Because not it makes a good excuse for his failure to make Mono a usable product.
This is just to cover up the fact that Mono really isn't yet usable, hence no one that matters is willing to use it for anything, and you can't just 'run windows apps' with it often enough to make it useful to other OSes.
In short, he realized he's failed at this point and needs someone else to blame.
Doesn't mean Mono can't be made useful, but its certainly far from it as it stands right now.
How typical, fall back on the stereotypical Linux/GPer reason your product failed... Microsoft is hurting us.
What a fucking cop out, if thats your excuse just shut the hell up and quit.
My company has an agreement with MS, I am in no way concerned for MS patent violations, I'm licensed, its not a concern.
I STILL WON'T USE MONO BECAUSE ITS CRAP. I'd much rather not have to deal with Windows servers and use Mono... but Windows and the MS.NET implementation actually work. Mono doesn't even come close for anything larger than Hello World. And to be honest, I bet Hello World crashes half the time.
The GC is non-compacting so long running apps still require you to do memory management... defeating the primary purpose of using the CLR for most people. Might as well use native C, it doesn't take 8 weeks to get the runtime to compile if you take that route at least.
Mono considers a framework or api supported when they've got stubs in for all the public methods... even if those stubs do nothing more than throw a NotImplemented exception... I realize you have obviously considerably lower standards for your code and projects Migul, but fucking NotImplemented exceptions means its not fucking finished.
Its got bug reports that have sat around for years to get minor patches such as the tiny little patch to get the SerialPort class to work on OS X... the entire patch file is less than 20 lines or so, probably 3-5 actual lines changed... just change poll to mono_poll to deal with the fact that OSX doesn't have a poll the mono likes. No one bothers to commit it... so SerialPort is still broken in OS X...
You know why people aren't using your craptastic pile of code.... IT WORKS PROPERLY LESS OFTEN THAN IT BREAKS.
Stop pointing the finger and use it to fix your crappy code base, the bullshit excuses your throwing out aren't doing you any good.
Make your framework and runtime actually work, stop trying to beat VisualStudio, its not going to happen, they have more resources, just as high of quality talent, and a WHOLE lot more motivation than you do. You won't win. Put your efforts into something actually useful to the project rather than producing another half ass unfinished buggy application. The damn thing doesn't even handle focus correctly if you click in the text window from another application while in debug mode for fucks sake.
When you use Mono, if you were going to report everybug you noticed, you'd spend a week reporting bugs before you even got to the point of running something. THATS why you aren't going anywhere.
No one anywhere who is considering Mono is worried about the patents, and thats not whats stopping them from using it. You might want to get some perspective... your daughter is an ugly unreliable bitch and everyone else other than you knows it. You won't marrier her off until you make her at least as desirable as the other women.
No one does anything of importance and cares about Mono. Unless your app was written to deal with the inadequacies of Mono its unlikely that any non-trivial app will work in Mono. There is no concern by anyone with a non-trivial app about what Mono licensing issues might mean because Mono is incapable of running any app that matters.
Rant, whine, moan, talk out your ass, lie, cheat and steal to make it sound like MS is the reason Mono isn't taking off... won't make it so... won't change the fact that Mono isn't even second best, its not even in the running, it didn't start the race.
Yes, this is a rant, I want Mono to be useful so I can use it, but licensing has never been the issue, its gotta actually work before the licensing issues are anything I could give a shit about.
Perhaps making the product actually work would get the project further than coming up with some political bullshit reasons for its utter and complete failure to provide any value.
Uhm... no..NET is supposed to make it easier for idiots to write code by abstracting a lot of the hard parts from them. Sadly, like every other time someone has tried this it turns out that its actually more difficult to do anything beyond extremely simplistic because learning how to deal with GC issues is actually far more complex than just fucking freeing memory on your own.
The hardware independance is a side effect of compiling to an intermediate language. VB has essentially had this 'feature' its entire product life, and its always been thought of as a downside, not an advantage. The only people who think of the.NET IL system as an advantage are basically VB programmers who don't really understand what the framework and runtime are doing.
If you'd like to discuss why.NET is still limited to Windows its a far far simplier reason than anything you've posted.
