If you had bothered to read the summary for comprehension, you would realize that the OP didn't give the slightest indication that he has any programs which individually need more than 2-3 GB. He's interested in a big system cache, which PAE would provide if Windows is architected even halfway intelligently (I know, big "if").
Simplistic lazy cynics like you do more damage than the plutocrats. You have a vote, you have freedom of speech. You're not powerless, but you pretend you are because it's the easier option.
I couldn't agree more, but there is a problem: there is no "voting public" in the sense of a single entity making rational, well informed decisions. In a land of one hundred million voters, each voter can only execute one hundred-millionth of a decision and maybe try to influence a handful more hundred-millionths through personal persuasion. A great many of those individuals naturally (but not stupidly) concentrate on one overriding issue each, and not the same issue as the next guy.
The ridiculously anthropomorphic concept of "the decision of the voters" is nonsensical. There are one hundred million disparate decisions, based on widely varying criteria, reasoning processes, and emotions. These separate decisions then combine mathematically to result in an incoherent selection of winners across the spectrum of offices being contested. The resulting selection rarely pleases a very large percentage of voters, as an inherent result of the process.
A modest proposal. In industry we found it necessary to develop a balance to the concentrated power of large employers by having the employees band together in unions to synthesize concentrations of power of their own. Is it possible we should think of something similar in representative democracies? What if there were a provision to allow the creation of agents with agendas? What if individual voters could sign up to hand over their voting proxies to these agents? It would be optional, just as proxies in the investment world are optional. It gets a bit messy, because you would need different systems of agents at the national, state, and local levels, but that does not really make it very difficult to administer.
These various agents would each publish their own agenda, argue their cases, and solicit their own supporters. They would of course be required to publish their voting histories, so prospective supporters could evaluate their integrity. The gain is that they would not have the massive incentive to lie, cheat, and game the system like candidates do now; and they would be more resistant to being lied to, cheated, and games by the candidates.
OK, the decision making in the government is already representative. Are we sure the decision making in the elective process would not benefit from also being made representative?
I'm sure there are counter arguments, aspects I have missed, and fine tuning required. Any takers?
Toshiba. What an asshole company. And a stupid one. All this site could have done was relieve some of the support load from Toshiba, and make the customers a little happier and less disgruntled.
The stupidity contains its own negative reward, of course.
Just curious what functionality you see nntp providing. I don't see anything at all myself. The only thing tying threads together is the subject lines. A forum OTOH is easily navigable, you have server side search, you know that everyone is presented with the same posts at the same time, you have more than one level of categorization, mods can move posts that idiots put in the wrong place, edit and remove highly objectionable content and flamebat, etc.
Don't get me wrong. I love nntp for what I use it for (don't ask...). But I'm the only person I know who even knows what nntp is.
Cinnamon is just a fork of Gnome Shell from Gnome3, but proper in appearance and operation and with actual working applets like Gnome2 and in general discarding all the garbage in the "real" Gnome Shell.
Re the objections quoted from the article: what a fucking load of shit. Not reaming YOU out; I'm going to town on the STUPIDITY that is in the article (the article is not hopeless; there is plenty of good stuff in the article, but the points you quoted are not that).
DUMBNESS DETECTED IN INTERNET ARTICLE. Big whoop. We already know dumbness is Out There. Just look at Gnome3.
* Anybody who wanted to ship emacs with a "standards compliant" cut and paste could have easily shipped elisp files which by default did that. The fact is, no emacs users cared. They LIKED it the way it was. They had been using since before the "standard" was a standard. Dummies use nano or pico anyway. Completely brain dead objection.
* So Gnome1 had 5 clock applets to choose from. So fucking what. If you can't dig it, get a life and move on. This is basically just a specific instance of the "too many options, help, I can't deal with them, save me" zombie argument. Brain dead objection.
"Options have a cost". Bullshit as an objection. Of course EVERYTHING has a cost. "Preferences confuse the poor user". That is my favorite IDIOCY. It's dopey. It's child's play to workaround. All you need is an "advanced" button in the expansion of your preferences tree. No options allow that "break standards like clipboard"? BUZZ OFF, NAZI, fuck you. Summary: brain dead objection.
If I have any comment on your original thoughts, it would be this: no, you can't "argue" that Gnome3 has gone too far. It has flat out obviously gone way too far by orders of magnitude. No one uses fallback mode? I'll admit fallback mode has always been a half-assed crock that is not even 1/10 as good as plain Gnome2 in a host of ways. However, it is used every day by some varying subset of users for some varying set of reasons. Writing such users off cavalierly really frosts my patootie.
