no it wouldn't, because the soyuz second stage ends after 290 seconds into flight, and the escape system can only be used until 157 seconds into the flight.
You mean like the way the Apollo abort rocket was jettisoned soon after second stage separation? Do you think that means that the Apollo astronauts would have died due to a second stage failure?
No, it means they didn't need it anymore.
Hint: the only actual, real, actually happened Soyuz launch abort happened more than 290 seconds into the flight. The crew did not die.
But don't let reality get in the way of a good rant.
Only by accident. If that third stage failure had a soyuz carrying astronauts in it, they'd all be dead.
No they wouldn't, because unlike the shuttle the launch abort procedure from Soyuz consists of more than 'and then you die'.
If that rocket had carried astronauts the escape system would have fired and they'd have been sitting on the ground waiting for a helicopter a few minutes later.
Hmm.. Reminds me of the Apollo program except they expected the plasma issue. Maybe they thought another frequency would be immune to the issue.
I don't know about Soyuz, but on later missions the shuttle used TDRS satellites to communicate during reentry. The blackout primarily affects downward radio signals, not upward, so the shutte could have near-constant communications with the ground the whole time (unless it burned up).
Hint: 'almost no-one' doesn't mean 'no-one', it means 'almost no-one'. Note the 'almost'.
I have three 64-bit Windows programs on my laptop that I'm aware of; IE, Eyeon Fusion and APB Reloaded. Unless 64-bit Windows comes with 64-bit Notepad, everything else is 32-bit; certainly Media Composer and all the other games are.
Also,.NET and Java apps will still directly run on both.
Again, only if Microsoft supply on both systems any native DLLs that they call. Any reliance on non-standard x86 DLLs will prevent either of them from working.
The point I was trying to make was that a dual core 1GHz machine of any architecture _should_ be enough for any task a user will run on a tablet.
Like playing 1080p H.264 video? My 3GHz P4 couldn't do that, and while we were doing 720P H.264 on dual 200MHz ARMs a few years back, most of the chip was filled with custom hardware that did most of the work.
Obviously apps written in HTML5/Javascript as well as C# are portable across architectures.
Only if the C# doesn't call native DLLs. If, say, it calls zlib.dll because C does compression faster than C#, you're SOL (yes, you could find an equivalent ARM DLL, but it won't work out of the box).
Yes, it is. Think about it, a 1GHz dual core arm pulls what, 6 or 8 watts? And intel core i5 dual core clocked to 1GHz pulls what, 30 or 35 watts?
Considering that a heavily-loaded i5 quad-core running at over 3GHz uses about 50W, I think you're talking out of your bottom. If I remember correctly, my laptop with a dual-core i5 and an Nvidia GPU uses less than 20W when idle at 1.2GHz on battery power according to the Linux power meter.
Obviously that's nowhere near as good as an ARM, but it's also a lot faster and much of that power is going to things like the screen, the GPU and the hard drive.
And it's not like they're technically incapable of making x86 code work on other platforms - WOW for IA64, anyone?
Emulation works OK when you're emulating a slower CPU on a faster one; it totally sucks ass when you're emulating a faster CPU on a slower one.
Certainly they could detect Windows calls in the x86 software they're emulating and then make direct calls into Windows APIs rather than emulating the whole of Windows, but anything CPU-intensive will run at the speed of a disabled slug.
In other shock news, AMD64 apps don't work on x86 !!
Which is why almost no-one sells 64-bit apps for Windows yet.
This merely reiterates the problem with Windows on ARM: most people only buy Windows because they have Windows programs they want to run, but most Windows programs won't run on ARM.
The difference is a single-payer system that will always cover your health problem versus a profit based company that says "Tough Shit" because you cost them too much.
Until the wonderful 'no questions asked' government healthcare costs too much, then you find one or more of the following:
1. Treatment is denied because you're too old. 2. You're put on a multi-year waiting list in the hope that you'll die before you get to the end. 3. You're told you can no longer smoke/drink/climb mountains/etc because that increases healthcare costs too much. 4. It goes bankrupt.
B) the domain it says it's for, who ever owns it should be able to audit against their requested certs (for some places this might take awhile)
Exactly. If I produce a certificate for www.google.com signed by BadCA, then you can easily verify that it's not the certificate that www.google.com is sending to you over SSL, and then Google can verify that it's a certificate they've never used. And if it's a CA that Google don't use then a simple 'there's something odd going on here' check is trivial ('why is www.google.com sending me a certificate from a CA in Nowhereistan?').
problem is - for the people who break the CA's there is ALOT of money to be made. Very few people who that that chance would pass up the money to show the world that xCorp is corrupt.
They're not the ones who would be showing it. If you hack into xCorp and generate a fake certificate it's useless to you unless you then hand that certificate to your victims. Those victims can then show that certificate as proof that xCorp is handing out fake certificates.
Since no-one has shown such certificates for CAs who aren't yet known to be compromised, we can be fairly sure the others haven't been.