The reason is simply: Mono fucking sucks. I tried porting a ASP.NET app to Mono... oh.. the GC is a pile of crap and results in ever growing memory usage since it doesn't relocate in long running apps... i.e. you gotta restart often otherwise it'll fragment its memory into oblivion unless I... worry about memory management (might as well go back to using C). But... I can publish to IIS via front page extensions in MonoDevelop... cause thats fucking useful to anyone other than some idiot learning how to use MonoDevelop and publishing to a local test server. Just recently I was starting a new desktop app for a personal project, so Lets try Mono so I can be lazy and turn out this app quickly... Look... serial ports support is broken on OSX... they've had a patch that fixes the problem for over 3 years now... no one has bothered to commit it... it changes like 5 lines to use mono_poll instead of trying to call poll directly to deal with OS abstraction for poll... Once again, I just reboot into Windows and work on it there. I presume serial ports work on Linux but thats pointless to me since I actually want to run my app a machine I might come across at someones house. My friends don't use Linux so...
The MS implementation isn't bad. Mono is an asstastic pile of shit that is more concerned with filling in buzzword checkboxes than actually doing something useful.
Mono's idea of feature complete framework support is that they added stubs that throw NotImplemented exceptions. Mono needs to be managed by developers who care about making it work right, not developers and managers who are more concerned with filling in buzzwords so they can attract the crowd of 'developers' that follow buzzwords.
Mono isn't popular because its leadership and current output suck ass, thats all.
I just feel I should clarify, in order to get the perfect distribution you need a sample size at least big enough to all possible variations in the distribution in the ratios present in the population.
I.E. The samples too small to provide useful statistical results. Its just a general indicator.
If all 15 people live perfectly for a normal life after this it doesn't mean its 100% safe, it just means its highly likely to work well on a lot of people, but its entirely possible that those 15 people happened to share something that no one else has. Likewise if all 15 people die tomorrow, its a really good indication that this isn't going to be that useful on the population, but it doesn't mean that everyone will die from it... those 15 people may just have been exposed to a secondary compound since they are all early test subjects that happened to interact and kill them.
The sample size is just too small to provide truely useful stats when it represents about 4 bits of diversity in a population that is defined by a code that allows for 38 bits of variation currently representing about 33.5 bits of that.
Its funny how engineers like to over sample. An engineer wouldn't accept a sample size less than 39 bits to be safe, even though the total population is smaller than that currently. Statisticians on the other hand are happy with pretty much any number greater than 1 bit.
I really wish they'd require a common sense class along side that statistics class so people like you would stop making statements like that.
Theory is not reality. The universe in which any sample size is usable as long as it has perfect distribution is the same one that contains Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny.
Thats pretty much exactly what I thought when I read the title. I knew we'd eventually pull this type of stuff off, but still now that its starting to happen... thats pretty freaking cool.
His original statement is most certainly fact, more scientists where forced into doing things like this with stem cells because they couldn't use the embryonic cells they would have liked to use. This isn't something debatable, its history, its what happened.
You can say it may have happened faster some other way, but you can't say that more people would have been working on it since the rules forced that didn't want to use this method to use it. No one that wanted to use this method stopped completely to make a point because they weren't allowed to use some other method, thats only something GPL fan boys and political nut jobs do.
You can go ahead and try to push your own political agenda for other forms of stem cell research, thats cool and all, but the facts and history make it pretty obvious your statement doesn't really have any connection to reality.
Cool, too bad Adobe doesn't seem to have any even marginally talented engineers these days. They used to be impressive, now days they seem to be more like EA than a real software house.
They have 'requirements' that prevent their 'core technology' from running on case sensitive file systems... You may not understand what a retarded statement that is, but ask any developer whos done cross platform work have trivial of an issue it is to deal with. You can literally fix any problems your software has with a sed script in most languages UNLESS you actually go out of your way to break things.
I would just like to point out what you consider to be 'almost perfect' photography needing a little 'fixing' is probably perfect photography that you are giving a little 'messing up'.
As you pointed out, testing can (and in my experience with data center failures is usuaully) be the cause of a failure.
