Not really, this OS was not created for the B1B, it is just the one being used in some of the systems on the aircraft. It is also used by and is widely avaialble to avionics companies who build systems for any number of commercial and military aircraft. The only thing that has really changed it that Green Hills is marketing the product more widely. Remember it is just an OS.
You could pay for SchedulesDirect listings for a few years and still come out money ahead of the cost of MCE. You paid for the listings in the overpriced software.
I get the worst, worst sentences always from journalism students.
Although, I don't know how much I can even say that because the big writers, journalists, authors and such, they tend to turn out the crappiest sentences, you know, readable-wise.
I'm afraid that is not entirely correct either. While the feature you mentioned was a factor, there were others one of which was a software bug that allowed the Airbus flight control computers to reach a indeterminate state. On an Airbus, the Flight Control Computer and the Autopilot are the same computer. While there is (and was at the time of the crash) an autopilot disconnect switch on the aircraft, it did not work as intended. In this incident, the autopilot failed to relinquish control of the aircraft to the pilot due to a software bug. Instead the pilots control inputs were completely ignored. The pilot did apply the correct control inputs, but the flight control computers, which busy were trying to calculate the airspeed velocity of an unladed African swallow, ignored him. Definitely a software bug. Killed most of the occupants of the aircraft, including many members of the press and a few VIP's.
Very valid concerns. I was looking forward to an iPod/Phone fusion to get a piece of equipment off my Geek Utility Belt. But storing only 100 songs and no word on the possible usefulness of the thing as a USB/Firewire Hard Drive means that this is not the super device we had all hoped for. It does however have a camera. The single most useless feature that one could put on a phone to attract masses of idiots to buy. So I am sure it will be a success in terms of sales. But in terms of design, it's a failure.
Here is another Two Words for you. Complete fantasy. Or a more descriptive set of three. Not Technically Feasable. At least for the near future. Even your WIki link admits that having the technology developed by 2008 is optimistic. Much like the Moller Sky Car, the Space elevator is a 20 year old promise that has always been "coming soon"!
We need a reliable earth to orbit transportation system soon. Politics, as much as any technical difficulties, will kill the shuttle program. The obits have already been written. But we will have to wait and see if the next great thing for space transportation is safer and cheaper or cheaper and cheaper.
So where does that leave us? For the moment we are faced with a choice between old but well understood technologies or new and potentially expensive technologies. I know where my money is, but I also know that the world operates not or reality, but the perception of reality.
I'm afraid you are mistaken about that. Southwest airlines only recently (last few years) started getting rid of thier older 737's. 747-100 and -200's are in service all over the world. And the newer versions of these aircraft have not been redesigned, only "freshened up" a little. The same as was done to the shuttle fleet in the 90's. New computers, and a host of other small changes. The 747-400's being built today are a 50 year old design being built with only a few minor improvments.
As to the analogy of cars, that is just ridiclous. If any automaker were to build a car as well as Rockwell built the shuttle, it would cost a fortune last pretty much forever.
Unfortunately, "most passenger aircraft" is a bit of an exaggeration at this point. It is getting more common in First Class cabins, but back in the cattle car seats, they are almost unheard of still.
Now if someone would just send a copy of the mag to the producers of the new Battlestar Galactica series. Maybe then I wouldn't feel queasy after every episode.
You're jokin, right? After all we have proven that even in the "western" world, we have terrorists, and they are very effective at building and deploying weapons. Ok so Oklahoma City was not a nuke, and it might be lot harder to build an deploy such a weapon, but our superior valus probably won't stop some people from trying.
I was at the preview, and there are a LOT of novels and short stories represented in the exhibits. Not all of the authors made the hall of fame yet, but I am sure they will induct new people every year. I did see a first edition of Ringworld in one case (can't remember which one).
Re:seriously, Power Macs *are* real quiet
on
A Silent PC Solution?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Amen to that. I bought a Dual 1.8 G5 a couple moths ago, and I can't believe how quiet this thing is. When the DVD drive isn't running, the machine is quieter than the level of ambient noise in my office. Even with the DVD running, the noise is barely noticable. Say what you want about Apple, but the level of attention to deatil that went into designing these machines amazes me.
Personally I think the idea behind this thing is cool. Looking at this the way I do my motorcycle, as a recreational vehicle, not a practical means of transportation. In that respect, I get excited about stuff like this.
