Sorry, this is a ridiculous idea - quality literature should indeed be mandatory for educational curriculum, but specifically highlighting a particular genre is arrogant.
The real shocker is that Monty tried to get the Sun-Oracle merger court to remove the GPL from MySQL, and allow companies to take the code private, so he could basically pick up where MySQL AB left off before he sold it to Sun in the first place.
They seem to be fine with engine blade off events, engine fires and other engine related issues, so LNG as they are all properly contained - so no particular reason they wouldn't be fine with other components having the same restrictions.
Type design approval is NOT certification - both the type and the operator needs to achieve certification to fly ETOPS 330. The 777 still has to achieve type certification for 330.
When I'm not n my iPad later I will post you the direct link - the reason the extradition rulings have everything to do with the points in question, because basically every argument that is raised here on Slashdot was also used by Assanges lawyers and the judges responded to every single one of them detailing why they were not valid or did not present a reason to dismiss the extradition warrant.
The fact that he is a "guest" of Ecuador has no bearing on this at all - he can't leave the embassy without being arrested, and as he is now wanted for jumping bail in the UK....
Go read the extradition rulings by the various British judges - the answer most questions, including the fabled "they can interview Assange in the UK" one much vaunted here on Slashdot.
Yesterday, the local (as in, this town) news website reported a death from a road traffic incident as the top news story.
That death wasn't reported on the national news, nor was it international news. Why not? Because several people probably died in the same manner that day nationally, and hundreds globally.
So why did it make the local news? Because it was relevant to the locality!
Go research the highs and lows of some beanie babies - then tell me how beanie babies are a legitimate currency with a market captalization etc etc etc.
Not all clean money is taxed, only taxable transactions are.
Money laundering would convert taxable money into non-taxable money - for example, if I had an income of $100,000 from you then some places would charge an income tax, but if I instead took out a loan for $100,000 from you then in most places that's not considered an income and so its not subject to taxation. If I never actually repay the money, I never pay taxes on it. And the added bonus is that in some locales, certain types of loan repayments are tax deductible from your overall tax bill...
It would be interesting to see how many people don't want bitcoin to be "controlled" by governments through legal avenues, but at the same time would want the law enforcement agencies to investigate any cases where bitcoin exchanges disappear overnight with their clients "funds"...
Why is there *always* a snarky comment along these lines whenever someone talks about not using a "public" cloud provider - cloud when talked about in these ways does not mean "someone else owns the hardware", it means "an infrastructure setup which means I do not have to care about the infrastructure when deploying applications", whether that be owned by someone else or an internally provided solution.
The old manner of inhouse application infrastructure involved one or more application server, one or more database server, and the related network and service architecture specifically required to handle redundancy and failover - but the point is, you had to care about that service architecture when dealing with your app! Which server had spare resource to act as a failover for another application (which invariably meant you ended up with two servers allocated for the job anyway, the main and a dedicated backup or two servers which took requests on a round robin manner), which server was not to be used for these purposes, which applications do not live together etc etc.
Today, the goal is to have a "large number of essentially commodity hardware servers" acting on a level which you can forget about for most solutions (there are always going to be situations where heavily tailored hardware solutions will still exist) - where you can treat the hardware as what it should be, a resource to be used and allocated as required.
Virtualisation was the first step (in modern terms, not talking about mainframes here), and cloud takes the aspect of virtualisation several steps down the road.
This has got sod all to do with the "cycle", and everything to do with "computing as a resource".
Yes, all currency does fluctuate in value - however, if it fluctuates too much then it becomes less useful as a method of payment, as your payment for services today might not cover your dinner that night, or it might cover your dinner for the week.
I think its useful to say that the value of a currency is really in how stable it is within an economy - once hyperinflation takes over, it doesn't matter how established the currency is, its value as money disappears (see Germany in the 1920's, Russia in the 1990's and Zimbabwe in the past decade) and people move to alternative means of payment.
$1 today will buy me a loaf of bread. That loaf of bread might cost $1.01 tomorrow, or even $0.99, but while that's an inconvenience its not disastrous. If that loaf of bread goes from $1 one day to $5 the next, and $20 the next, then its value as actual money is gone - theres no way to establish a stable economy on such a basis because there's no way to plan for the future.
