If you have to use Java, a copy-cat framework for Java is Trails. The linked articles make it look pretty impressive.
Another relatively unknown java framework I've flirted with very recently is Stripes. It's claim to fame is that its configuration is annotation based. Dev consists of the view and action, no worrying about an xml file to sync between the two.
The links stated it was cancelled not because it wasn't doable, but because it was just about useless considering its radar cross section and vulnerability to SAMs of 60's vintage. Making the plane fly long ranges at Mach 3 though was not the issue.
I'm not a particular fan of Airbus, but let's be fair. They are starting to suffer from the same thing that has plagued Boeing - they have a lot of aircraft out there that are getting older in age. Two things that are hard to fight - numbers and time. I don't think it's surprising that we're going to see these issues crop up, especially when dealing with airlines that do not want to spend the time/money pre-empting these problems.
If you're referring to the nose wheel issue on the A320's, I believe there was an FAA notice out to airlines to fix a hydraulic issue on the nose wheels of these planes stemming from a 1999 incident on an America West flight, but Jet Blue had not fixed this particular plane yet. After this last one though, the FAA finally made the fix mandatory.
What I did find impressive about this whole thing after watching it on TV was the fact that the nose gear didn't simply snap off after hitting the runway. I think it speaks to the quality of modern airliner safety.
I believe the OP was referring to the Boeing SST designed in the mid/late 60's. It was supposed to carry quite a few more passengers than the Concorde, and initially have variable geometry (swing) wings. The linked page indicates it was killed off by Congress for political reasons.
Your comment that this "wasn't even doable on a military budget" made me originally think of the XB-70, a still future-looking aircraft conceived in the 50's that was to fly its entire mission at Mach 3.
Haha - I always wonder why these stories get so much play - Dell is far from the only vendor out there, and at that they are never the cheapest. If you want a box w/o OS and not build it yourself, there are only a million places to buy one online. Most small local shops by now have decent websites that let you customize your own system from them, which makes it even easier. Cheaper, same/better customization, w/ or w/o an OS, and local if you ever have warranty issues. Herearethree local to me. The only real advantage to Dell I see is when you happen to want the monitor and printer they like to bundle w/ their system.
I know that people like you don't want to hear it, but being part of the UN is of great benefit to the US (do you really think the "war against terror" can be won by the US alone for example) so the US leaving the UN, thereby destroying the international system would be a very stupid move indeed, to put it mildly.
Please tell what the UN has done in the war on terror. Every US interaction with foreign powers in this *war* has been through agreements outside of the UN. The UN can't even agree on a definition for terrorism.
As to the UN or any international beauracracy controlling the net, I don't have a lot of faith. Heard of Rwanda? Darfur? Yugoslavia? The latter would still be under Milosovics control if the US/EU/Nato didn't finally step in.
Yugoslavia is actually a good reference point for this entire pissing match. A large part of the problem there with regards to the UN was due to two countries - Russia and China. Russia didn't want increased western control or influence in its shrinking sphere of influence, so vetoed everything they could with regard to the UN doing anything. China didn't want a precedent of intervention on human rights violations for obvious reasons - so both blocked action every step of
the way.
Now you want to take control of the Internet from a private international organization, and give it to these guys?
The UN cannot even agree on human rights, a definition for terrorism, or manage an oil for food program w/o lining their own pockets. Giving it to the UN would be accepting the least common denominator in every future management decision. I can just imagine what China, Iran, and Russia would love to do with their fingers on the buttons.
I remember watching a press conference with a military general at the opening of the last gulf war. The press was all lathered up about reports that Iraq was jamming GPS signals - it was assumed the Russians had given them the equipment - and the general commented that whoever was running that equipment had the worst job with the shortest life expectancy in the world at that time. Like you alluded to, any military equipment that relies on an outgoing radio signal instantly becomes a big bright target.
If Nokia releases a dev kit for Symbian, they are marketing Symbian's product - not their own. They also fall into the same problem Intel and MSFT have been in for the last fifteen years, trying to move existing customers to a new platform if they ever decide they don't like the one they're on.
By targeting Java, they get to have freedom of choice on what they develop their next phone with, without worrying about the existing software that will not be able to follow.
Long term, you're right. After the stock went from the hundreds down to well below fifty, he corrected himself. At the time though, it was self fullfilling. He made a call, people said 'oooh, i have to get me some of that', and the price went into the stratosphere. At the time the Internet was an unknown, or at least no one had been burned yet, and blodget was the first to make that kind of call - so people jumped.
I suspect if you add up Amazon's profits and their losses, you'd have a very large negative number. The reason they're making money now has something to do with the billions thrown their way during the dot-com boom and self-fullfilling stock calls made by guys like this.
The French not only participated in Concorde, but have been making supersonic fighter jets for a long time. It appears France is only country who can still build supersonic jets with 100% ingenious technology.
I think that instead of 'ingenious' you mean 'indigenous'. France isn't the only country by a long shot though. Heard of the US, Russia, China, England, Italy, Brazil, or yes, Japan?