But I get depressed about the survival of our society when I read things like "To move forward, the rider activates a trigger on the left handlebar.... The brake is activated by a trigger on the right handlebar." in a paragraph titled "A Rider-Friendly Vehicle". For those who do not ride, this is exactly opposite of the way the controls of motorcycles and most other hand controlled vehicles are operated today.
This is even worse than the creativity that todays auto makers use in positioning controls for headlights, turn signals, windshield wipers, etc. This trend has even found its way into the cockpit of commercial airlines. Sometimes things need to be changed to make their use more efficient or to make the appropriate control obvious in an emergency situation, but more often than not, it comes down to one designer who wants to be different or has a bizarre personal reason for altering the layout of the controls.
It is one of those old lab machines that is running a simulation environment. We can't run it on a faster machine because it would operate faster than realtime. We can't replace it with a new environment, because it's too expensive and no-one will pay for it. I have been secretly hoping that the stupid thing would die, so I wouldn't have to deal with it anymore. But the damn thing just keeps on working. Running MS-DOS 5.0. It has an enormous 256MB Hard Drive, a CD-ROM and a two 3 1/2 inch floppies, and a boatload of custom interface hardware to run our simulation rig. It is used almost daily, and when we are testing a new development, it runs almost 24/7. I hate the thing, but it is a lot more stable than the XP boxes that the IT clowns are putting on our desks these days.
True they are a little 1990's but for my money (if I had that much) nothing says rich geek like a custom made Lumingals. (http://strattman.com/products/luminglas/index.htm l)
You are missing the entire point of the Shuttle orbiter. The simple fact that it can do so many different things is what has made the shuttle a success.
We don't need a vehicle for the missions we have today. We need a vehicle for the missions that we have not though of yet. Things like orbital repair or satellites were not on the mission list when the shuttle was designed. But it is a flexible enough craft that it was successful in performing that mission too.
Look back on the over 100 successful shuttle missions. Count up every mission objective that has been accomplished. Now try to find any THREE space technology platforms, existing, or in development, that could have accomplished all of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really, this OS was not created for the B1B, it is just the one being used in some of the systems on the aircraft. It is also used by and is widely avaialble to avionics companies who build systems for any number of commercial and military aircraft. The only thing that has really changed it that Green Hills is marketing the product more widely. Remember it is just an OS.
You could pay for SchedulesDirect listings for a few years and still come out money ahead of the cost of MCE. You paid for the listings in the overpriced software.
This is probably ok for those whe don't get good TV signal over the air. For everyone else, there is MythTv. More functionality, no commercials.
I get the worst, worst sentences always from journalism students.
Although, I don't know how much I can even say that because the big writers, journalists, authors and such, they tend to turn out the crappiest sentences, you know, readable-wise.
I'm afraid that is not entirely correct either. While the feature you mentioned was a factor, there were others one of which was a software bug that allowed the Airbus flight control computers to reach a indeterminate state. On an Airbus, the Flight Control Computer and the Autopilot are the same computer. While there is (and was at the time of the crash) an autopilot disconnect switch on the aircraft, it did not work as intended. In this incident, the autopilot failed to relinquish control of the aircraft to the pilot due to a software bug. Instead the pilots control inputs were completely ignored. The pilot did apply the correct control inputs, but the flight control computers, which busy were trying to calculate the airspeed velocity of an unladed African swallow, ignored him. Definitely a software bug. Killed most of the occupants of the aircraft, including many members of the press and a few VIP's.
Very valid concerns. I was looking forward to an iPod/Phone fusion to get a piece of equipment off my Geek Utility Belt. But storing only 100 songs and no word on the possible usefulness of the thing as a USB/Firewire Hard Drive means that this is not the super device we had all hoped for. It does however have a camera. The single most useless feature that one could put on a phone to attract masses of idiots to buy. So I am sure it will be a success in terms of sales. But in terms of design, it's a failure.
Here is another Two Words for you. Complete fantasy. Or a more descriptive set of three. Not Technically Feasable. At least for the near future. Even your WIki link admits that having the technology developed by 2008 is optimistic. Much like the Moller Sky Car, the Space elevator is a 20 year old promise that has always been "coming soon"!