Of course that may be luck rather than good security practices.
It's not like we have reason to think that other CAs have not had unreported blunders.
If they had, then someone should have copies of the fake certificates and could demonstrate that the CA was broken; any widespread use would have handed the cerfiticate to so many people that it should easily be provable.
Otherwise that's about as logical an argument as saying there's no reason to think that I have not slept with Natalie Portman.
Of course the armored door keeps out a knife attack, but that doesn't mean airport security is doing anything more useful than it was before it really went to hell.
That's rather the point: if we still had pre-9/11 airport security along with armored doors and passengers willing to beat any would-be terrorist to death, then the result of the last ten years would have been precisely the same because airport security hasn't stopped any of the actual attacks that were actually tried but passengers have.
This argument would be more convincing if market competition in America actually worked the way free-market fundamentalists swear it works.
That would be difficult in a country where the government feels it has the right to interfere with the market at any time in any way for any reason. You can hardly blame the free market for screwups in a country where the government feels it has the right to control carbon dioxide.
Well if it's privatized, then maybe they'll do things more like Israel. I don't know much beyond anecdotes (on here) about their screening process, but I gather it's a simple and short Q&A where they profile you and search if needed.
About the only thing I can imagine worse than the TSA is Israeli-style interrogation to get on a plane.
All of these security theater acts fail for one simple reason: there are very, very, very few terrorists and almost everyone who will ever go through the security theater is not one. As a result, all it can do is annoy the 99.99999% of travellers who know they're not terrorists in the hope that perhaps it might one day manage to catch a real one... and because few terrorists are ever caught there's no real feedback to indicate whether any system actually works.
Slashdot Mirror
It's possible ancient aliens could have saved them too, but somehow I doubt that likely.
I guess they must have saved the crew of Soyuz-18A.
no it wouldn't, because the soyuz second stage ends after 290 seconds into flight, and the escape system can only be used until 157 seconds into the flight.
You mean like the way the Apollo abort rocket was jettisoned soon after second stage separation? Do you think that means that the Apollo astronauts would have died due to a second stage failure?
No, it means they didn't need it anymore.
Hint: the only actual, real, actually happened Soyuz launch abort happened more than 290 seconds into the flight. The crew did not die.
But don't let reality get in the way of a good rant.
A lot of really bad things in the movies have started exactly like this.
Uwe Boll, for example.
Only by accident. If that third stage failure had a soyuz carrying astronauts in it, they'd all be dead.
No they wouldn't, because unlike the shuttle the launch abort procedure from Soyuz consists of more than 'and then you die'.
If that rocket had carried astronauts the escape system would have fired and they'd have been sitting on the ground waiting for a helicopter a few minutes later.
Hmm.. Reminds me of the Apollo program except they expected the plasma issue. Maybe they thought another frequency would be immune to the issue.
I don't know about Soyuz, but on later missions the shuttle used TDRS satellites to communicate during reentry. The blackout primarily affects downward radio signals, not upward, so the shutte could have near-constant communications with the ground the whole time (unless it burned up).
Touch and gesture based computing, even on desktops, will become increasingly common, and important.
If you think that anyone is going to sit at a desk holding their arm out to make gestures on their monitor screen all day, you're a retard.
Yeah, maybe some people will have big displays lying on their desk or some such crap, but then you've just got a big tablet.
No one sells 64-bit applications?
Hint: 'almost no-one' doesn't mean 'no-one', it means 'almost no-one'. Note the 'almost'.
I have three 64-bit Windows programs on my laptop that I'm aware of; IE, Eyeon Fusion and APB Reloaded. Unless 64-bit Windows comes with 64-bit Notepad, everything else is 32-bit; certainly Media Composer and all the other games are.
Also, .NET and Java apps will still directly run on both.
Again, only if Microsoft supply on both systems any native DLLs that they call. Any reliance on non-standard x86 DLLs will prevent either of them from working.
The point I was trying to make was that a dual core 1GHz machine of any architecture _should_ be enough for any task a user will run on a tablet.
Like playing 1080p H.264 video? My 3GHz P4 couldn't do that, and while we were doing 720P H.264 on dual 200MHz ARMs a few years back, most of the chip was filled with custom hardware that did most of the work.
Obviously apps written in HTML5/Javascript as well as C# are portable across architectures.
Only if the C# doesn't call native DLLs. If, say, it calls zlib.dll because C does compression faster than C#, you're SOL (yes, you could find an equivalent ARM DLL, but it won't work out of the box).
And yet, the press is replete with stories about how the iPad is being sucked up by the enterprise. Presumably it doing something they wish done.
It allows managers to pretend they're doing work in meetings while they're actually playing Farmville?
Yes, it is. Think about it, a 1GHz dual core arm pulls what, 6 or 8 watts? And intel core i5 dual core clocked to 1GHz pulls what, 30 or 35 watts?