The only time I've ever had an 'outage' in a data center, it was during a test cycle. While thats great that it was during a test cycle, it STILL resulted in an outage. Had the tests not been performed, no service disruption would have happened.
Testing software in a test lab... you test continuously.
Testing a production environment... you do it only when you have a real reason to suspect a possible problem, and only then if you can perform the test in such a way that a failure during the test will be less harmful than at some random time.
For a global operation, there often isn't a 'less harmful time'.
Its hard enough keeping a bunch of nodes that you control online and functioning properly (hence the failure)... trying to run anything reliable when you give any control you had to other random people on the Internet is doomed to fail.
The only reason distributed computing projects like SETI@HOME and distributed.net work is because the server gives clients data to process but it doesn't need a quick response, nor does it have to trust that the data returned is actually valid... its going to have another host check it at some point anyway to be sure. Those clients are used to weight the data so the master server only processes the most likely packets that may match and need authoritative checking.
Doing that for a web server would... well, a complete and total waste of resources as its likely to be worse in every single way, including reliability.
Yea, the problem is people tend to 'regularly test' during the work day in my experience which results in the exact same event happening anyway.
It generally only happens once, either accident or during testing, and gets fixed. Unless you're going to do ALL your testing during off hours, which is really hard to define for a global operation, then any test that fails is just the same as a failure during non-test conditions.
Testing for no reason other than testing is not always the brightest of ideas, contrary to what you've been told.
First, don't say escape velocity, it instantly shows you get your ideas about space travel from movies and bad wikipedia pages.
The space shuttle travels more miles in the first three hours of its flight than any car you will ever own. A single flight encompasses more distance traveled and more abuse from the atmosphere, heat, radiation and cold than any car on Earth will ever experience. It does it all without an oil change and in case you haven't noticed, there is no production line mass producing space ships. I'd kill to have a car that was as dangerous and unreliable as the space shuttle... sign me the hell up.
Another escape velocity reference... and now we're talking about 'the vacuum of space'... and yes, under very special specifically planned for situations rutan pulled it off in one week. NASA launched multiple shuttles back to back too, thats not impressive.
Shuttles were launching every couple of months at their height and are probably capable of carrying space ship one into orbit in the cargo bay. They aren't exactly suited for the same purpose there beaver.
I'm done, I can't take anymore from the scifi channel, gotta turn you off now. How did you manage to fit that many stereotypical movie phrases into one post?
Interestingly enough, OpenDNS has nothing to do with your broken browser!
'Numeric' or rather IP addresses in forms other than dotted quad are still just IP addresses and they do not get 'looked up' in DNS when connecting to a host. Even if they did, they'd all be sent as a 32bit integer to opendns anyway (as thats the way the DNS protocol works) so once again, opendns can not provide any sort of special treatment to URLs with ips used that way.
They work the exact same even if you have no DNS configured. DNS is not involved.
They are processed by the URL parser software used in applications that work with them such as web browsers. If they just 'dont work' for you at all then your web browser is broken and can't parse RFC compliant URLs. Its possible that it has been broken intentionally as a safety feature to prevent stupid people from clicking bad/deceptive links but it is broken none the less.
I agree, and given that the Air Force is having problems with support of the GPS constellation now, what provisions are there to get that addressed? The Air Force has had problems with vendors, shifting relationships and support so this looks like a rats nest of problems waiting to happen.
You are confusing 'having real problems' with 'posturing in an effort to gain funding'.
They will us both at the same time. They can't not use radar as it will be decades before everyone supports it. There are still aircraft without transponders, many classes that don't require them. The same is true here, there are aircraft that simply don't require this, the only way to see them will be radar. Radar will also be required around airports for weather info. GPS on a plane isn't going to help you spot the microbursts that throw aircraft from 500 feet to 0 feet in a few seconds right off the end of the runway during a storm.
Radar isn't going anywhere any time soon for one other major reason. This doesn't actually change anything, it really doesn't provide anything that radar doesn't already provide, if you can get a radio signal to the ground with your GPS info, then the ground can paint you with a radar and not need the signal.