When I read the title, I expected a calculation or rounding issue, or an internal range issue from built in components and not "dumb ass user didn't set the range correctly when averaging". That's not an Excel error, that's a user error - Excel did exactly what it was told to do.
Would those loans that they are supposedly paying back early be the same ones they have defaulted on and are refusing to pay? Those same outstanding loans that are forcing the government to send public owned ships and aircraft to known safe way points and then having to lease third party aircraft to complete the journeys, just incase creditors have the presidents aircraft repossessed?
When I put my car in for servicing etc I pay for parts and labour, and when I have workmen in at home to do something it's again parts and labour, so where's the difference?
Didn't Firefox just get shat on because it turns out that incognito and clearing histories etc doesn't actually remove everything? People were very surprised when files from years ago popped up into their download history again, and previously opened tabs etc etc etc.
The problem is, tests become metrics which go beyond the single classroom and teacher - suddenly the school, the district, the national bodies and the PTAs all want access to the testing data, and they start to equate test metrics with teacher quality rather than student effort (when the reality is a mix of both).
I don't see an issue with the features raised in the article, so long as the teachers do not solely rely on it - it does become a good way to ensure that pupils are spending time with the resources, and using them properly, and it allows teachers to spot pupils which aren't bothering at all, or are cramming in the early hours before the test, which is certainly something that should be raised at the PTA conferences if the pupil isn't doing well overall.
So long as it doesn't replace a greater encompassing look at the student, its a good tool for following some aspects of their learning.
You do realise that certification testing isn't supposed to find every design issue, every manufacturing issue and every materials issue? If it were, no aircraft would ever be certified, ever - the testing would be too costly and take decades.
That's exactly what route proving is - a representative example of a passenger load flying in a representative cabin layout on a representative revenue route.
You do realise that both batteries in the 787 that have had issues has nothing to do with passenger activity, right?
Both Boeing and Airbus do indeed use CATIA, but your version of build events is far from the way things have worked for the past couple of decades - the designers do virtual assemblies regularly. The first time there is any decent feed back from teh engineers on major parts is when the first aircraft is being assembled for real.
Boeing actually forced brand (internally developed) new design software on all of its outsourced partners so they could be included in the virtual build process - the problem is, Boeing was trying to change too much for the 787 by changing both their design process and their build process at the same time (they were switching to a build process Airbus had used since the 1980s). Too many differences were found between the way the virtual build process worked and the physical build process worked...
As for your outsourcing comments, you do realise that your 10% figure is three decades out of date? The 767 was 15% outsourced to Japanese partners, while the 777 touched 50% outsourced (major fuselage panels are prefabbed by partners and assembled by Boeing on the FAL), and both of those programmes are perfectly fine (the 777 beat a lot of deadlines in its design and build).
Once again, the fastener issue is misunderstood - there are infact two entirely independent issues with the fasteners, one being the misuse of non-aviation grade fasteners to allow ZA001 and ZA002 to progress through the build process rather than stagnate in the FAL, and allowed Boeing to roll a "completed" 787 out for their 7/8/07 ceremony. These fasteners had to be drilled out and replaced when the aviation grade ones became available, and this cost time and money.
The second, and much later, issue with the fasteners was the issue of them not being countersunk correctly, as you suggest. However, none of these parts that were affected came from China or Japan, they mostly came from the Global Aeronautica and Spirit plants in the US. Ironically, the only part which didn't have any countersunk fastener issues was the fuselage section from Japan.
The electrical panel fire, on a part that was indeed outsourced, had nothing to do with the outsourcing - the fire was in ZA002, which had the panel in question assembled on site from the supplied parts rather than having the panel integrated as a whole. Any FOD issue was due to the FAL and not the outsourcing partner (it wasn't a wrench by the way, it is suspected to be metal filings from drilling as they never found any remains of the items which caused the arcing).
The side of body issue had nothing to do with Fujis work - their product was supplied to the standard that Boeing required and signed off on in the design process. It was only later on that it was discovered that the design was in-adequate for the task and had to be amended - it was not a sub-optimally built part, it was a part that was designed and built to a standard that Boeing approved of.
So no, I don't see any issues with the outsourcing itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, this is a ridiculous idea - quality literature should indeed be mandatory for educational curriculum, but specifically highlighting a particular genre is arrogant.
The real shocker is that Monty tried to get the Sun-Oracle merger court to remove the GPL from MySQL, and allow companies to take the code private, so he could basically pick up where MySQL AB left off before he sold it to Sun in the first place.
