The lawyer and the "interrogator" will agree on questions prior to the "interrogation", and no deviation from that would be allowed. Anything offered by the subject voluntarily would not be submissable.
Complexity of moving the entire userbase to the new codebase? You are talking about mass migrating *everyone* as a reactionary measure, rather than doing a planned, tested migration through backward compatibility and progressive upgrade.
I was wondering that - if there is now a fork in the blockchain, with some groups going in one direction and some in another, does that mean that if this isn't resolved very quickly then bitcoin holders now have twice the number of bitcoins, an initially identical set on each fork?
I guess one fork would become the accepted fork, and hte other one would wither - but until that point, people could conceivably spend both forks with whomever accepts either one?
The buggy whip industry died (and is used as a common example because it died) as a result of something better that completely and utterly replaced the horse drawn carriage. Unfortunately, its a bad example to use because often, especially in debates here on Slashdot, the industry being compared has not been replaced either in whole or in part.
I'm not defending the point of the article, but email has only replaced a small part of the packet mail delivery industry - I can't send a physical item through email, I can't send documents I need to confirm someone at the other end received, I can't get an email insured etc etc etc.
Yes, the packet mail delivery industry is suffering, and it needs to do one or more of three things - raise prices, find other revenue sources or lower costs.
Why would it? It only highlights situations where there is prior indication of an issue on a monitored part. The A380 engine failed because of a leak of oil that pooled, caused a fire and thus caused an engine failure.
Couple things to note - it was the engine core that failed, which is not required to be contained by certification standards, and RR were aware of the engine heat issues caused by the fire during that flight as it happened, however there was nothing they could do. The amount of oil that leaked was trivial, it was the fact that it leaked where it did and pooled where it did.
This isn't exactly new - Rolls Royce, GE and Pratt & Whitney all do "power by the hour" rented engines, which are permanently connected (allowing for coverage issues) to data receiver centers which manage them. If they need maintenance, are running hot or have a vibration issue (its amazing how much you can discern about an engine due to its vibration levels), the engine manufacturer can determine before the flight has even ended whether or not the engine needs that maintenance at that point, needs replacing, or can suffice until the aircraft can be rotated to a full maintenance center to be swapped out.
On PBTH engines, its typical that the airline will be called by the manufacturer to report the issue before the crew flying the aircraft ever notices anything.
Its also a service engine purchasing airlines can select.
I dont think that is a result of either the developers or.Net, and more a result of your investigations. Most of my apps are multithreaded, as are the things I look at - and it got a whole lot easier with Task, async and await.
No, I was making a point that a comment history alone doesn't mean someone is astroturfing - it doesn't mean they aren't, but it also doesn't mean they are. It's entirely possible to have those views legitimately.
I have no need for an "AstroTurf" account, as anything i have to say I will say it without hiding behind a sham account.
I could mod you down, but I won't - I shall reply to you instead.
If you look at my comment history, you will see a lot of pro Microsoft stuff there, but that doesn't mean I'm astroturfing or even linked to MS in any way other than being a.Net developer and satisfied Windows user.
Having pro-something and anti-something else in your history doesn't mean anything more than you have a strong opinion on that something.
Oh yay, I only have to hang around somewhere for an hour to get it charged so I can move on.
So what if super charging stations are being put in throughout the UK - how long will it be until I don't have to treat an electric car any more differently than my current vehicle? You can make a point about "but electric vehicles are new, just you wait, all the infrastructure will magically appear!" all you want, but I have a perfectly usable form of transport right now and the suggested replacement DOES NOT MATCH UP, and it won't match up for some significant amount of time yet.
Also, sure, the vast amount of drivers don't have to worry about making a 300 mile road trip, but the exceptions are always what will get you in the end. I prefer being able to make those unplanned trips at a drop of a hat when I need to rather than having to delay them by hours just to charge the car, or go miles out of my way just so I pass a charging station at the right time.
There are enough petrol/gas stations on motorways and highways to indicate that people like to be able to make journeys without having to worry about having a tip top full gas tank at the start of the journey, that they can be assured that they can easily get fuel for the ongoing journey.
I couldn't care less if they implied the car was out of juice or not, whether they actually spent the extra time running the batteries down or not, the point they wanted to make was clear - the car had a range issue. If they had driven the car for another 30 minutes or another hour, the point would have been the same.
Also, does it really matter that it didn't actually run out of power? Should the Top Gear production crew have driven the car around the track for another 30 minutes just to get it to die, so they could get the shot legitimately when the point was the same?
Yes, it will leave me stranded more than a gas car will - with an electric car, I have to plan my journey well ahead of getting into the car, while with a petrol or diesel powered car I can make sudden, unplanned 300 mile journeys without thinking about it.