Lets be realistic, this is a retarded idea. Radar is accurate enough and they aren't going to relay the GPS data to the ground anywhere that you can't be pinged by radar so they really won't be adding anything useful.
However, they will be 'upgrading' lots of equipment, and I'm positive that the new 'GPS radar' system is really an excuse to fund 'upgrading the 30-50 year old, buggy as hell, ignorantly written systems' that are still in use when they should have been blown up 20 years ago.
I look at this as a bullshit way of getting an upgrade to the radar installations out there without saying 'please allow us to do what we need to do' they said 'hey, buzzword buzzword, shiny shiney object, it'll be great, and we're going to only charge a new little tax' and all of the sudden they got approval.
Remember, this has all happened before, last time it was the transponder.
No... its no personal - non-flight/work related electronics in the cockpit... for commercial carriers...
I.e. Your delta pilot can't dick around and play quake with the co-pilot and flight engineer while they ignore the blinking 'turn here!' light on their GPS for an hour... only to appeal the revocation of their license after words with some bullshit excuse.
Me, with my private single engine land license can continue to do whatever the hell I want.
Let me give you a little hint though. No one needs to be fucking with their laptop in the cockpit. They don't need to be playing a god damn game boy. Just like you don't need to be sending text messages or talking on your cell phone while driving.
I don't care how 'good' you think you are at driving (or flying) if you think you 'need' or 'should be allowed' to do these two things you don't need to be a driver or pilot.
I too think I can drive and fly while doing other things. I've also seen plenty of prime examples of others, far more qualified than I, dying because they did so.
I'm not sure what kind of crack your smoking that comes up with 'gps radar installation is going to cost more than a lot of airplanes' part. Pretty much all but the smallest and oldest aircraft already have radar. Most with private planes have redundant units, all commercial aircraft with GPS are redundant or its not part of their avionics package (bringing your TomTom on board doesn't count). The only addition is a connection from the aircraft data bus to a transmitter to send the GPS info to a ground station. Ironically, they'll probably just throw it in... the transponder data... which only works... when you get pinged by radar.
I'm fairly confident that your 'hand held gps - aircraft variety' has never seen a time when you were a licensed pilot judging by the way your ignoring the fact that 90% of the time your eyes should be outside the cockpit, not inside fucking around with your personal electronics.
Your 'hand brake' is not a 'hand brake' or 'emergancy brake' its a 'parking brake'. Its only meant to be applied when your car is parked and not moving, there is no other acceptable time to use the parking braking. If you think its acceptable to use the parking brake while driving you do not need to drive a car, you are dangerous.
Applying it while you are traveling is almost certainly the wrong thing to do. It only applies to the rear wheels which do VERY VERY little braking in a car, so you apply it and they lock up almost instantly. Now you have skidding wheels, which provide very little traction and effectively no braking (you'd be better off dragging a shoe). Guess what, you're now also out of control as your rear wheels have no incentive to actually follow your front wheels.
Do everyone a favor, don't give anyone driving tips, you're going to get someone killed.
Flying a commercial airlines now days really isn't that complicated if you can follow a checklist. You don't actually have to be that skilled. Its is only barely more difficult than driving a car under normal circumstances. What you saw land in the hudson is a 1 in a million shot, they just HAPPEN to have a real pilot on board, hell if you can show me someone who can do it again, including the pilot himself, i'll be his/her slave.
Every car sold in America has redundant braking systems. Generally the front left wheel and the rear right are on one system and the front right and rear left are on another hydrolic system. They are both generally powered by the same boost pump, but a failure at the boost pump only results in loss of boost, you still can apply manual pressure without boost. You can drain one of the braking systems of fluid completely and still have about 50% of your braking power. The only time you have true issues with lack of redundancy is when you're buying a new car with electric brakes or electric brake boost and no direct mechanical connection to the braking system from your foot.
It is a concern but not in the way you think. Anything the FAA approves is going to require multiple redundant systems. Anything in a commercial aircraft is going to require that the systems are not only at least redundant, its likely this particular part would require triple redundancy. They will also require that the devices talk to each other and are capable of detecting errors between themselves and alerting the pilot of the issue. At which point the pilot can deal with the situation by figuring out which unit is likely to be right or wrong and either switching to a known good unit or ignoring it all together and falling back to traditional methods.