Considering that a heavily-loaded i5 quad-core running at over 3GHz uses about 50W, I think you're talking out of your bottom. If I remember correctly, my laptop with a dual-core i5 and an Nvidia GPU uses less than 20W when idle at 1.2GHz on battery power according to the Linux power meter.
Obviously that's nowhere near as good as an ARM, but it's also a lot faster and much of that power is going to things like the screen, the GPU and the hard drive.
Obvious doesn't mean that, obvious means that it's obvious to somebody that's not skilled in the art.
So basically, anything is patentable. I mean, one-click shopping is definitely not obvious to some Amazon tribe who've never seen a computer.
In what world do you live where 1 dual core 1GHz processor is not enough for common or even very uncommon user tasks?
The one where I own several Atom machines, which are fine for casual use but too slow for any serious work?
I believe ARM is slower than Atom at the same clock speed, but I may be mistaken.
Win 8 is a tablet/phone OS and reflects MS's growing conviction that tablets are the future.
I remember Bill Gates holding up a tablet PC and telling me it was the future of Windows.
Ten years ago.
And it's not like they're technically incapable of making x86 code work on other platforms - WOW for IA64, anyone?
Emulation works OK when you're emulating a slower CPU on a faster one; it totally sucks ass when you're emulating a faster CPU on a slower one.
Certainly they could detect Windows calls in the x86 software they're emulating and then make direct calls into Windows APIs rather than emulating the whole of Windows, but anything CPU-intensive will run at the speed of a disabled slug.
his is a NEW edition of Windows
Again, people only buy Windows because it runs Windows apps... and ARM Windows won't run Windows apps unless the developer recompiles them.
Metro will be cross compatible.
That's because Metro apps are basically just web pages (HTML + CSS + Javascript). So why would I buy Windows to run them?
In other shock news, AMD64 apps don't work on x86 !!
Which is why almost no-one sells 64-bit apps for Windows yet.
This merely reiterates the problem with Windows on ARM: most people only buy Windows because they have Windows programs they want to run, but most Windows programs won't run on ARM.
The difference is a single-payer system that will always cover your health problem versus a profit based company that says "Tough Shit" because you cost them too much.
Until the wonderful 'no questions asked' government healthcare costs too much, then you find one or more of the following:
1. Treatment is denied because you're too old.
2. You're put on a multi-year waiting list in the hope that you'll die before you get to the end.
3. You're told you can no longer smoke/drink/climb mountains/etc because that increases healthcare costs too much.
4. It goes bankrupt.
B) the domain it says it's for, who ever owns it should be able to audit against their requested certs (for some places this might take awhile)
Exactly. If I produce a certificate for www.google.com signed by BadCA, then you can easily verify that it's not the certificate that www.google.com is sending to you over SSL, and then Google can verify that it's a certificate they've never used. And if it's a CA that Google don't use then a simple 'there's something odd going on here' check is trivial ('why is www.google.com sending me a certificate from a CA in Nowhereistan?').
problem is - for the people who break the CA's there is ALOT of money to be made. Very few people who that that chance would pass up the money to show the world that xCorp is corrupt.
They're not the ones who would be showing it. If you hack into xCorp and generate a fake certificate it's useless to you unless you then hand that certificate to your victims. Those victims can then show that certificate as proof that xCorp is handing out fake certificates.
Since no-one has shown such certificates for CAs who aren't yet known to be compromised, we can be fairly sure the others haven't been.
Of course that may be luck rather than good security practices.
It's not like we have reason to think that other CAs have not had unreported blunders.
If they had, then someone should have copies of the fake certificates and could demonstrate that the CA was broken; any widespread use would have handed the cerfiticate to so many people that it should easily be provable.
Otherwise that's about as logical an argument as saying there's no reason to think that I have not slept with Natalie Portman.
Of course the armored door keeps out a knife attack, but that doesn't mean airport security is doing anything more useful than it was before it really went to hell.
That's rather the point: if we still had pre-9/11 airport security along with armored doors and passengers willing to beat any would-be terrorist to death, then the result of the last ten years would have been precisely the same because airport security hasn't stopped any of the actual attacks that were actually tried but passengers have.
This argument would be more convincing if market competition in America actually worked the way free-market fundamentalists swear it works.
That would be difficult in a country where the government feels it has the right to interfere with the market at any time in any way for any reason. You can hardly blame the free market for screwups in a country where the government feels it has the right to control carbon dioxide.
Well if it's privatized, then maybe they'll do things more like Israel. I don't know much beyond anecdotes (on here) about their screening process, but I gather it's a simple and short Q&A where they profile you and search if needed.
About the only thing I can imagine worse than the TSA is Israeli-style interrogation to get on a plane.
All of these security theater acts fail for one simple reason: there are very, very, very few terrorists and almost everyone who will ever go through the security theater is not one. As a result, all it can do is annoy the 99.99999% of travellers who know they're not terrorists in the hope that perhaps it might one day manage to catch a real one... and because few terrorists are ever caught there's no real feedback to indicate whether any system actually works.