Definitely agree with you on your final point. Anyone with the slightest vestige of brainstem activity has already fired Gnome3 into the shitter where it belongs. I'm not mad that there is a Gnome3. I'm mad that it breaks the POSSIBILITY to configure it in any kind of a Gnome2-alike way. I'm mad that it drew off all the developers from Gnome2. I don't cry for linux or for myself, because there is the far superior Xfce and others.
Got news for you. 2009 is a combination of W and O. And MOST of 2009, was W. Basically, when O came in, the deficit was 1T as laid out by W. O raised it to 1.25T and it has come down slowly because GDP/tax collection grew.
Yes. Absolutely. That is a completely valid observation. The first half anyway. Sorry I fat fingered the first post before it was done, see my second post.
Expecting me to believe the GDP is REALLY growing however is like expecting me to believe there is next to no inflation. Every trip to the market gives the lie to that. Food prices are skyrocketing. And fuel.
Mouse finger spazzed out, hit wrong button. Here is the real content:
The deficit is the bleeding. The rate of blood loss. The debt is the pool of blood on the ground. The cumulative AMOUNT of blood lost. You fixate on the stream of blood gushing out if you like. I'll look at the pool on the ground. That's what counts. The guy can lose a half a liter or even a liter of blood in a great scary rush and his body can still recover on its own if the rush is stopped at that point. When the loss hits two liters, the guy is in danger of dying unless he gets a prompt transfusion. There is no transfusion for nations. When the debt gets too colossal, about all you can do is hyper-inflate it away. It's still X number of trillion dollars, but if you want you can make that the price of an ice cream cone. But then you've got other problems (Weimar Republic, anyone?).
An aside. Federal budgets are reckoned in these moronic things called Fiscal Years just to confuse people. They run from October 1 to September 30. FY 2013 ENDS on September 30, 2012. It BEGINS on October 1, 2011. It works out that FY X is for practical purposes pretty much calendar year X. It's just offset by minus three months. OK...
The following are deficits in billions of constant 1983 dollars. What year you pick doesn't matter. What matters is that you compare apples with apples.
Bush: FY2001 75 FY2002 234 FY2003 302 FY2004 315 FY2005 283 FY2006 285 FY2007 241 FY2008 472 Total contribution to debt 2207 = 276 per year
Obama: FY2009 879 FY2010 758 FY2011 550 FY2012 535 Total contribution to debt 2722 = 681 per year
The pool of blood belongs more to Obama than Bush, though neither one is a fiscal winner. And it's going to belong a lot more to Obama by the time the next four years passes and the two can be compared on an equivalent eight year basis.
Now, FY2009 (and 2001) don't really belong completely to their Presidents, because the budgets were passed during the term of the previous incumbent. OTOH, though the incoming Presidents could not have vetoed them, have could have changed them within 4-5 months, so they own them to a certain extent. Another monkey wrench is that the last two Bush years were with a Democrat Congress, so that awful last year is to an extent up for grabs.
My personal opinion? Neither guy and neither party is a winner. Bush left Obama an awful mess, but Obama hasn't cleaned it up with appropriate vigor, either. If you ask me about these two clunkers together, they have been a colossal unmitigated disaster for the American people. But you know what? The 200+ year bubble that was the American economy was due to burst anyway. And Congress gets at least half the blame. Some would say the House gets ALL the blame. Not a single dime can be spent that isn't appropriated by the House.
The deficit has been decreasing since Obama took office.
The deficit is the bleeding. The rate of blood loss. The debt is the pool of blood on the ground. The cumulative AMOUNT of blood lost. You fixate on the stream of blood gushing out if you like. I'll look at the pool on the ground. That's what counts. The guy can lose a half a liter or even a liter of blood in a great scary rush and his body can still recover on its own if the rush is stopped at that point. When the loss hits two liters, the guy is in danger of dying unless he gets a prompt transfusion. There is no transfusion for nations. When the debt gets too colossal, about all you can do is hyper-inflate it away. It's still X number of trillion dollars, but if you want you can make that the price of an ice cream cone. But then you've got other problems (Weimar Republic, anyone?).
An aside. Federal budgets are reckoned in these moronic things called Fiscal Years just to confuse people. They run from October 1 to September 30. FY 2013 ENDS on September 30, 2012. It BEGINS on October 1, 2011. It works out that FY X is for practical purposes pretty much calendar year X. It's just offset by minus three months. OK...
