Just put a solid bulkhead between the cockpit and the passenger cabin. The pilots would enter and leave the plane through a separate external door. Israeli airlines do this and it works very well.
That's probably overkill, though. While you might be right about a simple locked door having prevented 9/11, I think the scenario you offer is a bit unrealistic now. Passengers will fight back.
The only reason hijackers didn't get jumped in the past is because the passengers thought they had a reasonable chance of getting out of the situation alive if they cooperated.
That changed after 9/11 -- heck, look what happened on the fourth 9/11 plane when the passengers heard about the other attacks and realized the hijackers planned to kill them all. The only reason they didn't survive was because the hijackers had already gotten into the cockpit and most likely deliberately crashed the plane rather than lose control.
Bulkheads or no bulkheads, hijackers will never have that opportunity again. Passengers would immediately assume the worst and attack en masse since they would see nothing to lose.
I guess you've never had to merge two large private networks that are behind NAT.
NAT itself is okay, but using private IP ranges behind it doesn't really work for large organizations, especially large organizations that can (and do) need to merge with other such large organizations.
I've been on the receiving end of a couple of these situations; it can cause a LOT of pain.
Maybe. I doubt it'll swing that way in the long-term.
Both present problems for traditional debugging, but nontrivial uses of explicit multithreading are much harder to debug using other techniques than nontrivial (lazy) functional programs, because the latter abstracts the concurrency issues that are otherwise exceptionally difficult to test empirically or reason about.
You can build such an abstaction in your own explicitly multithreaded code, of course, but the more developed such abstractions become, the more functional in character they get.
So... you can basically build your own functional language-within-a-language, or you can start with a functional language to begin with.
The funny thing is, the entirety of Ebert's review is extremely harsh on pretty much every aspect of the film, aside from some comments near the end about how imaginative the special effects are.
I really don't see how all that adds up to three and a half stars.
Given the impact of advertising funny prices, it seems like it might be wise to throw a safety net into the process -- e.g. determine "reasonable" price ranges for different classes of items, and flag any prices that exceed that range for manual approval (and perhaps adjustment of the "reasonable" range).
Of course, how practical that is does depend on how many different categories of products you have to deal with. You can take an initial crack at "reasonable" via an arithmetic mean or something, but "reasonable" really requires some human interpretation.
Sure. I was just tempering your rather rosy picture of how well things have worked for the past thousands of years.
Well, I wouldn't really describe my picture as "rosy". "Only mildly pessimistic," perhaps.
Now, how long before artists tire of that, and reserve their art for private performances for the rich instead?
To what degree did that happen in the past?
Possibly. But the artists may still be living in the gutter.
Or they take day jobs like they do now. MOST artists and musicians (even many with record deals) don't currently make enough to support themselves from their work. With the exception of e.g. government grants, copyright ended up replacing the imperfect patronage system rather than supplementing it.
I'm don't think I would prefer a pure patronage system, but I'm not sure it would be very different from an artist's perspective. Replace "get a record deal" with "find a patron".
Hmm, so I guess we're advocating the same thing as far as Copyright reform. Still, I did want to comment on a couple things, as I think even an end to Copyright would be awkward, but not catastrophic...
Oh, you mean how Mozart died in poverty, despite having created some of the most enduring music known to humans? Good things have happened, but so has plenty of bad things.
That's how it goes. No matter what you do, there will be bad to take with the good. Copyright hasn't prevented good musicians from dying destitute either. All it did was replace a system of patronage with one of commercial subsidy. Hopefully it is at least more democratic.
Yes, but can or will most readers and movie-goers? If not, then you've removed a big profit motive for content creation. Hollywood is already notorious for rehashing successes - what more if it was legal for anybody to produce Star Wars sequels?
You'd see a spike in Star Wars rehashings (most of them bad, a few good). After reaching saturation, it'd slowly burn itself out to background level, and in the span of a generation or two you'd see the best portions of them become well-integrated into the culture's folk mythology (rather than simply being the domain of fan-artists -- fan art, as a distinct thing, would cease to exist).
That always grated on me in Firefly. Whores are intrinsically not high-class; this has a basis in human psychology, and is consistently reflected in the way human societies are structured.
Yes, you can get creative with a lot of things (especially sci-fi or fantasy -- "Imagine a society where..."), but you still can't arbitrarily invent new (human) psychology without harming the quality of the writing.
I don't know; that seems to have been the way art and culture had worked for the past several thousand years of human history, and it worked pretty well.
I can pretty easily ignore bad interpretations, particularly if they aren't "official", but even eliminating the potential for other, better, interpretations makes me sad. It's the monopoly on source material permitted by copyright that permit someone like Lucas or Berman to "ruin" Star Wars or Star Trek.
In an "open" environment like the public domain, works undergo a degree of natural selection; the less-satisfying ones are less likely to survive in the long-term, as people like to consume, distribute, and borrow from the better material.
Much of Shakespeare's material was reinterpretations of earlier (or even nearly contemporary) works; his stuff largely outlived the originals (or other, competing, interpretations) because it was better.
