Only if whatever solution is medically certified - my wife can view MRI's at home with full 3D capability using the supplied viewer, it just has a huge warning blazoned across it that says "this device is not certified for medical diagnostics".
The systems she uses in the hospital for viewing MRI scans on have very high resolution screens that are colour matched regularly.
That's great. But what if Google and Opera don't agree with you? That's the bulk of WebKit integrators that aren't following your fork, so where's it's impetus going to come from?
Who owns the master branch? Who guards the commit gates from the hordes? There's your defacto controllers of WebKit - you can fork all you want, but you need to get the main users (the browser integrators, Google et al) to follow your branch rather than the master.
The main difference is that with a petrol or diesel powered vehicle, I can make unscheduled, unplanned trips whenever I wish without having to worry about where I will next refuel it - if I need fuel, I just pop to the nearest station, which there will be a plethora of within 100 miles unless you are seriously out in the sticks. Refueling takes 5 minutes, and I'm back on my way to my unplanned destination without issue.
One day I get to work and my phone rings - its my father, he's had a heart attack. He lives 250 miles away. I need to drive back home, grab a bag with a few essentials in it, and drive to the hospital. I don't want to have to stop at my house for hours to recharge my vehicle, or stop en-route for an hour to top it up etc etc.
Electric vehicles are still crippled by the fact that you cannot ever have an unplanned excursion of any length in one.
Both Japan and the US are on record as saying they wouldn't hesitate to shoot down anything NK launches, and have had UNSC resolutions assed that bans NK from launching anything at all. I don't personally agree with the UN being able to ban a country from having a space program (I'm making no comment as to whether NK have a legitimate program tho).
Nice attempt at trolling, but since Apple is a licensee to the ActiveSync protocol, they are fully within control of how they implement that spec and thus responsible for any issues that crop up when none existed before...
"proprietary" and "non-standards compliant" doesn't equate to "shit", it just equates to "I can't download the spec from a website and implement it". If you implement the protocol badly, it doesn't matter whether it's proprietary or not. If you don't control both ends of a connection, then you are entirely dependent on how the other end implement the protocol, proprietary or not.
Regarding the "Apple supply bandwidth, infrastructure and payment method" argument that crops up commonly in these discussions - its a facetious argument because the seller HAS NO FUCKING CHOICE IN THE MATTER even if they do have the ability to do it.
I'm sure both Adobe and Microsoft have the ability to replace Apples "contribution" completely, but they aren't allowed to by Apple. They aren't even allowed to attempt to, its completely verboten - you have to use Apples distribution service, you have to use their payment gateway, you have to use their app store otherwise your app simply won't happen.
And thats the point being made. Its not about what Apple offer, its about them refusing to allow those than can equal them in capability to actually do it.
I wonder how they achieve that, since for many configuartions the Apple UFI flat out refuses to boot anything other than OSX on an external device - I had this issue evenly when trying to install Windows as my primary OS on my 2010 MBP, using both an internal HD and SSD, so the DVD drive was external and the MBP refused to boot anything other than the OSX install meda from the DVD drive or a USB stick.
I ended up with a 10GB OSX partition on the SSD which never gets booted into these days - there was no way to just install Windows:/
External booting is enabled on some platforms, but its a far cry from "any" intel Apple.
"Bad cockpit design" - no worse than any other. Care to elaborate?
"Bad wiring" - again, care to elaborate? If you mean the A380 debacle, did you miss the part of my point where I explicitly mentioned that as the only major issue they had with their approach?
"Premature stress cracks in the wings" - using a new production process in an Airbus factory, which would have occurred if Airbus produced the wings 100 yards from the FAL anyway. Hardly a great argument against my point.
The design and build process Airbus has used for the past 30 years is the design and build process Boeing is trying to achieve with the 787 - Airbus has nearly 7,000 aircraft delivered under that very design and build process, and yet has never had a major fleet grounding ordered by the FAA or EASA. They must be doing something right...
It comes from direct involvement in the program, and yes the first 787 rolled out had approximately 60% of its fasteners as installed being non-aviation grade, sourced from the same suppliers as any non-aviation manufacturer would source them - they all had to be drilled out and replaced later on at great cost and effort, using oversized fasteners due to the increased hole size.
As I noted in my original post, Boeing failed to source the correct fasteners with enough lead time from its usual supplier, leading to a massive shortfall against what was needed to achieve the roll out date. The decision was taken to use temporary fasteners where required, without full understanding of what that entailed.
It's also widely documented in industry media from 2007 and 2008.
You are correct in that there was a later issue with installed fasteners, in that they had been installed incorrectly (not countersunk correctly) which led to strength issues, but this is a completely separate issue.