The following are deficits in billions of constant 1983 dollars. What year you pick doesn't matter. What matters is that you compare apples with apples.
Use just a tiny bit of intelligence. Do you seriously think no one can sell spherical magnets? It's the NAME that is protected; that's all.
I will readily admit that ebay's search function sucks donkey balls. Generally you do get better results just using google to search ebay for stuff. Or another good search engine, but google was the first one that worked and I still like them. IMO google search was the most innovative and critically useful tool to be invented for the web since the latter's creation.
I don't see anybody addressing this question adequately. Here goes for a start.
1) g++ has simply awful error messages for template code. clang++ has MUCH more helpful error messages. Of not quite so much importance, all clang/clang++ error messages are significantly better than those of gcc/g++. Looks like clang++ has spurred g++ to improve error messages in 4.8 though. They NEEDED to be improved.
2) clang++ 3.1 has significantly better C++11 support than g++ 4.7:
Rvalue refs for *this
Alignment support
Strong compare-exchange
Bidirectional fences
Atomics in signal handlers
Also borrows from C99 one very significant enhancement: C99 designated initializers
It has little to do with "liking" or "disliking" the GPL. It has more to do with the GPL being incompatible with BSD's own license (and just about any other license). It's true there is a compile firewall with gcc, but it is still a less than ideal situation. BSD is also going to bring out a GPL-free C++11 stack.
Wouldn't be a problem if they'd chosen a licence that didn't explicitly permit Apple to do what it did.
Oh, bull. It's not a problem NOW. Apple has contributed exactly zero hurt to BSD and BSD is just as free as it always was. It's not a zero sum game. Look, I hate Apple as a corporation, though they have made very significant advances. But more power to them for leveraging open software. So it gives them a cost advantage, so what. That's why everybody should leverage open source. I like the BSD license and I like the GPL, and there are other good licenses. I hate proprietary licenses with a vengeance.
Macs were a great unix desktop ten years ago, now they just kind of blow.
Shooter may be confused. OS X is essentially the same now as it was 10 years ago. A POSIX (Mach + BSD) kernel with POSIX (BSD) command line stuff and a proprietary windowing system in place of a perfectly good X Windows.
iOS is of course a completely different thing altogether, but that has no bearing whatsoever on Macs or Macbooks.
Possibly shooter was thinking of NeXTSTEP OS of 20 years ago, from NeXT Computer with Jobs at the helm. Now that was a superb POSIX entry for the time. Mid 90s NeXTSTEP is still better than the slightly dumbed down OS X of today. It had a Display PostScript windowing system and desktop environment that looked like X Windows.
You are way out there. Missing a sarcasm tag perhaps? OS X has the same meld of Mach and BSD it always did. Obviously there have been tweakings, but there was nothing wrong with the kernel in the beginning and the behavior and performance are essentially the same now.
It's not nearly as simple as that. Yes, structural failure in general is often catastrophic, but material failure doesn't have to be with. Ever hear of cracks being found in metal structures? That material has failed locally, but it takes time for those cracks to propagate and eventually cause the structure to fail catastrophically. That's because metals including aluminum have a property called "toughness". Toughness is the ability to deform plastically in regions of local stress concentration, redistributing stress so that the entire structure doesn't progressively rupture. Cracks are found and repaired all the time, and the airframe goes on to have a long life.
CFRP has practically no plastic deformation. Everything looks just fine right up to the ultimate limit, and then there is an sudden explosive failure.
It's not what the structure looks like after a crash. Who cares what it looks like after the thing is totaled and everybody inside has been rent asunder or burned to a crisp? It's what the structure looks like after it has been through some rough and tumble use. If metal has been stressed near the breaking point, there will be evidence of it. CFRP, not so much. So you better hope every nook and cranny of the CFRP structure is amply strong, because if you've been coming within a gnat's eyelash of ultimate strength repeatedly, you'll never see it.
You make it sound like engineers are clueless of a concept called "elastic limit", and that boeing's people are so inept at nonlinear structural analysis to be completely oblivious to how to design structures to work safely in elastic limits.
Strange you should put it that way, since CFRP has essentially no plastic deformation at all. It's all elastic. The yield strength, or elastic limit, is essentially the same as the ultimate strength.
Slashdot Mirror
^ THIS! ^
Ignore all the bullshit in the vast bulk of ignorant and wrong posts. This is an obvious and good solution.