The bigger problem is when the GPS constellation is wrong, intentionally or otherwise. The US says the don't dither signals anymore... which is mostly true. I assure you however, there are plenty of times when your little TomTom would be off by hundreds of miles when driving around Iraq these days or anywhere else that a openly active military operation is going on. When all of your onboard units are getting fed inaccurate data they have a hard time realizing they aren't right and now you're in trouble.
Thats an extremely rare case and its likely you're going to know well in advance that its an issue, with some minor exceptions liek the very start of an unexpected military conflict.
This is in fact what goes on right now in commercial aircraft and this change will have no effect from their perspective.
The GPS info is just going to be relayed to the ground so ATC can get more accurate position info. Sadly, this can all be fixed by just upgrading current radar installations to current software that doesn't suck and hardware that isn't 30-50 years old. Current commercial radar technology is more than capable of providing information accurate enough for aircraft. There are now small personal aircraft (turboprops) that use radar for assisted flight and are capable of flying from the take off roll to putting the aircraft 5 feet off the runway for landing. The plan would land itself if the FAA didn't prevent them from doing so.
The problem is that the GPS info has to be relayed to the ground. Aircraft use VHF for comms. VHF is line of sight... just... like... radar... so in effect, if you can't paint the plane with radar, you aren't going to get any info from the GPS either, so this is effectively worthless for situations where radar is unable to paint the aircraft and provides VERY LITTLE benefits for situations where radar is available.
Slashdot Mirror
Because not it makes a good excuse for his failure to make Mono a usable product.
This is just to cover up the fact that Mono really isn't yet usable, hence no one that matters is willing to use it for anything, and you can't just 'run windows apps' with it often enough to make it useful to other OSes.
In short, he realized he's failed at this point and needs someone else to blame.
Doesn't mean Mono can't be made useful, but its certainly far from it as it stands right now.
How typical, fall back on the stereotypical Linux/GPer reason your product failed ... Microsoft is hurting us.
What a fucking cop out, if thats your excuse just shut the hell up and quit.
My company has an agreement with MS, I am in no way concerned for MS patent violations, I'm licensed, its not a concern.
I STILL WON'T USE MONO BECAUSE ITS CRAP. I'd much rather not have to deal with Windows servers and use Mono ... but Windows and the MS .NET implementation actually work. Mono doesn't even come close for anything larger than Hello World. And to be honest, I bet Hello World crashes half the time.
The GC is non-compacting so long running apps still require you to do memory management ... defeating the primary purpose of using the CLR for most people. Might as well use native C, it doesn't take 8 weeks to get the runtime to compile if you take that route at least.
Mono considers a framework or api supported when they've got stubs in for all the public methods ... even if those stubs do nothing more than throw a NotImplemented exception ... I realize you have obviously considerably lower standards for your code and projects Migul, but fucking NotImplemented exceptions means its not fucking finished.
Its got bug reports that have sat around for years to get minor patches such as the tiny little patch to get the SerialPort class to work on OS X ... the entire patch file is less than 20 lines or so, probably 3-5 actual lines changed ... just change poll to mono_poll to deal with the fact that OSX doesn't have a poll the mono likes. No one bothers to commit it ... so SerialPort is still broken in OS X ...
You know why people aren't using your craptastic pile of code .... IT WORKS PROPERLY LESS OFTEN THAN IT BREAKS.
Stop pointing the finger and use it to fix your crappy code base, the bullshit excuses your throwing out aren't doing you any good.
Make your framework and runtime actually work, stop trying to beat VisualStudio, its not going to happen, they have more resources, just as high of quality talent, and a WHOLE lot more motivation than you do. You won't win. Put your efforts into something actually useful to the project rather than producing another half ass unfinished buggy application. The damn thing doesn't even handle focus correctly if you click in the text window from another application while in debug mode for fucks sake.
When you use Mono, if you were going to report everybug you noticed, you'd spend a week reporting bugs before you even got to the point of running something. THATS why you aren't going anywhere.
