Does somebody know why it's so hard for them to find it? I would assume that it's properly secured against crashes, and has a GPS/transmitter on board? What causes this to be so hard?
Inside the data recorder it's attached to a pinger which sends out a sound pulse on a regular basis for about a month after a crash; that makes it easy to find if the recorder stays intact and it's in relatively shallow water, but in this case it's so far down that the pinger was barely audible during the first search (it wasn't detected during the search and only found by post-search processing of the recorded audio data) and the various layers in the ocean reflect sound so it's hard to track. Obviously the batteries died long ago so the only way to find it now was to look for an orange cylinder on the seabed.
The three layers are put together, respectively, by XAML, templates and styles, and the very powerful mechanism for data-bindings.
Oh joy.
That sounds like the kind of projects I've had to try to support in the past where everything was configured with a bazillion XML files and the original developers were long gone so you could never figure out which objects were calling which other objects without spending two hours deciphering the linked list of XML lookups.
In normal circumstances you'd find it using the pinger signal, but that wasn't detected during the initial search and the battery died a long time ago (it was later detected in an offline analysis of the acoustic data recorded during that search, but that couldn't give an accurate position).
I'm confused. Was the flight data recorder was found, brought to the surface, opened and the memory module was missing (ie not installed), or was the memory module a separate piece of equipment that connects to the flight data recorder and could simply be covered up by other wreckage in the debris field.
The memory module is a unit mounted in the flight recorder and it's clearly missing in the pictures sent back from the sea bed. As I mentioned above, the flight data recorder chassis looks to have bent enough to break the memory unit away from its mounting points, mostly likely when the plane hit the sea. In that case it should be somewhere in the debris field, but probably some distance from the rest of the unit due to differences in shape and density.
I believe it's basically an orange cylinder, so it should show up against the sea bed if it isn't lying under another piece of debris.
From the picture I've seen, it looks like the chassis was bent by the impact and that probably caused the memory unit's mounting to break. So the memory unit itself is probably still intact somewhere.
There is a technical term for it, but basically it's the actual box on the recorder chasis which stores the data; I'm not sure whether it's magnetic storage or flash memory in this case.
And separation is certainly not unknown, there was a crash a few years back where it also separated and was later found. Odds are this one will be too, but that could take some time if it's buried under other debris.
"in the name of overreaching safety" You mean overreaching litigation? Right?
Both, really. Not just a demand for personal safety leading to litigation when anything goes wrong, but also the idea that anyone who's indulging their curiosity about chemistry must be either making drugs or bombs that threaten homeland security.
And, needless to say, if you want more people to invent new stuff in your society then making curiosity a crime is a bad idea.
They can't control the weather (yet) and have fairly stringent guidelines about what acceptable conditions are, nor can they keep Finagle's law from throwing a wrench in the maintenance schedule.
Just another reason why wings are a bad idea on a spacecraft; in an emergency you need to be able to see where you're landing.
Apollo launched in some pretty bad weather (though launching through a thunderstorm probably was a mistake) and I believe the Russians have been known to launch in the middle of snow storms.
I have one machine running 10.10. As of a few weeks ago Gnome crashes so often that we had to switch to Unity, and Unity crashes any time we close a Firefox window.
Upgrading to a new Ubuntu release is usually a bad idea in the first month or so; I'm only doing it because my laptop hard drive is dying so I need to reinstall the OS on a new drive anyway.
Note that 11.04 also includes Gnome 2, so Unity is the default but optional. When 11.10 removes Gnome 2, then we'll see whether people actually want a dumbed-down UI.
Basically it's impossible to do, because 'tamper-proof' hardware isn't. The only question is how hard you can make it.
And note that you don't actually have to get the key, if you could somehow hack into the feed from the CCD into the camera you could feed the fake picture in that way and have the camera sign it for you.
Has there ever been a case whose outcome depended on the authenticity of a digital image?
If I remember correclty, three or four years ago a driver in the UK got out of a fine because he was able to prove that the photo used as evidence was faked. I don't remember the details, I think he parked in a car park and they tried to claim he overstayed using a doctored photograph as evidence?
No. Those cameras cause accidents. Speeding is not a danger. People noticing the cameras and ramming their brakes on is.
I have fond memories of the idiot who slammed their brakes on in front of me to haul down to 50mph on seeing a speed camera, even though we were already driving at 70mph in a 70mph speed limit.
Fortunately I drive at a safe distance from the car in front; if I'd been an idiot tailgater I'd have gone straight into the back of them.
Um, why? If you think gnome-shell is crap then switching to fedora isn't going to make the experience any better.
RH6 will be supporting Gnome 2.x for... ooh.. about the next decade, because it's vastly superior to either Unity or Gnome 3 for anyone who actually wants to use their computer to do productive things rather than Facebook. By then maybe there'll be a usable alternative.