A famous incidence was when the Japanese were planning a new fighter/attack plane. Those in the uniform wanted to go ingenious design (they always want to go domestic even when the equipment is prohibitively expensive), but because of the pressure from the States, it became a joint project between Japan and the US based on F-16 design. The result Mitsubishi F-2 is mediocre at best.
The F-2 is actually an awesome aircraft, improved from the F-16 for over water operations. Its enormous cost in comparison to an F-16 should also note Japans desire to have an independent aerospace industry, with the US's approval. If the US really didn't want Japan to have an aerospace industry, I'd have to question the necessary technology transfers for this aircraft to be built. Besides that though, have you ever heard of the Mitsubish F-1 fighter, built domestically in Japan?
I think the larger issue for Japan has been their pacifist constitution, and the idea that if they became an exporter of military technology, it might stoke fears elsewhere in the region. As to capability, I believe Japan could probably do this project on their own w/o outside help if they wanted to take on the cost and risk themselves.
The $1.8 Million investment should indicate that this is just a study, and that it's probably a lot of hype for whatever reason at the most famous air show in the world.
Seeing Japan and France in the news together also makes me wonder if this is meant to assuage some of the bust up over the iter reactor.
At any rate, I'm a bit surprised that the article emphasizes that this is France and Japan, and not Airbus and Japan - as this implies that France is doing this outside of Airbus. Interesting none the less, and I'm sure time will tell.
haha - I'm not surprised - look what they did to cobalt. They bought them out, and don't even sell any cobalt machines anymore. I think I see a pattern here.
Hysterical - a visit to http://www.cobalt.com/ brings you to a Sun page, with a big splash stating their buying storage tek. How appropriate.
Watched a documentary (Discovery?) recently that talked about US plans to invade Japan in WWII before the Japanese surrendered. The parent poster I believe is right, as the US had planned at one point on using a-bombs to take out japanese resistance on the beaches, and immediately afterwards send in US troops to secure the beach heads. I could imagine a plan like that causing the invasion to end just as it was getting started.
4. The Justice Department would never allow this, due to anti-trust concerns.
5. I really doubt this would phase IBM that much (a purported reason). If Redhat were to leave the free/oss software market place, their spot would be filled pretty quickly by Suse, Mandriva, etc...
Someone else commented a confused marketplace would benefit microsoft. I don't think so, as microsoft has a lot more to lose than the different linux vendors. They'd be taking a pretty good chance on that one.
I'm assuming it's seen as just a std dual core setup. As to benchmarks though, I'd love to see some Linux ones if anyone has a set, some db and web server stuff would be excellent.
Slashdot Mirror
Plan B is Rafale's, and there's speculation it's actually Plan A.
If you have to use Java, a copy-cat framework for Java is Trails. The linked articles make it look pretty impressive.
Another relatively unknown java framework I've flirted with very recently is Stripes. It's claim to fame is that its configuration is annotation based. Dev consists of the view and action, no worrying about an xml file to sync between the two.
Full screen in my browser, the link is at the very bottom in the center of the page. It is in the "Only on Fox" section just below the advertisement.
The links stated it was cancelled not because it wasn't doable, but because it was just about useless considering its radar cross section and vulnerability to SAMs of 60's vintage. Making the plane fly long ranges at Mach 3 though was not the issue.
I'm not a particular fan of Airbus, but let's be fair. They are starting to suffer from the same thing that has plagued Boeing - they have a lot of aircraft out there that are getting older in age. Two things that are hard to fight - numbers and time. I don't think it's surprising that we're going to see these issues crop up, especially when dealing with airlines that do not want to spend the time/money pre-empting these problems.
If you're referring to the nose wheel issue on the A320's, I believe there was an FAA notice out to airlines to fix a hydraulic issue on the nose wheels of these planes stemming from a 1999 incident on an America West flight, but Jet Blue had not fixed this particular plane yet. After this last one though, the FAA finally made the fix mandatory.
What I did find impressive about this whole thing after watching it on TV was the fact that the nose gear didn't simply snap off after hitting the runway. I think it speaks to the quality of modern airliner safety.
I believe the OP was referring to the Boeing SST designed in the mid/late 60's. It was supposed to carry quite a few more passengers than the Concorde, and initially have variable geometry (swing) wings. The linked page indicates it was killed off by Congress for political reasons.
Your comment that this "wasn't even doable on a military budget" made me originally think of the XB-70, a still future-looking aircraft conceived in the 50's that was to fly its entire mission at Mach 3.
Haha - I always wonder why these stories get so much play - Dell is far from the only vendor out there, and at that they are never the cheapest. If you want a box w/o OS and not build it yourself, there are only a million places to buy one online. Most small local shops by now have decent websites that let you customize your own system from them, which makes it even easier. Cheaper, same/better customization, w/ or w/o an OS, and local if you ever have warranty issues. Here are three local to me. The only real advantage to Dell I see is when you happen to want the monitor and printer they like to bundle w/ their system.
Please tell what the UN has done in the war on terror. Every US interaction with foreign powers in this *war* has been through agreements outside of the UN. The UN can't even agree on a definition for terrorism.
