the first few years of Concorde operation that 707s still flew (they were being phased out); but even by that time, they had made some changes to the engines to make the 707s less screechy.
I think the difference you are trying to highlight there is the turbo-fan vs turbo-jet era's. Both the 707 and Concorde were turbo-jet (Concorde was afterburning, some versions of the 707 had water injection), but the airline industry quickly migrated to more efficient, higher bypass turbo-fans.
Actually, airlines operate low passenger yield flights all the time, for a number of reasons - firstly, the aircraft may be needed on the next leg, so its going to fly full or empty as thats how airlines plan segments, and secondly the flight may be making money on belly cargo on that segment anyway, regardless of however many passengers are on it.
Ive been on a 777 from Kenya to Amsterdam several times where there have been 30 or fewer passengers on board, with myself and my wife being the only passengers in an entire economy cabin. It happens. Infact, in this example, it has happened each time we fly the segment (we fly back from Uganda using that route at least once a year) - the flight is never more than 25% full.
Concorde was actually banned from all US airports for a short time in the early 1970s, until legal challenges forced various airports to rescind their bans.
The Boeing 707 was also louder and produced more exhaust smoke than Concorde ever did, and yet no one had issues with them operating at US airports;)
The Boeing 747 has its instantly recognised "hump" precisely because Boeing thought at the time of its design that it wouldn't have a long sales life as a passenger aircraft, as the future was "obviously" supersonic for passenger transport. Therefore, the design was optimised for roll-on roll-off cargo transport through the nose section, which made it a very good cargo aircraft and thus increased its forecasted sales life.
Of course, Boeing also had a finger in the supersonic airliner pie - the Boeing 2707, launched internally in 1958, and publicly in 1964. Boeing had 122 orders for their SST by 1969, the year their 747 aircraft first flew.
And then the SST market collapsed due to the oil crisis of the 1970s, and everyones projects went under - Concorde only "survived" to fly on in airline service (British Airways and Air France) because it was further along than the Boeing 2707 and had actually produced production standard aircraft by the time airlines started dropping their orders from all manufacturers.
So Concorde was not an elite project for elite passengers, it was intended to be the norm for passenger transport - and Boeing agreed. Market conditions swung against them both however, and it was never to be.
Boeing went on to continue to market their 747, and Airbus (formed from the same agreements that created the Concorde) went on to produce the first twin engine wide body long haul aircraft in the A300 in the 1970s, which sold (together with its A310 variant) sold over 800 copies.
The current trend in the airline sector seems to be away from the very large aircraft. The A380 is tanking in sales terms (only Emirates has really plunged into that market) and there's talk that Airbus might look to drop the line sooner rather than later.
The A380 isn't being dropped, there will be a new engine version of it launched later this year at the Dubai Air Show, with its production life extended well into the 2020s.
The problem with those ultra-large aircraft is that they can be thirsty in terms of fuel, crew-intensive and, except on a small number of really "thick" routes, quite hard to fill. With the airline business mostly operating on quite thin margins, efficiency matters and the smaller, single-deck planes are looking better in that regard right now.
Would it surprise you to know that the Boeing 777-9X is actually destined to be a larger aircraft than the Boeing 747-8I? Its longer, taller and has greater wingspan, with the lower MTOW only really coming from advances in materials allowing lower weight structures.
I'm not sure why people think that that is abnormal - a package is negotiated, if you want to change the package then the discount changes as its the package is negotiated as a single purchase, which you now want to change.
Its standard all over, its not specific to Oracle.
In the UK, the way Uber provides their insurance ("only when on a job") would result in drivers being illegal - the driver would still need business-use insurance, even when between jobs.
Except that the average speed camera sections are set to catch people driving above 85MPH, so you have a lot of leeway there to "slip" over the speed limit.
Transponders were common on aircraft at the time, and Iran Air Flight 655 was broadcasting the correct civilian identification at the time. It was a civilian aircraft departing on a scheduled service using a normal civil traffic airway.
Iran Air Flight 655 should never have been shot down, just as MH17 should never have been shot down.
Also the airspace above Ukraine is handled by Ukraine, short of sending in military jets to close the airspace there isn't anything Russia could do - you cant issue NOTAMs to close airspace you don't have authority over.
Unless there was evidence of deliberate targeting of the civilian airliner because it was a civilian airliner, rather than an accidental shoot down through misidentification, then it would probably be more like that of Iran Air Flight 655, which the US has never apologised for and only paid a settlement after Iran took them to court. Indeed, President Bush (the first one) even said "I will never apologize for the United States — I don't care what the facts are... I'm not an apologize-for-America kind of guy" when referring to the issue.
Short of getting everyone into a room, locking them a door, handing them all sealed envelopes with the info, ensuring everyone has read and understood the release and only then demolishing all the walls simultaneously to release the people, how do you propose making sure everyone gets the information at exactly the same time?