The amount of rework piled on rework is what caused Boeing to write off the first four frames as an R&D cost.
Almost 40% of a Boeing 777 by weight is foreign sourced (not including engines) so they didn't have to build it n pieces to include foreign suppliers - aside from that, the point of the article is that Boeing also gave the job of detailed design definition to the outsourced suppliers, and that is where the issue comes in.
Aircraft have been built in pieces for decades before the 787, for example all Airbus aircraft since the A320 in the mid 1980s have been built as prefabricated sections and joined on the FAL in exactly the same way as that intended for the 787. Airbus have only had one major issue with this approach, the software issues in CATIA version mismatches that caused the A380 fuck up - it worked perfectly for every aircraft before.
Aside from the intent of the article, Boeing did indeed put together the first 787 with non-specced parts - in their haste to make the 07-08-2007 roll out date (7-8-7), Boeing failed to order aviation grade fasteners with enough lead time from their suppliers and they literally had to buy a batch from your every day DIY store, and replace them at great cost and effort afterward. One of the reasons the first four 787s have been written off and will never be sold (the original intent was to sell all the certification fleet to customers).
As noted the issue was not the batteries, which have passed muster after inspection by the FAA and the NTSB - the focus now is on the charging systems and monitoring systems, as well as the related failure of the containment system.
SpaceX may have a fantastic battery, but they still need to use a charging system designed for charging from a power source that is fairly unreliable in consistency (the four generators on the 787s engines, and the generator on the APU), a power source that is reliable but completely different in power characteristics (ground power), and be FAA certified. Not to mention that it needs to be charged and discharged on a much regular basis than that of a battery used on a booster.
I rather think SpaceX's solution to the charging system is not compatible with that required by regular service usage of the Boeing 787.
The ruling doesn't suspend everyone's obligations with regard to the copyrights involved, just Antigua's - while the copy sent to you may be unencmbered by a license, that doesn't mean you gain any rights to redistribution.
Not only that, but with most of the features released, you can compile them so they run on a lower installed version so long as it targets the same runtime, so pretty much everything that came with.Net 3.0 and 3.5 can be compiled so as to run on a.Net 2.0 base install, mainly because most of it is syntactic sugar rather than fundamental changes.
I do find the difference in opinion that rises to the top of Slashdot discussions on various topics very interesting.
In this case, the overriding opinion is that the acts of the prosecutors are responsible for the death of Swartz.
However, in at least two other cases, that of Amanda Todd and Megan Meier, the overriding opinion in those Slashdot stories was that the person or people accused of bullying were not responsible for the deaths of the victims, as suicide victims usually have underlying issues.
The duality of Slashdot is very interesting, but so is how very different, very strong opinions and very opposing opinions can still rise to the surface.
Well, they were obsolete when they arrived, and the world had just undergone a major conflict - the planes would have to be shipped back to the UK and stripped, which would have cost money. Why spend that money, when you can spend less to mine, refine and produce the metal locally using British labour, with money ending up in British pockets?
You forget just how many WW2 aircraft were cut up, scrapped and simply buried because the cost of recycling them was too high at that time - there are over 150 Lancasters and 400 Spitfires cut up and buried at one location in Wiltshire, UK, all done in the same period that we are talking about here.
The Japanese grounding was not an aviation authority move, it was individual airlines taking the prudent step on their own and has happened several times for several different aircraft types (after the A380 engine failure, several airlines took their aircraft out of use for checks) - the big news here is that the FAA took a very big step in issuing a grounding order, its not one that happens often.
It does indeed *look* bad, until you know what you should be looking for - the exterior of the box is largely unburned, and the strap is intact with no signs of burning, so the box did its job in containing the fire. The lid was removed by the fire personnel, using a tool which caused the dent in the left hand side, and the box was thrown from the aircraft.
The charring on the front of the box was caused by the connecting mechanism on the front arcing, and not the main fire itself.
So all in all, yes it looks bad, but in actuality the box did its job!
They always outsource building some of the parts - in-fact, more than 30% of the Boeing 777 is sourced from outside the US, so its nothing new.
As I said in the last thread - there are no circumstances under which Boeing would have built these batteries, their chargers, their containers or the mounting brackets. They are bought in for every aircraft built by Boeing or Airbus.
The Boeing 737 Classic series (737-300, -4-00 and -500) was grounded for a period of time in 1989 after the Kegworth crash - no, its not an "entire commercial airframe", because it didn't cover the earlier 737-100 and -200, but the airframes are so different that it could be considered such.
Slashdot Mirror
Only if whatever solution is medically certified - my wife can view MRI's at home with full 3D capability using the supplied viewer, it just has a huge warning blazoned across it that says "this device is not certified for medical diagnostics".