And of course, planes don't need any fuel, can carry hundreds more passengers per journey than trains, and there is infinite runway and passenger bandwidth at a busy airport so you can land whenever you want.... err....
There is more to the equation than you have given here.
Airports are cheaper than building and maintaining hundreds of miles of high-speed rail, and a high-speed train uses about as much fuel per passenger mile as an aircraft, if they're equally loaded. About the only benefit the train has is that you can use a power source other than fossil fuels, which may be cheaper. Of course electrifying the rails adds more cost over just having plain rails and diesel trains. And a few airports have vastly higher 'bandwidth' than a few train stations serviced by the same railway line, since planes don't have to follow the same routes to those destinations.
Needless to say, when I looked at traveling from London to Scotland recently a plane was both faster and cheaper than the train, though having to go through the insane security theater to get on the plane might have meant the overall travel time would be about the same.
Trains simply suck for anything other than long distance, low-speed cargo shipment.
I've found both of them rather crappy, to be honest. Hopefully by the time Ubuntu stop supporting Gnome 2 one or the other will actually be usable or I'll have to switch to Redhat.
IMHO there's no very strong reason to have separate swap and boot partitions and so on.
There's at least one good reason to have separate / and/home partitions: Linux really, really hates bad blocks on the / partition, so if you use the entire disk for / then one bad block can stop you booting until you manually perform a long fsck to fix it.
Do either of these support installing to a GPT partition?
Yes, but you need a BIOS that will boot from it. I have my Ubuntu 10.04 MythTV server installed with a GPT partition table, but I have to boot it from the other disk which has a DOS partition table because the BIOS can't find the GPT boot partition.
What's the difference? Wow. Learn what "communism" is supposed to be.
I'd rather look at what "communism" has actually been in every country where it's ever been tried: an abusive bunch of control freaks telling everyone what to do and murdering those who disagree.
"The FBI said that many of the cases it has seen involve well-known pieces of malware, such as Zeus, SpyEye and others. The amount of money the attackers try to transfer varies from $50,000 up to nearly $1 million"
Guess this is another cost to add to those Windows TCO numbers....
Slashdot Mirror
Does somebody know why it's so hard for them to find it? I would assume that it's properly secured against crashes, and has a GPS/transmitter on board? What causes this to be so hard?
Inside the data recorder it's attached to a pinger which sends out a sound pulse on a regular basis for about a month after a crash; that makes it easy to find if the recorder stays intact and it's in relatively shallow water, but in this case it's so far down that the pinger was barely audible during the first search (it wasn't detected during the search and only found by post-search processing of the recorded audio data) and the various layers in the ocean reflect sound so it's hard to track. Obviously the batteries died long ago so the only way to find it now was to look for an orange cylinder on the seabed.
The three layers are put together, respectively, by XAML, templates and styles, and the very powerful mechanism for data-bindings.
Oh joy.
That sounds like the kind of projects I've had to try to support in the past where everything was configured with a bazillion XML files and the original developers were long gone so you could never figure out which objects were calling which other objects without spending two hours deciphering the linked list of XML lookups.
What if the seabed is orange too?
Then you may be screwed :).
In normal circumstances you'd find it using the pinger signal, but that wasn't detected during the initial search and the battery died a long time ago (it was later detected in an offline analysis of the acoustic data recorded during that search, but that couldn't give an accurate position).
I'm confused. Was the flight data recorder was found, brought to the surface, opened and the memory module was missing (ie not installed), or was the memory module a separate piece of equipment that connects to the flight data recorder and could simply be covered up by other wreckage in the debris field.
The memory module is a unit mounted in the flight recorder and it's clearly missing in the pictures sent back from the sea bed. As I mentioned above, the flight data recorder chassis looks to have bent enough to break the memory unit away from its mounting points, mostly likely when the plane hit the sea. In that case it should be somewhere in the debris field, but probably some distance from the rest of the unit due to differences in shape and density.
I believe it's basically an orange cylinder, so it should show up against the sea bed if it isn't lying under another piece of debris.
From the picture I've seen, it looks like the chassis was bent by the impact and that probably caused the memory unit's mounting to break. So the memory unit itself is probably still intact somewhere.
There is a technical term for it, but basically it's the actual box on the recorder chasis which stores the data; I'm not sure whether it's magnetic storage or flash memory in this case.
And separation is certainly not unknown, there was a crash a few years back where it also separated and was later found. Odds are this one will be too, but that could take some time if it's buried under other debris.
"in the name of overreaching safety"
You mean overreaching litigation? Right?
Both, really. Not just a demand for personal safety leading to litigation when anything goes wrong, but also the idea that anyone who's indulging their curiosity about chemistry must be either making drugs or bombs that threaten homeland security.