I see absolutely nothing wrong with paying for a better physical placement of a server to gain an advantage.
Reacting quicker to publicly released information is not illegal, no matter how much you personally hate high frequency trading - just because you ensure you have an advantage in the speed of reaction over other people doesn't make it insider trading. Lets say that HFT is banned, reacting to releases before other traders can still net you a huge advantage, even if you are only allowed one trade a second or minute. Its that first trade (either sale or purchase) at current market prices which can make your profit.
So HFT is banned, releases are via email or direct notification and all trades have to be manually entered - how quickly does the press release reach your inbox, how quickly can you type, what if your email or notification server is backlogged, how quickly can someone scan a release for the relevant details (should I buy or sell?), and how quickly can you enter those details into the system.
There are always ways to shave time off of reactions, no matter what approach you take.
Especially as you can be identified by your gait easily enough... it turns out that humans strive to be individually identifiable in pretty much every way possible, even if we aren't consciously intending to be.
Slashdot Mirror
Free, yes, but its still being released in tranches to those systems eligible for upgrade, so not everyone that can upgrade has been able to do so thus far.
If everyone had had full access to the "upgrade now" button at launch, you might have a point, but right now its not any indication of a failure at all.
If its the "duh, obvious!" aspect you are going for, do you want to know how many people my wife see's as a GP who have entire religious texts that they have "received from their deity" and written down? Its not uncommon for people to write significant texts down that they believe have been gifted to them by a "god".
So the possibilities we have here are:
1. The text is older than thought and it was co-opted to form the basis of Islam
2. The timelines are screwed up and everything actually fits together as understood
3. The parchment is old, but was reused to create the Koran that was tested
Possibilities 2 and 3 leads on to...
a. Muhammad received it from heaven
b. Muhammad made it up deliberately
c. Muhammad made it up delusionally
Those scholars you quote think that the truth is actually possibility 1, while Muhammads claim could equally cover options a and c as sources, from his perspective.
The BBC recently have been forced to take on spending that they would otherwise not have to take on - for example, several of the regional channels for Wales, Cornwall and Scotland now fall under normal BBC funding rather than direct government grants (and the BBC don't receive extra funding for these channels, so its a net reduction in their funding), and the BBC TV License is now free for older persons (again without extra funding, so its again a net reduction in their funding).
So its no surprise if they have to cut funding in other areas - why subsidise the Met Office if the service can be provided cheaper by another entity.
No, its definitely the case - only the short listed bidders proceed to the detail stages, all other bidders are rejected.
The advent of the 707 kicked off the package tour holiday craze of the 1950s and 1960s here in the UK, so air travel definitely wasn't just for the elite when the 747 and Concorde were being designed :)
So long as you are careful not to cross the line into harassment, I don't see why he would mind at all.
Since when have Airbus or the EU "whined or blamed the evil US government" when Boeing "wins"?
Airbus has achieved more orders in the last 7 out of 10 full sales years than Boeing, and also delivered more aircraft than Boeing in 7 out of the last 10 full sales years.
Is it also worth noting that the Boeing 737 was introduced in 1968 with low bypass turbofan engines, which had the same noise issues as the 707? Infact, the 737 didn't receive high bypass turbofan engines until the mid-1980s!
It does need to be noted that Concorde flew mostly while turbofans were the norm, so most planes were quieter than it. The 707 flew when most other planes were still prop-driven, and it was only in the first few years of Concorde operation that 707s still flew (they were being phased out); but even by that time, they had made some changes to the engines to make the 707s less screechy.
I think the difference you are trying to highlight there is the turbo-fan vs turbo-jet era's. Both the 707 and Concorde were turbo-jet (Concorde was afterburning, some versions of the 707 had water injection), but the airline industry quickly migrated to more efficient, higher bypass turbo-fans.
Actually, airlines operate low passenger yield flights all the time, for a number of reasons - firstly, the aircraft may be needed on the next leg, so its going to fly full or empty as thats how airlines plan segments, and secondly the flight may be making money on belly cargo on that segment anyway, regardless of however many passengers are on it.
Ive been on a 777 from Kenya to Amsterdam several times where there have been 30 or fewer passengers on board, with myself and my wife being the only passengers in an entire economy cabin. It happens. Infact, in this example, it has happened each time we fly the segment (we fly back from Uganda using that route at least once a year) - the flight is never more than 25% full.
Concorde was actually banned from all US airports for a short time in the early 1970s, until legal challenges forced various airports to rescind their bans.
The Boeing 707 was also louder and produced more exhaust smoke than Concorde ever did, and yet no one had issues with them operating at US airports ;)
At the time of the 747s creation, Airbus didn't exist. The 747 project was launched in 1965, Airbus was formed in 1969.
Boeing developed the 747 passenger variant solely because its main customer asked it to, otherwise it would never have launched it.