As to the UN or any international beauracracy controlling the net, I don't have a lot of faith. Heard of Rwanda? Darfur? Yugoslavia? The latter would still be under Milosovics control if the US/EU/Nato didn't finally step in.
Yugoslavia is actually a good reference point for this entire pissing match. A large part of the problem there with regards to the UN was due to two countries - Russia and China. Russia didn't want increased western control or influence in its shrinking sphere of influence, so vetoed everything they could with regard to the UN doing anything. China didn't want a precedent of intervention on human rights violations for obvious reasons - so both blocked action every step of the way.
Now you want to take control of the Internet from a private international organization, and give it to these guys?
That was my first thought as well. I believe in a great deal of those races the prizes were funded by newspaper owners/publishers.
The UN cannot even agree on human rights, a definition for terrorism, or manage an oil for food program w/o lining their own pockets. Giving it to the UN would be accepting the least common denominator in every future management decision. I can just imagine what China, Iran, and Russia would love to do with their fingers on the buttons.
I remember watching a press conference with a military general at the opening of the last gulf war. The press was all lathered up about reports that Iraq was jamming GPS signals - it was assumed the Russians had given them the equipment - and the general commented that whoever was running that equipment had the worst job with the shortest life expectancy in the world at that time. Like you alluded to, any military equipment that relies on an outgoing radio signal instantly becomes a big bright target.
If Nokia releases a dev kit for Symbian, they are marketing Symbian's product - not their own. They also fall into the same problem Intel and MSFT have been in for the last fifteen years, trying to move existing customers to a new platform if they ever decide they don't like the one they're on.
By targeting Java, they get to have freedom of choice on what they develop their next phone with, without worrying about the existing software that will not be able to follow.
Long term, you're right. After the stock went from the hundreds down to well below fifty, he corrected himself. At the time though, it was self fullfilling. He made a call, people said 'oooh, i have to get me some of that', and the price went into the stratosphere. At the time the Internet was an unknown, or at least no one had been burned yet, and blodget was the first to make that kind of call - so people jumped.
I suspect if you add up Amazon's profits and their losses, you'd have a very large negative number. The reason they're making money now has something to do with the billions thrown their way during the dot-com boom and self-fullfilling stock calls made by guys like this.
There's a sight. A robot that's lost its way showing up at a slashdot readers house. I can only imagine the modifications that would be made.
If the ability to build your own engines and avionics is a requirement, then you're right. I believe China is fast approaching this capability though.
The fact that the UK has not had a project since the 70's doesn't mean they lack the capability. They used to be at the forefront of western design.
I think that instead of 'ingenious' you mean 'indigenous'. France isn't the only country by a long shot though. Heard of the US, Russia, China, England, Italy, Brazil, or yes, Japan?
The F-2 is actually an awesome aircraft, improved from the F-16 for over water operations. Its enormous cost in comparison to an F-16 should also note Japans desire to have an independent aerospace industry, with the US's approval. If the US really didn't want Japan to have an aerospace industry, I'd have to question the necessary technology transfers for this aircraft to be built. Besides that though, have you ever heard of the Mitsubish F-1 fighter, built domestically in Japan?
I think the larger issue for Japan has been their pacifist constitution, and the idea that if they became an exporter of military technology, it might stoke fears elsewhere in the region. As to capability, I believe Japan could probably do this project on their own w/o outside help if they wanted to take on the cost and risk themselves.
The $1.8 Million investment should indicate that this is just a study, and that it's probably a lot of hype for whatever reason at the most famous air show in the world.
Seeing Japan and France in the news together also makes me wonder if this is meant to assuage some of the bust up over the iter reactor.
At any rate, I'm a bit surprised that the article emphasizes that this is France and Japan, and not Airbus and Japan - as this implies that France is doing this outside of Airbus. Interesting none the less, and I'm sure time will tell.
haha - I'm not surprised - look what they did to cobalt. They bought them out, and don't even sell any cobalt machines anymore. I think I see a pattern here.
Hysterical - a visit to http://www.cobalt.com/ brings you to a Sun page, with a big splash stating their buying storage tek. How appropriate.
Watched a documentary (Discovery?) recently that talked about US plans to invade Japan in WWII before the Japanese surrendered. The parent poster I believe is right, as the US had planned at one point on using a-bombs to take out japanese resistance on the beaches, and immediately afterwards send in US troops to secure the beach heads. I could imagine a plan like that causing the invasion to end just as it was getting started.
4. The Justice Department would never allow this, due to anti-trust concerns.
5. I really doubt this would phase IBM that much (a purported reason). If Redhat were to leave the free/oss software market place, their spot would be filled pretty quickly by Suse, Mandriva, etc...
Someone else commented a confused marketplace would benefit microsoft. I don't think so, as microsoft has a lot more to lose than the different linux vendors. They'd be taking a pretty good chance on that one.
I'm assuming it's seen as just a std dual core setup. As to benchmarks though, I'd love to see some Linux ones if anyone has a set, some db and web server stuff would be excellent.
If a peripheral is hurt, then it's only a flash wound. If the processor is hurt at its core, that'd be fatal, wouldn't it?