No one anywhere who is considering Mono is worried about the patents, and thats not whats stopping them from using it. You might want to get some perspective ... your daughter is an ugly unreliable bitch and everyone else other than you knows it. You won't marrier her off until you make her at least as desirable as the other women.
No one gives a shit that uses .NET.
No one does anything of importance and cares about Mono. Unless your app was written to deal with the inadequacies of Mono its unlikely that any non-trivial app will work in Mono. There is no concern by anyone with a non-trivial app about what Mono licensing issues might mean because Mono is incapable of running any app that matters.
Rant, whine, moan, talk out your ass, lie, cheat and steal to make it sound like MS is the reason Mono isn't taking off ... won't make it so ... won't change the fact that Mono isn't even second best, its not even in the running, it didn't start the race.
Yes, this is a rant, I want Mono to be useful so I can use it, but licensing has never been the issue, its gotta actually work before the licensing issues are anything I could give a shit about.
Perhaps making the product actually work would get the project further than coming up with some political bullshit reasons for its utter and complete failure to provide any value.
Uhm ... no. .NET is supposed to make it easier for idiots to write code by abstracting a lot of the hard parts from them. Sadly, like every other time someone has tried this it turns out that its actually more difficult to do anything beyond extremely simplistic because learning how to deal with GC issues is actually far more complex than just fucking freeing memory on your own.
The hardware independance is a side effect of compiling to an intermediate language. VB has essentially had this 'feature' its entire product life, and its always been thought of as a downside, not an advantage. The only people who think of the .NET IL system as an advantage are basically VB programmers who don't really understand what the framework and runtime are doing.
If you'd like to discuss why .NET is still limited to Windows its a far far simplier reason than anything you've posted.
The reason is simply: Mono fucking sucks. I tried porting a ASP.NET app to Mono ... oh .. the GC is a pile of crap and results in ever growing memory usage since it doesn't relocate in long running apps ... i.e. you gotta restart often otherwise it'll fragment its memory into oblivion unless I ... worry about memory management (might as well go back to using C). But ... I can publish to IIS via front page extensions in MonoDevelop ... cause thats fucking useful to anyone other than some idiot learning how to use MonoDevelop and publishing to a local test server. Just recently I was starting a new desktop app for a personal project, so Lets try Mono so I can be lazy and turn out this app quickly ... Look ... serial ports support is broken on OSX ... they've had a patch that fixes the problem for over 3 years now ... no one has bothered to commit it ... it changes like 5 lines to use mono_poll instead of trying to call poll directly to deal with OS abstraction for poll ... Once again, I just reboot into Windows and work on it there. I presume serial ports work on Linux but thats pointless to me since I actually want to run my app a machine I might come across at someones house. My friends don't use Linux so ...
The MS implementation isn't bad. Mono is an asstastic pile of shit that is more concerned with filling in buzzword checkboxes than actually doing something useful.
Mono's idea of feature complete framework support is that they added stubs that throw NotImplemented exceptions. Mono needs to be managed by developers who care about making it work right, not developers and managers who are more concerned with filling in buzzwords so they can attract the crowd of 'developers' that follow buzzwords.
Mono isn't popular because its leadership and current output suck ass, thats all.
Self reply ...
I just feel I should clarify, in order to get the perfect distribution you need a sample size at least big enough to all possible variations in the distribution in the ratios present in the population.
I.E. The samples too small to provide useful statistical results. Its just a general indicator.
If all 15 people live perfectly for a normal life after this it doesn't mean its 100% safe, it just means its highly likely to work well on a lot of people, but its entirely possible that those 15 people happened to share something that no one else has. Likewise if all 15 people die tomorrow, its a really good indication that this isn't going to be that useful on the population, but it doesn't mean that everyone will die from it ... those 15 people may just have been exposed to a secondary compound since they are all early test subjects that happened to interact and kill them.
The sample size is just too small to provide truely useful stats when it represents about 4 bits of diversity in a population that is defined by a code that allows for 38 bits of variation currently representing about 33.5 bits of that.