The Boeing 747 has its instantly recognised "hump" precisely because Boeing thought at the time of its design that it wouldn't have a long sales life as a passenger aircraft, as the future was "obviously" supersonic for passenger transport. Therefore, the design was optimised for roll-on roll-off cargo transport through the nose section, which made it a very good cargo aircraft and thus increased its forecasted sales life.
Of course, Boeing also had a finger in the supersonic airliner pie - the Boeing 2707, launched internally in 1958, and publicly in 1964. Boeing had 122 orders for their SST by 1969, the year their 747 aircraft first flew.
And then the SST market collapsed due to the oil crisis of the 1970s, and everyones projects went under - Concorde only "survived" to fly on in airline service (British Airways and Air France) because it was further along than the Boeing 2707 and had actually produced production standard aircraft by the time airlines started dropping their orders from all manufacturers.
So Concorde was not an elite project for elite passengers, it was intended to be the norm for passenger transport - and Boeing agreed. Market conditions swung against them both however, and it was never to be.
Boeing went on to continue to market their 747, and Airbus (formed from the same agreements that created the Concorde) went on to produce the first twin engine wide body long haul aircraft in the A300 in the 1970s, which sold (together with its A310 variant) sold over 800 copies.
The current trend in the airline sector seems to be away from the very large aircraft. The A380 is tanking in sales terms (only Emirates has really plunged into that market) and there's talk that Airbus might look to drop the line sooner rather than later.
The A380 isn't being dropped, there will be a new engine version of it launched later this year at the Dubai Air Show, with its production life extended well into the 2020s.
The problem with those ultra-large aircraft is that they can be thirsty in terms of fuel, crew-intensive and, except on a small number of really "thick" routes, quite hard to fill. With the airline business mostly operating on quite thin margins, efficiency matters and the smaller, single-deck planes are looking better in that regard right now.
Would it surprise you to know that the Boeing 777-9X is actually destined to be a larger aircraft than the Boeing 747-8I? Its longer, taller and has greater wingspan, with the lower MTOW only really coming from advances in materials allowing lower weight structures.
I'm not sure why people think that that is abnormal - a package is negotiated, if you want to change the package then the discount changes as its the package is negotiated as a single purchase, which you now want to change.
Its standard all over, its not specific to Oracle.
Currency comparison is well established - when the ratio changes, both moved. One got stronger, one got weaker. Its no different with Bitcoin.
Why are you comparing entirely different things? BitCoin is a currency (or that is what it is promoted as), not a stock market or employment.
In the UK, the way Uber provides their insurance ("only when on a job") would result in drivers being illegal - the driver would still need business-use insurance, even when between jobs.
The police don't get to set the average speed camera limits, they are set by the Highways Agency.
Except that the average speed camera sections are set to catch people driving above 85MPH, so you have a lot of leeway there to "slip" over the speed limit.
Transponders were common on aircraft at the time, and Iran Air Flight 655 was broadcasting the correct civilian identification at the time. It was a civilian aircraft departing on a scheduled service using a normal civil traffic airway.
Iran Air Flight 655 should never have been shot down, just as MH17 should never have been shot down.
Also the airspace above Ukraine is handled by Ukraine, short of sending in military jets to close the airspace there isn't anything Russia could do - you cant issue NOTAMs to close airspace you don't have authority over.
And MS have offered a subscription license model for volume licensing (OVS) since at least before 2007.
Unless there was evidence of deliberate targeting of the civilian airliner because it was a civilian airliner, rather than an accidental shoot down through misidentification, then it would probably be more like that of Iran Air Flight 655, which the US has never apologised for and only paid a settlement after Iran took them to court. Indeed, President Bush (the first one) even said "I will never apologize for the United States — I don't care what the facts are... I'm not an apologize-for-America kind of guy" when referring to the issue.
Short of getting everyone into a room, locking them a door, handing them all sealed envelopes with the info, ensuring everyone has read and understood the release and only then demolishing all the walls simultaneously to release the people, how do you propose making sure everyone gets the information at exactly the same time?
I see absolutely nothing wrong with paying for a better physical placement of a server to gain an advantage.
Reacting quicker to publicly released information is not illegal, no matter how much you personally hate high frequency trading - just because you ensure you have an advantage in the speed of reaction over other people doesn't make it insider trading. Lets say that HFT is banned, reacting to releases before other traders can still net you a huge advantage, even if you are only allowed one trade a second or minute. Its that first trade (either sale or purchase) at current market prices which can make your profit.
So HFT is banned, releases are via email or direct notification and all trades have to be manually entered - how quickly does the press release reach your inbox, how quickly can you type, what if your email or notification server is backlogged, how quickly can someone scan a release for the relevant details (should I buy or sell?), and how quickly can you enter those details into the system.
There are always ways to shave time off of reactions, no matter what approach you take.
Especially as you can be identified by your gait easily enough... it turns out that humans strive to be individually identifiable in pretty much every way possible, even if we aren't consciously intending to be.