If you had bothered to read the summary for comprehension, you would realize that the OP didn't give the slightest indication that he has any programs which individually need more than 2-3 GB. He's interested in a big system cache, which PAE would provide if Windows is architected even halfway intelligently (I know, big "if").
And no, this isn't even close to a "dark art".
Funny, PAE works just fine in linux. Benefit of having actual competent people doing the drivers.
Hardly any of the respondents did their homework either. They were all blabbing about you couldn't do it without a whole lot of trouble.
I couldn't agree more, but there is a problem: there is no "voting public" in the sense of a single entity making rational, well informed decisions. In a land of one hundred million voters, each voter can only execute one hundred-millionth of a decision and maybe try to influence a handful more hundred-millionths through personal persuasion. A great many of those individuals naturally (but not stupidly) concentrate on one overriding issue each, and not the same issue as the next guy.
The ridiculously anthropomorphic concept of "the decision of the voters" is nonsensical. There are one hundred million disparate decisions, based on widely varying criteria, reasoning processes, and emotions. These separate decisions then combine mathematically to result in an incoherent selection of winners across the spectrum of offices being contested. The resulting selection rarely pleases a very large percentage of voters, as an inherent result of the process.
A modest proposal. In industry we found it necessary to develop a balance to the concentrated power of large employers by having the employees band together in unions to synthesize concentrations of power of their own. Is it possible we should think of something similar in representative democracies? What if there were a provision to allow the creation of agents with agendas? What if individual voters could sign up to hand over their voting proxies to these agents? It would be optional, just as proxies in the investment world are optional. It gets a bit messy, because you would need different systems of agents at the national, state, and local levels, but that does not really make it very difficult to administer.
These various agents would each publish their own agenda, argue their cases, and solicit their own supporters. They would of course be required to publish their voting histories, so prospective supporters could evaluate their integrity. The gain is that they would not have the massive incentive to lie, cheat, and game the system like candidates do now; and they would be more resistant to being lied to, cheated, and games by the candidates.
OK, the decision making in the government is already representative. Are we sure the decision making in the elective process would not benefit from also being made representative?
I'm sure there are counter arguments, aspects I have missed, and fine tuning required. Any takers?
Toshiba. What an asshole company. And a stupid one. All this site could have done was relieve some of the support load from Toshiba, and make the customers a little happier and less disgruntled.
The stupidity contains its own negative reward, of course.
Just curious what functionality you see nntp providing. I don't see anything at all myself. The only thing tying threads together is the subject lines. A forum OTOH is easily navigable, you have server side search, you know that everyone is presented with the same posts at the same time, you have more than one level of categorization, mods can move posts that idiots put in the wrong place, edit and remove highly objectionable content and flamebat, etc.
Don't get me wrong. I love nntp for what I use it for (don't ask ...). But I'm the only person I know who even knows what nntp is.
Cinnamon is just a fork of Gnome Shell from Gnome3, but proper in appearance and operation and with actual working applets like Gnome2 and in general discarding all the garbage in the "real" Gnome Shell.
Re the objections quoted from the article: what a fucking load of shit. Not reaming YOU out; I'm going to town on the STUPIDITY that is in the article (the article is not hopeless; there is plenty of good stuff in the article, but the points you quoted are not that).
DUMBNESS DETECTED IN INTERNET ARTICLE. Big whoop. We already know dumbness is Out There. Just look at Gnome3.
* Anybody who wanted to ship emacs with a "standards compliant" cut and paste could have easily shipped elisp files which by default did that. The fact is, no emacs users cared. They LIKED it the way it was. They had been using since before the "standard" was a standard. Dummies use nano or pico anyway. Completely brain dead objection.
* So Gnome1 had 5 clock applets to choose from. So fucking what. If you can't dig it, get a life and move on. This is basically just a specific instance of the "too many options, help, I can't deal with them, save me" zombie argument. Brain dead objection.
"Options have a cost". Bullshit as an objection. Of course EVERYTHING has a cost. "Preferences confuse the poor user". That is my favorite IDIOCY. It's dopey. It's child's play to workaround. All you need is an "advanced" button in the expansion of your preferences tree. No options allow that "break standards like clipboard"? BUZZ OFF, NAZI, fuck you. Summary: brain dead objection.