The systems she uses in the hospital for viewing MRI scans on have very high resolution screens that are colour matched regularly.
That's great. But what if Google and Opera don't agree with you? That's the bulk of WebKit integrators that aren't following your fork, so where's it's impetus going to come from?
Who owns the master branch? Who guards the commit gates from the hordes? There's your defacto controllers of WebKit - you can fork all you want, but you need to get the main users (the browser integrators, Google et al) to follow your branch rather than the master.
Apple owns the master branch.
The main difference is that with a petrol or diesel powered vehicle, I can make unscheduled, unplanned trips whenever I wish without having to worry about where I will next refuel it - if I need fuel, I just pop to the nearest station, which there will be a plethora of within 100 miles unless you are seriously out in the sticks. Refueling takes 5 minutes, and I'm back on my way to my unplanned destination without issue.
One day I get to work and my phone rings - its my father, he's had a heart attack. He lives 250 miles away. I need to drive back home, grab a bag with a few essentials in it, and drive to the hospital. I don't want to have to stop at my house for hours to recharge my vehicle, or stop en-route for an hour to top it up etc etc.
Electric vehicles are still crippled by the fact that you cannot ever have an unplanned excursion of any length in one.
Both Japan and the US are on record as saying they wouldn't hesitate to shoot down anything NK launches, and have had UNSC resolutions assed that bans NK from launching anything at all. I don't personally agree with the UN being able to ban a country from having a space program (I'm making no comment as to whether NK have a legitimate program tho).
Nice attempt at trolling, but since Apple is a licensee to the ActiveSync protocol, they are fully within control of how they implement that spec and thus responsible for any issues that crop up when none existed before...
"proprietary" and "non-standards compliant" doesn't equate to "shit", it just equates to "I can't download the spec from a website and implement it". If you implement the protocol badly, it doesn't matter whether it's proprietary or not. If you don't control both ends of a connection, then you are entirely dependent on how the other end implement the protocol, proprietary or not.
Regarding the "Apple supply bandwidth, infrastructure and payment method" argument that crops up commonly in these discussions - its a facetious argument because the seller HAS NO FUCKING CHOICE IN THE MATTER even if they do have the ability to do it.
I'm sure both Adobe and Microsoft have the ability to replace Apples "contribution" completely, but they aren't allowed to by Apple. They aren't even allowed to attempt to, its completely verboten - you have to use Apples distribution service, you have to use their payment gateway, you have to use their app store otherwise your app simply won't happen.
And thats the point being made. Its not about what Apple offer, its about them refusing to allow those than can equal them in capability to actually do it.
I wonder how they achieve that, since for many configuartions the Apple UFI flat out refuses to boot anything other than OSX on an external device - I had this issue evenly when trying to install Windows as my primary OS on my 2010 MBP, using both an internal HD and SSD, so the DVD drive was external and the MBP refused to boot anything other than the OSX install meda from the DVD drive or a USB stick.
I ended up with a 10GB OSX partition on the SSD which never gets booted into these days - there was no way to just install Windows :/
External booting is enabled on some platforms, but its a far cry from "any" intel Apple.
The downside (from Suns perspective) was that the court case was a huge catalyst for MS ditching Java and going their own route with .Net.
You really think there's a need for such subterfuge?
"Bad cockpit design" - no worse than any other. Care to elaborate?
"Bad wiring" - again, care to elaborate? If you mean the A380 debacle, did you miss the part of my point where I explicitly mentioned that as the only major issue they had with their approach?
"Premature stress cracks in the wings" - using a new production process in an Airbus factory, which would have occurred if Airbus produced the wings 100 yards from the FAL anyway. Hardly a great argument against my point.
The design and build process Airbus has used for the past 30 years is the design and build process Boeing is trying to achieve with the 787 - Airbus has nearly 7,000 aircraft delivered under that very design and build process, and yet has never had a major fleet grounding ordered by the FAA or EASA. They must be doing something right...
It comes from direct involvement in the program, and yes the first 787 rolled out had approximately 60% of its fasteners as installed being non-aviation grade, sourced from the same suppliers as any non-aviation manufacturer would source them - they all had to be drilled out and replaced later on at great cost and effort, using oversized fasteners due to the increased hole size.
As I noted in my original post, Boeing failed to source the correct fasteners with enough lead time from its usual supplier, leading to a massive shortfall against what was needed to achieve the roll out date. The decision was taken to use temporary fasteners where required, without full understanding of what that entailed.
It's also widely documented in industry media from 2007 and 2008.
You are correct in that there was a later issue with installed fasteners, in that they had been installed incorrectly (not countersunk correctly) which led to strength issues, but this is a completely separate issue.