That might change in the future, but right now its the balls bare reality of electric car ownership.
Tesla have thrown their toys out of the pram here, and it didn't go in their favour - Top Gear routinely say outrageous things about cars, but I've never seen a Vauxhall Astra blow up (despite Clarkson claiming that as a common fault with them) etc etc etc.
With some of the costs paid by the UK taxpayer and the BBC license fee payers *snip*
Top Gear is fully funded from its own revenue streams, such as live shows and sales to syndication - its a huge profit center to the BBC, and funds itself rather than needing funding from the BBC license fee.
Your history is a bit off (it's more like you are talking about the F-111 fiasco) - the YF-17 lost to the YF-16 in the USAFs lightweight fighter competition. The navy needed a new fighter, and were told to look at the YF-17 as a base, which was developed into the F-18.
Uhm, no - there is no way you can argue that you get blanket permission to use the spectrum in any way you deem fit simply because you buy service from them.
That's a rather facetious argument - if you entered into the contract knowing that the service required a booster, the problem is yours. If you entered into the contract not knowing the service required a booster, but the service provider made no false promises regarding coverage in the area, the problem is yours.
If the service provider made false promises, or the service degraded, then the problem is theirs.
I don't see why the contract should be null and void because you screwed up on your due diligence prior to signing the contract.
Far too many people think that buying something means the service or item must be fit for the purpose bought - no, it has to be fit for the purpose sold. If you screwed up, suck it up - you shouldn't have a free get out clause.
I'm not a fan of the Halo games (never played them), but I picked up the Forerunner series from my local library - I never finished the first novel, for the very reasons you mention. It didn't feel like a story, it felt like a dictation.
It actually does make sense - the carriers hold the licenses for using the spectrum these boosters are boosting, they paid a lot of money to use those spectrum licenses.
Thus, you must get the permission of the license holder before you can use that portion of the spectrum.
Slashdot Mirror
Impressive if you can do that on the kernel and still be confident of stability.
The lawyer and the "interrogator" will agree on questions prior to the "interrogation", and no deviation from that would be allowed. Anything offered by the subject voluntarily would not be submissable.
Complexity of moving the entire userbase to the new codebase? You are talking about mass migrating *everyone* as a reactionary measure, rather than doing a planned, tested migration through backward compatibility and progressive upgrade.
Its the same issue as IPv4 and IPv6.
I was wondering that - if there is now a fork in the blockchain, with some groups going in one direction and some in another, does that mean that if this isn't resolved very quickly then bitcoin holders now have twice the number of bitcoins, an initially identical set on each fork?
I guess one fork would become the accepted fork, and hte other one would wither - but until that point, people could conceivably spend both forks with whomever accepts either one?
Why can't you just go without? Or is the idea of a protest where you don't still get what you want a little ... uncomfortable for you?
The buggy whip industry died (and is used as a common example because it died) as a result of something better that completely and utterly replaced the horse drawn carriage. Unfortunately, its a bad example to use because often, especially in debates here on Slashdot, the industry being compared has not been replaced either in whole or in part.
I'm not defending the point of the article, but email has only replaced a small part of the packet mail delivery industry - I can't send a physical item through email, I can't send documents I need to confirm someone at the other end received, I can't get an email insured etc etc etc.
Yes, the packet mail delivery industry is suffering, and it needs to do one or more of three things - raise prices, find other revenue sources or lower costs.
Why would it? It only highlights situations where there is prior indication of an issue on a monitored part. The A380 engine failed because of a leak of oil that pooled, caused a fire and thus caused an engine failure.
Couple things to note - it was the engine core that failed, which is not required to be contained by certification standards, and RR were aware of the engine heat issues caused by the fire during that flight as it happened, however there was nothing they could do. The amount of oil that leaked was trivial, it was the fact that it leaked where it did and pooled where it did.
Main wing spar would be a certainty of some form of connectivity due to its fatigue and stress sensors.
I will give you the rest.
This isn't exactly new - Rolls Royce, GE and Pratt & Whitney all do "power by the hour" rented engines, which are permanently connected (allowing for coverage issues) to data receiver centers which manage them. If they need maintenance, are running hot or have a vibration issue (its amazing how much you can discern about an engine due to its vibration levels), the engine manufacturer can determine before the flight has even ended whether or not the engine needs that maintenance at that point, needs replacing, or can suffice until the aircraft can be rotated to a full maintenance center to be swapped out.
On PBTH engines, its typical that the airline will be called by the manufacturer to report the issue before the crew flying the aircraft ever notices anything.