If I have any comment on your original thoughts, it would be this: no, you can't "argue" that Gnome3 has gone too far. It has flat out obviously gone way too far by orders of magnitude. No one uses fallback mode? I'll admit fallback mode has always been a half-assed crock that is not even 1/10 as good as plain Gnome2 in a host of ways. However, it is used every day by some varying subset of users for some varying set of reasons. Writing such users off cavalierly really frosts my patootie.
Definitely agree with you on your final point. Anyone with the slightest vestige of brainstem activity has already fired Gnome3 into the shitter where it belongs. I'm not mad that there is a Gnome3. I'm mad that it breaks the POSSIBILITY to configure it in any kind of a Gnome2-alike way. I'm mad that it drew off all the developers from Gnome2. I don't cry for linux or for myself, because there is the far superior Xfce and others.
Bring it on, mods. I can take it.
Yes. Absolutely. That is a completely valid observation. The first half anyway. Sorry I fat fingered the first post before it was done, see my second post.
Expecting me to believe the GDP is REALLY growing however is like expecting me to believe there is next to no inflation. Every trip to the market gives the lie to that. Food prices are skyrocketing. And fuel.
Mouse finger spazzed out, hit wrong button. Here is the real content:
The deficit is the bleeding. The rate of blood loss. The debt is the pool of blood on the ground. The cumulative AMOUNT of blood lost. You fixate on the stream of blood gushing out if you like. I'll look at the pool on the ground. That's what counts. The guy can lose a half a liter or even a liter of blood in a great scary rush and his body can still recover on its own if the rush is stopped at that point. When the loss hits two liters, the guy is in danger of dying unless he gets a prompt transfusion. There is no transfusion for nations. When the debt gets too colossal, about all you can do is hyper-inflate it away. It's still X number of trillion dollars, but if you want you can make that the price of an ice cream cone. But then you've got other problems (Weimar Republic, anyone?).
An aside. Federal budgets are reckoned in these moronic things called Fiscal Years just to confuse people. They run from October 1 to September 30. FY 2013 ENDS on September 30, 2012. It BEGINS on October 1, 2011. It works out that FY X is for practical purposes pretty much calendar year X. It's just offset by minus three months. OK ...
The following are deficits in billions of constant 1983 dollars. What year you pick doesn't matter. What matters is that you compare apples with apples.
Bush:
FY2001 75
FY2002 234
FY2003 302
FY2004 315
FY2005 283
FY2006 285
FY2007 241
FY2008 472
Total contribution to debt 2207 = 276 per year
Obama:
FY2009 879
FY2010 758
FY2011 550
FY2012 535
Total contribution to debt 2722 = 681 per year
The pool of blood belongs more to Obama than Bush, though neither one is a fiscal winner. And it's going to belong a lot more to Obama by the time the next four years passes and the two can be compared on an equivalent eight year basis.
Now, FY2009 (and 2001) don't really belong completely to their Presidents, because the budgets were passed during the term of the previous incumbent. OTOH, though the incoming Presidents could not have vetoed them, have could have changed them within 4-5 months, so they own them to a certain extent. Another monkey wrench is that the last two Bush years were with a Democrat Congress, so that awful last year is to an extent up for grabs.
My personal opinion? Neither guy and neither party is a winner. Bush left Obama an awful mess, but Obama hasn't cleaned it up with appropriate vigor, either. If you ask me about these two clunkers together, they have been a colossal unmitigated disaster for the American people. But you know what? The 200+ year bubble that was the American economy was due to burst anyway. And Congress gets at least half the blame. Some would say the House gets ALL the blame. Not a single dime can be spent that isn't appropriated by the House.
Reference:
http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html
The deficit is the bleeding. The rate of blood loss. The debt is the pool of blood on the ground. The cumulative AMOUNT of blood lost. You fixate on the stream of blood gushing out if you like. I'll look at the pool on the ground. That's what counts. The guy can lose a half a liter or even a liter of blood in a great scary rush and his body can still recover on its own if the rush is stopped at that point. When the loss hits two liters, the guy is in danger of dying unless he gets a prompt transfusion. There is no transfusion for nations. When the debt gets too colossal, about all you can do is hyper-inflate it away. It's still X number of trillion dollars, but if you want you can make that the price of an ice cream cone. But then you've got other problems (Weimar Republic, anyone?).
An aside. Federal budgets are reckoned in these moronic things called Fiscal Years just to confuse people. They run from October 1 to September 30. FY 2013 ENDS on September 30, 2012. It BEGINS on October 1, 2011. It works out that FY X is for practical purposes pretty much calendar year X. It's just offset by minus three months. OK ...