They seem to be fine with engine blade off events, engine fires and other engine related issues, so LNG as they are all properly contained - so no particular reason they wouldn't be fine with other components having the same restrictions.
See my reply to the other guy - the maximum the 777 has achieved in ETOPS *certification* to date is 207.
Type design approval is NOT certification - both the type and the operator needs to achieve certification to fly ETOPS 330. The 777 still has to achieve type certification for 330.
It was certainly designed for ETOPS 330, but it hadnt yet achieved certification for it - no aircraft infact has.
Nope, it's been explicitly confirmed that the 787 has retained its ETOPs 180 certification.
When I'm not n my iPad later I will post you the direct link - the reason the extradition rulings have everything to do with the points in question, because basically every argument that is raised here on Slashdot was also used by Assanges lawyers and the judges responded to every single one of them detailing why they were not valid or did not present a reason to dismiss the extradition warrant.
The fact that he is a "guest" of Ecuador has no bearing on this at all - he can't leave the embassy without being arrested, and as he is now wanted for jumping bail in the UK....
Go read the extradition rulings by the various British judges - the answer most questions, including the fabled "they can interview Assange in the UK" one much vaunted here on Slashdot.
Yesterday, the local (as in, this town) news website reported a death from a road traffic incident as the top news story.
That death wasn't reported on the national news, nor was it international news. Why not? Because several people probably died in the same manner that day nationally, and hundreds globally.
So why did it make the local news? Because it was relevant to the locality!
Go research the highs and lows of some beanie babies - then tell me how beanie babies are a legitimate currency with a market captalization etc etc etc.
Not all clean money is taxed, only taxable transactions are.
Money laundering would convert taxable money into non-taxable money - for example, if I had an income of $100,000 from you then some places would charge an income tax, but if I instead took out a loan for $100,000 from you then in most places that's not considered an income and so its not subject to taxation. If I never actually repay the money, I never pay taxes on it. And the added bonus is that in some locales, certain types of loan repayments are tax deductible from your overall tax bill...
It would be interesting to see how many people don't want bitcoin to be "controlled" by governments through legal avenues, but at the same time would want the law enforcement agencies to investigate any cases where bitcoin exchanges disappear overnight with their clients "funds"...
Why is there *always* a snarky comment along these lines whenever someone talks about not using a "public" cloud provider - cloud when talked about in these ways does not mean "someone else owns the hardware", it means "an infrastructure setup which means I do not have to care about the infrastructure when deploying applications", whether that be owned by someone else or an internally provided solution.
The old manner of inhouse application infrastructure involved one or more application server, one or more database server, and the related network and service architecture specifically required to handle redundancy and failover - but the point is, you had to care about that service architecture when dealing with your app! Which server had spare resource to act as a failover for another application (which invariably meant you ended up with two servers allocated for the job anyway, the main and a dedicated backup or two servers which took requests on a round robin manner), which server was not to be used for these purposes, which applications do not live together etc etc.
Today, the goal is to have a "large number of essentially commodity hardware servers" acting on a level which you can forget about for most solutions (there are always going to be situations where heavily tailored hardware solutions will still exist) - where you can treat the hardware as what it should be, a resource to be used and allocated as required.
Virtualisation was the first step (in modern terms, not talking about mainframes here), and cloud takes the aspect of virtualisation several steps down the road.
This has got sod all to do with the "cycle", and everything to do with "computing as a resource".
Yes, all currency does fluctuate in value - however, if it fluctuates too much then it becomes less useful as a method of payment, as your payment for services today might not cover your dinner that night, or it might cover your dinner for the week.
I think its useful to say that the value of a currency is really in how stable it is within an economy - once hyperinflation takes over, it doesn't matter how established the currency is, its value as money disappears (see Germany in the 1920's, Russia in the 1990's and Zimbabwe in the past decade) and people move to alternative means of payment.
$1 today will buy me a loaf of bread. That loaf of bread might cost $1.01 tomorrow, or even $0.99, but while that's an inconvenience its not disastrous. If that loaf of bread goes from $1 one day to $5 the next, and $20 the next, then its value as actual money is gone - theres no way to establish a stable economy on such a basis because there's no way to plan for the future.