And, needless to say, if you want more people to invent new stuff in your society then making curiosity a crime is a bad idea.
They can't control the weather (yet) and have fairly stringent guidelines about what acceptable conditions are, nor can they keep Finagle's law from throwing a wrench in the maintenance schedule.
Just another reason why wings are a bad idea on a spacecraft; in an emergency you need to be able to see where you're landing.
Apollo launched in some pretty bad weather (though launching through a thunderstorm probably was a mistake) and I believe the Russians have been known to launch in the middle of snow storms.
I have one machine running 10.10. As of a few weeks ago Gnome crashes so often that we had to switch to Unity, and Unity crashes any time we close a Firefox window.
I certainly hope 11.04 isn't that bad.
It's almost as though downloading random apps from the Internet to run on a device you use for personal information might be a bad idea.
Upgrading to a new Ubuntu release is usually a bad idea in the first month or so; I'm only doing it because my laptop hard drive is dying so I need to reinstall the OS on a new drive anyway.
Note that 11.04 also includes Gnome 2, so Unity is the default but optional. When 11.10 removes Gnome 2, then we'll see whether people actually want a dumbed-down UI.
If it's unique per camera, you'd need to be able to prove that key is in that camera.
Basically it's impossible to do, because 'tamper-proof' hardware isn't. The only question is how hard you can make it.
And note that you don't actually have to get the key, if you could somehow hack into the feed from the CCD into the camera you could feed the fake picture in that way and have the camera sign it for you.
Has there ever been a case whose outcome depended on the authenticity of a digital image?
If I remember correclty, three or four years ago a driver in the UK got out of a fine because he was able to prove that the photo used as evidence was faked. I don't remember the details, I think he parked in a car park and they tried to claim he overstayed using a doctored photograph as evidence?
No. Those cameras cause accidents. Speeding is not a danger. People noticing the cameras and ramming their brakes on is.
I have fond memories of the idiot who slammed their brakes on in front of me to haul down to 50mph on seeing a speed camera, even though we were already driving at 70mph in a 70mph speed limit.
Fortunately I drive at a safe distance from the car in front; if I'd been an idiot tailgater I'd have gone straight into the back of them.
If you think that speed limits are too low in some areas and should be changed, speak to your congressman.
Oh yeah, that will totally work.
Um, why? If you think gnome-shell is crap then switching to fedora isn't going to make the experience any better.
RH6 will be supporting Gnome 2.x for... ooh.. about the next decade, because it's vastly superior to either Unity or Gnome 3 for anyone who actually wants to use their computer to do productive things rather than Facebook. By then maybe there'll be a usable alternative.
And of course, planes don't need any fuel, can carry hundreds more passengers per journey than trains, and there is infinite runway and passenger bandwidth at a busy airport so you can land whenever you want.... err....
There is more to the equation than you have given here.
Airports are cheaper than building and maintaining hundreds of miles of high-speed rail, and a high-speed train uses about as much fuel per passenger mile as an aircraft, if they're equally loaded. About the only benefit the train has is that you can use a power source other than fossil fuels, which may be cheaper. Of course electrifying the rails adds more cost over just having plain rails and diesel trains. And a few airports have vastly higher 'bandwidth' than a few train stations serviced by the same railway line, since planes don't have to follow the same routes to those destinations.
Needless to say, when I looked at traveling from London to Scotland recently a plane was both faster and cheaper than the train, though having to go through the insane security theater to get on the plane might have meant the overall travel time would be about the same.
Trains simply suck for anything other than long distance, low-speed cargo shipment.
I've found both of them rather crappy, to be honest. Hopefully by the time Ubuntu stop supporting Gnome 2 one or the other will actually be usable or I'll have to switch to Redhat.
IMHO there's no very strong reason to have separate swap and boot partitions and so on.
There's at least one good reason to have separate / and /home partitions: Linux really, really hates bad blocks on the / partition, so if you use the entire disk for / then one bad block can stop you booting until you manually perform a long fsck to fix it.
Do either of these support installing to a GPT partition?
Yes, but you need a BIOS that will boot from it. I have my Ubuntu 10.04 MythTV server installed with a GPT partition table, but I have to boot it from the other disk which has a DOS partition table because the BIOS can't find the GPT boot partition.
What's the difference? Wow. Learn what "communism" is supposed to be.
I'd rather look at what "communism" has actually been in every country where it's ever been tried: an abusive bunch of control freaks telling everyone what to do and murdering those who disagree.
On the other, they live under an oppressive government that claims to be communist but are actually just an abusive bunch of control freaks.
What's the difference?
"The FBI said that many of the cases it has seen involve well-known pieces of malware, such as Zeus, SpyEye and others. The amount of money the attackers try to transfer varies from $50,000 up to nearly $1 million"
Guess this is another cost to add to those Windows TCO numbers....