Its funny how engineers like to over sample. An engineer wouldn't accept a sample size less than 39 bits to be safe, even though the total population is smaller than that currently. Statisticians on the other hand are happy with pretty much any number greater than 1 bit.
I really wish they'd require a common sense class along side that statistics class so people like you would stop making statements like that.
Theory is not reality. The universe in which any sample size is usable as long as it has perfect distribution is the same one that contains Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny.
HEADSHOT!
The 'gosh' tag.
Thats pretty much exactly what I thought when I read the title. I knew we'd eventually pull this type of stuff off, but still now that its starting to happen ... thats pretty freaking cool.
Uhm ...
His original statement is most certainly fact, more scientists where forced into doing things like this with stem cells because they couldn't use the embryonic cells they would have liked to use. This isn't something debatable, its history, its what happened.
You can say it may have happened faster some other way, but you can't say that more people would have been working on it since the rules forced that didn't want to use this method to use it. No one that wanted to use this method stopped completely to make a point because they weren't allowed to use some other method, thats only something GPL fan boys and political nut jobs do.
You can go ahead and try to push your own political agenda for other forms of stem cell research, thats cool and all, but the facts and history make it pretty obvious your statement doesn't really have any connection to reality.
Cool, too bad Adobe doesn't seem to have any even marginally talented engineers these days. They used to be impressive, now days they seem to be more like EA than a real software house.
They have 'requirements' that prevent their 'core technology' from running on case sensitive file systems ... You may not understand what a retarded statement that is, but ask any developer whos done cross platform work have trivial of an issue it is to deal with. You can literally fix any problems your software has with a sed script in most languages UNLESS you actually go out of your way to break things.
I would just like to point out what you consider to be 'almost perfect' photography needing a little 'fixing' is probably perfect photography that you are giving a little 'messing up'.
A perfect photograph has blemishes.
sensitive file systems yet?
How many releases do you need to fix whatever retarded things you're doing to filenames to make case sensitivity a freaking issue?
As you pointed out, testing can (and in my experience with data center failures is usuaully) be the cause of a failure.
The only time I've ever had an 'outage' in a data center, it was during a test cycle. While thats great that it was during a test cycle, it STILL resulted in an outage. Had the tests not been performed, no service disruption would have happened.
Testing software in a test lab ... you test continuously.
Testing a production environment ... you do it only when you have a real reason to suspect a possible problem, and only then if you can perform the test in such a way that a failure during the test will be less harmful than at some random time.
For a global operation, there often isn't a 'less harmful time'.
Its hard enough keeping a bunch of nodes that you control online and functioning properly (hence the failure) ... trying to run anything reliable when you give any control you had to other random people on the Internet is doomed to fail.
The only reason distributed computing projects like SETI@HOME and distributed.net work is because the server gives clients data to process but it doesn't need a quick response, nor does it have to trust that the data returned is actually valid ... its going to have another host check it at some point anyway to be sure. Those clients are used to weight the data so the master server only processes the most likely packets that may match and need authoritative checking.
Doing that for a web server would ... well, a complete and total waste of resources as its likely to be worse in every single way, including reliability.
Yea, the problem is people tend to 'regularly test' during the work day in my experience which results in the exact same event happening anyway.
It generally only happens once, either accident or during testing, and gets fixed. Unless you're going to do ALL your testing during off hours, which is really hard to define for a global operation, then any test that fails is just the same as a failure during non-test conditions.
Testing for no reason other than testing is not always the brightest of ideas, contrary to what you've been told.
First, don't say escape velocity, it instantly shows you get your ideas about space travel from movies and bad wikipedia pages.
The space shuttle travels more miles in the first three hours of its flight than any car you will ever own. A single flight encompasses more distance traveled and more abuse from the atmosphere, heat, radiation and cold than any car on Earth will ever experience. It does it all without an oil change and in case you haven't noticed, there is no production line mass producing space ships. I'd kill to have a car that was as dangerous and unreliable as the space shuttle ... sign me the hell up.
Another escape velocity reference ... and now we're talking about 'the vacuum of space' ... and yes, under very special specifically planned for situations rutan pulled it off in one week. NASA launched multiple shuttles back to back too, thats not impressive.