Maybe that sucked for the other authors, but I think it was better for the culture as a whole. Copyright isn't necessarily a bad tradeoff in other respects, but I don't think it should last longer than a generation or so.
Doesn't very high magenetic fields kill uperconductivity?
Yes. But superconductivity is necessary to maintain the high currents required to generate these strong magnetic fields. So it's something of a delicate balance with a violent failure mode. Push the magnet too hard, too much current or magnetic flux (or not enough cryogen), and it'll quench. (This is the OTHER reason why you don't want to bring metal objects into an NMR setting...)
The moment the coils lose superconductivity, they'll heat up due to the massive current that had heretofore been flowing through them without resistance. The hot wire boils the cryogen, which expands violently and and bursts the coolant vessel. BAM!
Now you have the room partly filled with ultra-cold gas; helium rises to the ceiling (hope you're short), nitrogen sinks to the floor (hope you're not wearing open-toed shoes), and due to the expanding, warming gas, the air pressure inside the room is quite a bit higher than outside and rapidly increasing (hope the door opens outwards...). Nitrogen in particular is also a suffocation hazard.
Well, that's sort of a worst-case scenario. In practice, superconducting magnets are designed to handle occasional accidental quenches safely, and won't necessarily rupture and spew coolant. If they do, you should still have a chance to evacuate before too much gas evolves, and any responsible installation will also have safety protocols and systems (i.e. special ventilation) in place.
Linus adopted a new versioning system. Instead of having 2.6.x be the stable releases, and 2.7.x being the development releases, now 2.6.x is the development release and 2.6.x.y are the stable releases.
So, instead of changes piling up in a long-lived development series, we get a new stable series based off of every development release.
You know, that brings back memories of the way I learned to program. I used to copy programs from the listings in 3-2-1 Contact and Compute's Gazette, and then eventually I got curious and started tweaking them. Eventually I got to the point where I could write my own programs from scratch.
Now, I think a little bit of learning 5-line fragments would still have been helpful, IMO. But I think you're on to something. It's a bit like learning natural language by immersion.
Slashdot Mirror
The SVG specification does include animation actually, and at least Opera and the Adobe SVG plugin do implement it.
Just isn't much out there in the way of authoring tools that support SVG animation yet.
My memory was slightly off. As another poster commented, El Al considered the bulkhead, but opted for the locked door.
Just put a solid bulkhead between the cockpit and the passenger cabin. The pilots would enter and leave the plane through a separate external door. Israeli airlines do this and it works very well.
That's probably overkill, though. While you might be right about a simple locked door having prevented 9/11, I think the scenario you offer is a bit unrealistic now. Passengers will fight back.
The only reason hijackers didn't get jumped in the past is because the passengers thought they had a reasonable chance of getting out of the situation alive if they cooperated.
That changed after 9/11 -- heck, look what happened on the fourth 9/11 plane when the passengers heard about the other attacks and realized the hijackers planned to kill them all. The only reason they didn't survive was because the hijackers had already gotten into the cockpit and most likely deliberately crashed the plane rather than lose control.
Bulkheads or no bulkheads, hijackers will never have that opportunity again. Passengers would immediately assume the worst and attack en masse since they would see nothing to lose.
If it were seamless, I could have focused my attention on my other duties. As it was there was a lot of other work that didn't get done...
Or just like any type of contracting work.
I guess you've never had to merge two large private networks that are behind NAT.
NAT itself is okay, but using private IP ranges behind it doesn't really work for large organizations, especially large organizations that can (and do) need to merge with other such large organizations.
I've been on the receiving end of a couple of these situations; it can cause a LOT of pain.
Maybe. I doubt it'll swing that way in the long-term.
Both present problems for traditional debugging, but nontrivial uses of explicit multithreading are much harder to debug using other techniques than nontrivial (lazy) functional programs, because the latter abstracts the concurrency issues that are otherwise exceptionally difficult to test empirically or reason about.
You can build such an abstaction in your own explicitly multithreaded code, of course, but the more developed such abstractions become, the more functional in character they get.
So... you can basically build your own functional language-within-a-language, or you can start with a functional language to begin with.
The first nail, of course, was when it was first called the "education industry".
The funny thing is, the entirety of Ebert's review is extremely harsh on pretty much every aspect of the film, aside from some comments near the end about how imaginative the special effects are.
I really don't see how all that adds up to three and a half stars.
Given the impact of advertising funny prices, it seems like it might be wise to throw a safety net into the process -- e.g. determine "reasonable" price ranges for different classes of items, and flag any prices that exceed that range for manual approval (and perhaps adjustment of the "reasonable" range).
Of course, how practical that is does depend on how many different categories of products you have to deal with. You can take an initial crack at "reasonable" via an arithmetic mean or something, but "reasonable" really requires some human interpretation.
Well, I specifically meant The Reformation, not "a reformation". I was pointing out that GP picked a bad example.