The following are deficits in billions of constant 1983 dollars. What year you pick doesn't matter. What matters is that you compare apples with apples.
Bush:
FY2001 75
FY2002 234
FY2003 302
FY2004 315
FY2005 283
FY2006 285
FY2007 241
FY2008 472
Obama:
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
Touch a nerve on some flunky moderator for the fat pig industry did I?
The punks took it on the chin this time. Hope this holds up. There's not too much to cheer about right now.
So in other words, anybody can sell them. I mean we were talking about the present.
Sheesh.
Use just a tiny bit of intelligence. Do you seriously think no one can sell spherical magnets? It's the NAME that is protected; that's all.
I will readily admit that ebay's search function sucks donkey balls. Generally you do get better results just using google to search ebay for stuff. Or another good search engine, but google was the first one that worked and I still like them. IMO google search was the most innovative and critically useful tool to be invented for the web since the latter's creation.
I don't see anybody addressing this question adequately. Here goes for a start.
1) g++ has simply awful error messages for template code. clang++ has MUCH more helpful error messages. Of not quite so much importance, all clang/clang++ error messages are significantly better than those of gcc/g++. Looks like clang++ has spurred g++ to improve error messages in 4.8 though. They NEEDED to be improved.
2) clang++ 3.1 has significantly better C++11 support than g++ 4.7:
Rvalue refs for *this
Alignment support
Strong compare-exchange
Bidirectional fences
Atomics in signal handlers
Also borrows from C99 one very significant enhancement: C99 designated initializers
References:
clang: Expressive Diagnostics
C++0x/C++11 Support in GCC
C++98 and C++11 Support in Clang
It has little to do with "liking" or "disliking" the GPL. It has more to do with the GPL being incompatible with BSD's own license (and just about any other license). It's true there is a compile firewall with gcc, but it is still a less than ideal situation. BSD is also going to bring out a GPL-free C++11 stack.
Oh, bull. It's not a problem NOW. Apple has contributed exactly zero hurt to BSD and BSD is just as free as it always was. It's not a zero sum game. Look, I hate Apple as a corporation, though they have made very significant advances. But more power to them for leveraging open software. So it gives them a cost advantage, so what. That's why everybody should leverage open source. I like the BSD license and I like the GPL, and there are other good licenses. I hate proprietary licenses with a vengeance.
Shooter may be confused. OS X is essentially the same now as it was 10 years ago. A POSIX (Mach + BSD) kernel with POSIX (BSD) command line stuff and a proprietary windowing system in place of a perfectly good X Windows.
iOS is of course a completely different thing altogether, but that has no bearing whatsoever on Macs or Macbooks.
Possibly shooter was thinking of NeXTSTEP OS of 20 years ago, from NeXT Computer with Jobs at the helm. Now that was a superb POSIX entry for the time. Mid 90s NeXTSTEP is still better than the slightly dumbed down OS X of today. It had a Display PostScript windowing system and desktop environment that looked like X Windows.
You are way out there. Missing a sarcasm tag perhaps? OS X has the same meld of Mach and BSD it always did. Obviously there have been tweakings, but there was nothing wrong with the kernel in the beginning and the behavior and performance are essentially the same now.
It's not nearly as simple as that. Yes, structural failure in general is often catastrophic, but material failure doesn't have to be with. Ever hear of cracks being found in metal structures? That material has failed locally, but it takes time for those cracks to propagate and eventually cause the structure to fail catastrophically. That's because metals including aluminum have a property called "toughness". Toughness is the ability to deform plastically in regions of local stress concentration, redistributing stress so that the entire structure doesn't progressively rupture. Cracks are found and repaired all the time, and the airframe goes on to have a long life.
CFRP has practically no plastic deformation. Everything looks just fine right up to the ultimate limit, and then there is an sudden explosive failure.
It's not what the structure looks like after a crash. Who cares what it looks like after the thing is totaled and everybody inside has been rent asunder or burned to a crisp? It's what the structure looks like after it has been through some rough and tumble use. If metal has been stressed near the breaking point, there will be evidence of it. CFRP, not so much. So you better hope every nook and cranny of the CFRP structure is amply strong, because if you've been coming within a gnat's eyelash of ultimate strength repeatedly, you'll never see it.
Strange you should put it that way, since CFRP has essentially no plastic deformation at all. It's all elastic. The yield strength, or elastic limit, is essentially the same as the ultimate strength.
16 posts and every fucking one of them is an anonymous fucking coward dipshit.
Yes.