When I read the title, I expected a calculation or rounding issue, or an internal range issue from built in components and not "dumb ass user didn't set the range correctly when averaging". That's not an Excel error, that's a user error - Excel did exactly what it was told to do.
Really?
I remember buying my first Mac Mini when it first came out for £399 - the base Mac Mini available today is £499.
I remember buying my first Macbook when it first came out for £799 - the base Apple laptop available today is £849 (and its got a smaller screen).
Would those loans that they are supposedly paying back early be the same ones they have defaulted on and are refusing to pay? Those same outstanding loans that are forcing the government to send public owned ships and aircraft to known safe way points and then having to lease third party aircraft to complete the journeys, just incase creditors have the presidents aircraft repossessed?
When I put my car in for servicing etc I pay for parts and labour, and when I have workmen in at home to do something it's again parts and labour, so where's the difference?
Didn't Firefox just get shat on because it turns out that incognito and clearing histories etc doesn't actually remove everything? People were very surprised when files from years ago popped up into their download history again, and previously opened tabs etc etc etc.
The problem is, tests become metrics which go beyond the single classroom and teacher - suddenly the school, the district, the national bodies and the PTAs all want access to the testing data, and they start to equate test metrics with teacher quality rather than student effort (when the reality is a mix of both).
I don't see an issue with the features raised in the article, so long as the teachers do not solely rely on it - it does become a good way to ensure that pupils are spending time with the resources, and using them properly, and it allows teachers to spot pupils which aren't bothering at all, or are cramming in the early hours before the test, which is certainly something that should be raised at the PTA conferences if the pupil isn't doing well overall.
So long as it doesn't replace a greater encompassing look at the student, its a good tool for following some aspects of their learning.
You do realise that certification testing isn't supposed to find every design issue, every manufacturing issue and every materials issue? If it were, no aircraft would ever be certified, ever - the testing would be too costly and take decades.
That's exactly what route proving is - a representative example of a passenger load flying in a representative cabin layout on a representative revenue route.
You do realise that both batteries in the 787 that have had issues has nothing to do with passenger activity, right?
I'm afraid its far far from "total BS".
Both Boeing and Airbus do indeed use CATIA, but your version of build events is far from the way things have worked for the past couple of decades - the designers do virtual assemblies regularly. The first time there is any decent feed back from teh engineers on major parts is when the first aircraft is being assembled for real.
Boeing actually forced brand (internally developed) new design software on all of its outsourced partners so they could be included in the virtual build process - the problem is, Boeing was trying to change too much for the 787 by changing both their design process and their build process at the same time (they were switching to a build process Airbus had used since the 1980s). Too many differences were found between the way the virtual build process worked and the physical build process worked...
As for your outsourcing comments, you do realise that your 10% figure is three decades out of date? The 767 was 15% outsourced to Japanese partners, while the 777 touched 50% outsourced (major fuselage panels are prefabbed by partners and assembled by Boeing on the FAL), and both of those programmes are perfectly fine (the 777 beat a lot of deadlines in its design and build).
Once again, the fastener issue is misunderstood - there are infact two entirely independent issues with the fasteners, one being the misuse of non-aviation grade fasteners to allow ZA001 and ZA002 to progress through the build process rather than stagnate in the FAL, and allowed Boeing to roll a "completed" 787 out for their 7/8/07 ceremony. These fasteners had to be drilled out and replaced when the aviation grade ones became available, and this cost time and money.
The second, and much later, issue with the fasteners was the issue of them not being countersunk correctly, as you suggest. However, none of these parts that were affected came from China or Japan, they mostly came from the Global Aeronautica and Spirit plants in the US. Ironically, the only part which didn't have any countersunk fastener issues was the fuselage section from Japan.
The electrical panel fire, on a part that was indeed outsourced, had nothing to do with the outsourcing - the fire was in ZA002, which had the panel in question assembled on site from the supplied parts rather than having the panel integrated as a whole. Any FOD issue was due to the FAL and not the outsourcing partner (it wasn't a wrench by the way, it is suspected to be metal filings from drilling as they never found any remains of the items which caused the arcing).
The side of body issue had nothing to do with Fujis work - their product was supplied to the standard that Boeing required and signed off on in the design process. It was only later on that it was discovered that the design was in-adequate for the task and had to be amended - it was not a sub-optimally built part, it was a part that was designed and built to a standard that Boeing approved of.
So no, I don't see any issues with the outsourcing itself.