Thank you for providing concrete historical examples. I was wrong.
Well, I wouldn't really describe my picture as "rosy". "Only mildly pessimistic," perhaps.
To what degree did that happen in the past?
Or they take day jobs like they do now. MOST artists and musicians (even many with record deals) don't currently make enough to support themselves from their work. With the exception of e.g. government grants, copyright ended up replacing the imperfect patronage system rather than supplementing it.
I'm don't think I would prefer a pure patronage system, but I'm not sure it would be very different from an artist's perspective. Replace "get a record deal" with "find a patron".
Hmm, so I guess we're advocating the same thing as far as Copyright reform. Still, I did want to comment on a couple things, as I think even an end to Copyright would be awkward, but not catastrophic...
That's how it goes. No matter what you do, there will be bad to take with the good. Copyright hasn't prevented good musicians from dying destitute either. All it did was replace a system of patronage with one of commercial subsidy. Hopefully it is at least more democratic.
You'd see a spike in Star Wars rehashings (most of them bad, a few good). After reaching saturation, it'd slowly burn itself out to background level, and in the span of a generation or two you'd see the best portions of them become well-integrated into the culture's folk mythology (rather than simply being the domain of fan-artists -- fan art, as a distinct thing, would cease to exist).
Different, but not intrinsically bad.
That always grated on me in Firefly. Whores are intrinsically not high-class; this has a basis in human psychology, and is consistently reflected in the way human societies are structured.
Yes, you can get creative with a lot of things (especially sci-fi or fantasy -- "Imagine a society where..."), but you still can't arbitrarily invent new (human) psychology without harming the quality of the writing.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn?
I don't know; that seems to have been the way art and culture had worked for the past several thousand years of human history, and it worked pretty well.
I can pretty easily ignore bad interpretations, particularly if they aren't "official", but even eliminating the potential for other, better, interpretations makes me sad. It's the monopoly on source material permitted by copyright that permit someone like Lucas or Berman to "ruin" Star Wars or Star Trek.
In an "open" environment like the public domain, works undergo a degree of natural selection; the less-satisfying ones are less likely to survive in the long-term, as people like to consume, distribute, and borrow from the better material.
Much of Shakespeare's material was reinterpretations of earlier (or even nearly contemporary) works; his stuff largely outlived the originals (or other, competing, interpretations) because it was better.
Maybe that sucked for the other authors, but I think it was better for the culture as a whole. Copyright isn't necessarily a bad tradeoff in other respects, but I don't think it should last longer than a generation or so.
Dude, the Reformation was FAR from bloodless, on both sides.
Why? There'd be nowhere for the heat to go, save a minimal amount via radiation. (Plus they'd be subject to radiation and micrometeorioid damage)
Putting things in cold places to cool them off only works well where there's an atmosphere to actually carry away the heat.
Heating and cooling are both really obnoxious problems in space.
Yes. But superconductivity is necessary to maintain the high currents required to generate these strong magnetic fields. So it's something of a delicate balance with a violent failure mode. Push the magnet too hard, too much current or magnetic flux (or not enough cryogen), and it'll quench. (This is the OTHER reason why you don't want to bring metal objects into an NMR setting...)
The moment the coils lose superconductivity, they'll heat up due to the massive current that had heretofore been flowing through them without resistance. The hot wire boils the cryogen, which expands violently and and bursts the coolant vessel. BAM!
Now you have the room partly filled with ultra-cold gas; helium rises to the ceiling (hope you're short), nitrogen sinks to the floor (hope you're not wearing open-toed shoes), and due to the expanding, warming gas, the air pressure inside the room is quite a bit higher than outside and rapidly increasing (hope the door opens outwards...). Nitrogen in particular is also a suffocation hazard.
Well, that's sort of a worst-case scenario. In practice, superconducting magnets are designed to handle occasional accidental quenches safely, and won't necessarily rupture and spew coolant. If they do, you should still have a chance to evacuate before too much gas evolves, and any responsible installation will also have safety protocols and systems (i.e. special ventilation) in place.
That's silly. It shouldn't fail to build in the default configuration, even if the resulting kernel image wouldn't make much sense.
But in this case I think the OP was using an unsupported version of gcc.
Sounds like you were using an unsupported version of gcc.
Linus adopted a new versioning system. Instead of having 2.6.x be the stable releases, and 2.7.x being the development releases, now 2.6.x is the development release and 2.6.x.y are the stable releases.
So, instead of changes piling up in a long-lived development series, we get a new stable series based off of every development release.
You know, that brings back memories of the way I learned to program. I used to copy programs from the listings in 3-2-1 Contact and Compute's Gazette, and then eventually I got curious and started tweaking them. Eventually I got to the point where I could write my own programs from scratch.
Now, I think a little bit of learning 5-line fragments would still have been helpful, IMO. But I think you're on to something. It's a bit like learning natural language by immersion.
Meh, I didn't read the GP post carefully, and (except for the alchemy bit) sort of re-covered the same material. Sorry about that.