We need a reliable earth to orbit transportation system soon. Politics, as much as any technical difficulties, will kill the shuttle program. The obits have already been written. But we will have to wait and see if the next great thing for space transportation is safer and cheaper or cheaper and cheaper.
So where does that leave us? For the moment we are faced with a choice between old but well understood technologies or new and potentially expensive technologies. I know where my money is, but I also know that the world operates not or reality, but the perception of reality.
I'm afraid you are mistaken about that. Southwest airlines only recently (last few years) started getting rid of thier older 737's. 747-100 and -200's are in service all over the world. And the newer versions of these aircraft have not been redesigned, only "freshened up" a little. The same as was done to the shuttle fleet in the 90's. New computers, and a host of other small changes. The 747-400's being built today are a 50 year old design being built with only a few minor improvments.
As to the analogy of cars, that is just ridiclous. If any automaker were to build a car as well as Rockwell built the shuttle, it would cost a fortune last pretty much forever.
Unfortunately, "most passenger aircraft" is a bit of an exaggeration at this point. It is getting more common in First Class cabins, but back in the cattle car seats, they are almost unheard of still.
Now if someone would just send a copy of the mag to the producers of the new Battlestar Galactica series. Maybe then I wouldn't feel queasy after every episode.
You're jokin, right? After all we have proven that even in the "western" world, we have terrorists, and they are very effective at building and deploying weapons. Ok so Oklahoma City was not a nuke, and it might be lot harder to build an deploy such a weapon, but our superior valus probably won't stop some people from trying.
I was at the preview, and there are a LOT of novels and short stories represented in the exhibits. Not all of the authors made the hall of fame yet, but I am sure they will induct new people every year. I did see a first edition of Ringworld in one case (can't remember which one).
Amen to that. I bought a Dual 1.8 G5 a couple moths ago, and I can't believe how quiet this thing is. When the DVD drive isn't running, the machine is quieter than the level of ambient noise in my office. Even with the DVD running, the noise is barely noticable. Say what you want about Apple, but the level of attention to deatil that went into designing these machines amazes me.
Personally I think the idea behind this thing is cool. Looking at this the way I do my motorcycle, as a recreational vehicle, not a practical means of transportation. In that respect, I get excited about stuff like this.
... The brake is activated by a trigger on the right handlebar." in a paragraph titled "A Rider-Friendly Vehicle". For those who do not ride, this is exactly opposite of the way the controls of motorcycles and most other hand controlled vehicles are operated today.
But I get depressed about the survival of our society when I read things like "To move forward, the rider activates a trigger on the left handlebar.
This is even worse than the creativity that todays auto makers use in positioning controls for headlights, turn signals, windshield wipers, etc. This trend has even found its way into the cockpit of commercial airlines. Sometimes things need to be changed to make their use more efficient or to make the appropriate control obvious in an emergency situation, but more often than not, it comes down to one designer who wants to be different or has a bizarre personal reason for altering the layout of the controls.
It is one of those old lab machines that is running a simulation environment. We can't run it on a faster machine because it would operate faster than realtime. We can't replace it with a new environment, because it's too expensive and no-one will pay for it. I have been secretly hoping that the stupid thing would die, so I wouldn't have to deal with it anymore. But the damn thing just keeps on working. Running MS-DOS 5.0. It has an enormous 256MB Hard Drive, a CD-ROM and a two 3 1/2 inch floppies, and a boatload of custom interface hardware to run our simulation rig. It is used almost daily, and when we are testing a new development, it runs almost 24/7. I hate the thing, but it is a lot more stable than the XP boxes that the IT clowns are putting on our desks these days.
True they are a little 1990's but for my money (if I had that much) nothing says rich geek like a custom made Lumingals. (http://strattman.com/products/luminglas/index.htm l)
So that I can actually view a link from slashdot with a browser that is more than a couple years old.
You are missing the entire point of the Shuttle orbiter. The simple fact that it can do so many different things is what has made the shuttle a success.
We don't need a vehicle for the missions we have today. We need a vehicle for the missions that we have not though of yet. Things like orbital repair or satellites were not on the mission list when the shuttle was designed. But it is a flexible enough craft that it was successful in performing that mission too.
Look back on the over 100 successful shuttle missions. Count up every mission objective that has been accomplished. Now try to find any THREE space technology platforms, existing, or in development, that could have accomplished all of them.