Its also a service engine purchasing airlines can select.
I dont think that is a result of either the developers or .Net, and more a result of your investigations. Most of my apps are multithreaded, as are the things I look at - and it got a whole lot easier with Task, async and await.
Dapper, Json.net, NancyFX, Nhibernate, Automapper, Ninject, Castle, PetaPoco, Lucene.Net, Nlog, log4net, Elmah...
You obviously don't look all that hard.
No, I was making a point that a comment history alone doesn't mean someone is astroturfing - it doesn't mean they aren't, but it also doesn't mean they are. It's entirely possible to have those views legitimately.
I have no need for an "AstroTurf" account, as anything i have to say I will say it without hiding behind a sham account.
I could mod you down, but I won't - I shall reply to you instead.
If you look at my comment history, you will see a lot of pro Microsoft stuff there, but that doesn't mean I'm astroturfing or even linked to MS in any way other than being a .Net developer and satisfied Windows user.
Having pro-something and anti-something else in your history doesn't mean anything more than you have a strong opinion on that something.
Oh yay, I only have to hang around somewhere for an hour to get it charged so I can move on.
So what if super charging stations are being put in throughout the UK - how long will it be until I don't have to treat an electric car any more differently than my current vehicle? You can make a point about "but electric vehicles are new, just you wait, all the infrastructure will magically appear!" all you want, but I have a perfectly usable form of transport right now and the suggested replacement DOES NOT MATCH UP, and it won't match up for some significant amount of time yet.
Also, sure, the vast amount of drivers don't have to worry about making a 300 mile road trip, but the exceptions are always what will get you in the end. I prefer being able to make those unplanned trips at a drop of a hat when I need to rather than having to delay them by hours just to charge the car, or go miles out of my way just so I pass a charging station at the right time.
There are enough petrol/gas stations on motorways and highways to indicate that people like to be able to make journeys without having to worry about having a tip top full gas tank at the start of the journey, that they can be assured that they can easily get fuel for the ongoing journey.
I couldn't care less if they implied the car was out of juice or not, whether they actually spent the extra time running the batteries down or not, the point they wanted to make was clear - the car had a range issue. If they had driven the car for another 30 minutes or another hour, the point would have been the same.
If you want to go down that road, do you really think current profits can't ever offset older expenditures?
Also, does it really matter that it didn't actually run out of power? Should the Top Gear production crew have driven the car around the track for another 30 minutes just to get it to die, so they could get the shot legitimately when the point was the same?
Yes, it will leave me stranded more than a gas car will - with an electric car, I have to plan my journey well ahead of getting into the car, while with a petrol or diesel powered car I can make sudden, unplanned 300 mile journeys without thinking about it.
That might change in the future, but right now its the balls bare reality of electric car ownership.
Tesla have thrown their toys out of the pram here, and it didn't go in their favour - Top Gear routinely say outrageous things about cars, but I've never seen a Vauxhall Astra blow up (despite Clarkson claiming that as a common fault with them) etc etc etc.
Its an entertainment show, nothing more.
With some of the costs paid by the UK taxpayer and the BBC license fee payers *snip*
Top Gear is fully funded from its own revenue streams, such as live shows and sales to syndication - its a huge profit center to the BBC, and funds itself rather than needing funding from the BBC license fee.
Your history is a bit off (it's more like you are talking about the F-111 fiasco) - the YF-17 lost to the YF-16 in the USAFs lightweight fighter competition. The navy needed a new fighter, and were told to look at the YF-17 as a base, which was developed into the F-18.
Uhm, no - there is no way you can argue that you get blanket permission to use the spectrum in any way you deem fit simply because you buy service from them.
That's a rather facetious argument - if you entered into the contract knowing that the service required a booster, the problem is yours. If you entered into the contract not knowing the service required a booster, but the service provider made no false promises regarding coverage in the area, the problem is yours.
If the service provider made false promises, or the service degraded, then the problem is theirs.
I don't see why the contract should be null and void because you screwed up on your due diligence prior to signing the contract.
Far too many people think that buying something means the service or item must be fit for the purpose bought - no, it has to be fit for the purpose sold. If you screwed up, suck it up - you shouldn't have a free get out clause.
I'm not a fan of the Halo games (never played them), but I picked up the Forerunner series from my local library - I never finished the first novel, for the very reasons you mention. It didn't feel like a story, it felt like a dictation.
It actually does make sense - the carriers hold the licenses for using the spectrum these boosters are boosting, they paid a lot of money to use those spectrum licenses.
Thus, you must get the permission of the license holder before you can use that portion of the spectrum.
They also report to the FSA for all activities in the UK, just like any other financial services company.