The amount of rework piled on rework is what caused Boeing to write off the first four frames as an R&D cost.
Almost 40% of a Boeing 777 by weight is foreign sourced (not including engines) so they didn't have to build it n pieces to include foreign suppliers - aside from that, the point of the article is that Boeing also gave the job of detailed design definition to the outsourced suppliers, and that is where the issue comes in.
Aircraft have been built in pieces for decades before the 787, for example all Airbus aircraft since the A320 in the mid 1980s have been built as prefabricated sections and joined on the FAL in exactly the same way as that intended for the 787. Airbus have only had one major issue with this approach, the software issues in CATIA version mismatches that caused the A380 fuck up - it worked perfectly for every aircraft before.
Aside from the intent of the article, Boeing did indeed put together the first 787 with non-specced parts - in their haste to make the 07-08-2007 roll out date (7-8-7), Boeing failed to order aviation grade fasteners with enough lead time from their suppliers and they literally had to buy a batch from your every day DIY store, and replace them at great cost and effort afterward. One of the reasons the first four 787s have been written off and will never be sold (the original intent was to sell all the certification fleet to customers).
As noted the issue was not the batteries, which have passed muster after inspection by the FAA and the NTSB - the focus now is on the charging systems and monitoring systems, as well as the related failure of the containment system.
SpaceX may have a fantastic battery, but they still need to use a charging system designed for charging from a power source that is fairly unreliable in consistency (the four generators on the 787s engines, and the generator on the APU), a power source that is reliable but completely different in power characteristics (ground power), and be FAA certified. Not to mention that it needs to be charged and discharged on a much regular basis than that of a battery used on a booster.
I rather think SpaceX's solution to the charging system is not compatible with that required by regular service usage of the Boeing 787.
The ruling doesn't suspend everyone's obligations with regard to the copyrights involved, just Antigua's - while the copy sent to you may be unencmbered by a license, that doesn't mean you gain any rights to redistribution.
Not only that, but with most of the features released, you can compile them so they run on a lower installed version so long as it targets the same runtime, so pretty much everything that came with .Net 3.0 and 3.5 can be compiled so as to run on a .Net 2.0 base install, mainly because most of it is syntactic sugar rather than fundamental changes.
Regardless of the SecureBoot issue, the loading of an unverified resume image is a security issue that should be resolved anyway...
The prosecutors killed Swartz.
I do find the difference in opinion that rises to the top of Slashdot discussions on various topics very interesting.
In this case, the overriding opinion is that the acts of the prosecutors are responsible for the death of Swartz.
However, in at least two other cases, that of Amanda Todd and Megan Meier, the overriding opinion in those Slashdot stories was that the person or people accused of bullying were not responsible for the deaths of the victims, as suicide victims usually have underlying issues.
The duality of Slashdot is very interesting, but so is how very different, very strong opinions and very opposing opinions can still rise to the surface.
Quorn burgers may contain trace amounts of unicorn.
Well, they were obsolete when they arrived, and the world had just undergone a major conflict - the planes would have to be shipped back to the UK and stripped, which would have cost money. Why spend that money, when you can spend less to mine, refine and produce the metal locally using British labour, with money ending up in British pockets?
You forget just how many WW2 aircraft were cut up, scrapped and simply buried because the cost of recycling them was too high at that time - there are over 150 Lancasters and 400 Spitfires cut up and buried at one location in Wiltshire, UK, all done in the same period that we are talking about here.
The Japanese grounding was not an aviation authority move, it was individual airlines taking the prudent step on their own and has happened several times for several different aircraft types (after the A380 engine failure, several airlines took their aircraft out of use for checks) - the big news here is that the FAA took a very big step in issuing a grounding order, its not one that happens often.
It does indeed *look* bad, until you know what you should be looking for - the exterior of the box is largely unburned, and the strap is intact with no signs of burning, so the box did its job in containing the fire. The lid was removed by the fire personnel, using a tool which caused the dent in the left hand side, and the box was thrown from the aircraft.
The charring on the front of the box was caused by the connecting mechanism on the front arcing, and not the main fire itself.
So all in all, yes it looks bad, but in actuality the box did its job!
They always outsource building some of the parts - in-fact, more than 30% of the Boeing 777 is sourced from outside the US, so its nothing new.
As I said in the last thread - there are no circumstances under which Boeing would have built these batteries, their chargers, their containers or the mounting brackets. They are bought in for every aircraft built by Boeing or Airbus.
The Boeing 737 Classic series (737-300, -4-00 and -500) was grounded for a period of time in 1989 after the Kegworth crash - no, its not an "entire commercial airframe", because it didn't cover the earlier 737-100 and -200, but the airframes are so different that it could be considered such.