Shuttles were launching every couple of months at their height and are probably capable of carrying space ship one into orbit in the cargo bay. They aren't exactly suited for the same purpose there beaver.
I'm done, I can't take anymore from the scifi channel, gotta turn you off now. How did you manage to fit that many stereotypical movie phrases into one post?
Interestingly enough, OpenDNS has nothing to do with your broken browser!
'Numeric' or rather IP addresses in forms other than dotted quad are still just IP addresses and they do not get 'looked up' in DNS when connecting to a host. Even if they did, they'd all be sent as a 32bit integer to opendns anyway (as thats the way the DNS protocol works) so once again, opendns can not provide any sort of special treatment to URLs with ips used that way.
They work the exact same even if you have no DNS configured. DNS is not involved.
They are processed by the URL parser software used in applications that work with them such as web browsers. If they just 'dont work' for you at all then your web browser is broken and can't parse RFC compliant URLs. Its possible that it has been broken intentionally as a safety feature to prevent stupid people from clicking bad/deceptive links but it is broken none the less.
You do realize this is a timothy post ... right?
You are confusing 'having real problems' with 'posturing in an effort to gain funding'.
They will us both at the same time. They can't not use radar as it will be decades before everyone supports it. There are still aircraft without transponders, many classes that don't require them. The same is true here, there are aircraft that simply don't require this, the only way to see them will be radar. Radar will also be required around airports for weather info. GPS on a plane isn't going to help you spot the microbursts that throw aircraft from 500 feet to 0 feet in a few seconds right off the end of the runway during a storm.
Radar isn't going anywhere any time soon for one other major reason. This doesn't actually change anything, it really doesn't provide anything that radar doesn't already provide, if you can get a radio signal to the ground with your GPS info, then the ground can paint you with a radar and not need the signal.
I agree, but I see one way its good.
Lets be realistic, this is a retarded idea. Radar is accurate enough and they aren't going to relay the GPS data to the ground anywhere that you can't be pinged by radar so they really won't be adding anything useful.
However, they will be 'upgrading' lots of equipment, and I'm positive that the new 'GPS radar' system is really an excuse to fund 'upgrading the 30-50 year old, buggy as hell, ignorantly written systems' that are still in use when they should have been blown up 20 years ago.
I look at this as a bullshit way of getting an upgrade to the radar installations out there without saying 'please allow us to do what we need to do' they said 'hey, buzzword buzzword, shiny shiney object, it'll be great, and we're going to only charge a new little tax' and all of the sudden they got approval.
Remember, this has all happened before, last time it was the transponder.
No ... its no personal - non-flight/work related electronics in the cockpit ... for commercial carriers ...
I.e. Your delta pilot can't dick around and play quake with the co-pilot and flight engineer while they ignore the blinking 'turn here!' light on their GPS for an hour ... only to appeal the revocation of their license after words with some bullshit excuse.
Me, with my private single engine land license can continue to do whatever the hell I want.
Let me give you a little hint though. No one needs to be fucking with their laptop in the cockpit. They don't need to be playing a god damn game boy. Just like you don't need to be sending text messages or talking on your cell phone while driving.
I don't care how 'good' you think you are at driving (or flying) if you think you 'need' or 'should be allowed' to do these two things you don't need to be a driver or pilot.
I too think I can drive and fly while doing other things. I've also seen plenty of prime examples of others, far more qualified than I, dying because they did so.
I'm not sure what kind of crack your smoking that comes up with 'gps radar installation is going to cost more than a lot of airplanes' part. Pretty much all but the smallest and oldest aircraft already have radar. Most with private planes have redundant units, all commercial aircraft with GPS are redundant or its not part of their avionics package (bringing your TomTom on board doesn't count). The only addition is a connection from the aircraft data bus to a transmitter to send the GPS info to a ground station. Ironically, they'll probably just throw it in ... the transponder data ... which only works ... when you get pinged by radar.
I'm fairly confident that your 'hand held gps - aircraft variety' has never seen a time when you were a licensed pilot judging by the way your ignoring the fact that 90% of the time your eyes should be outside the cockpit, not inside fucking around with your personal electronics.
Actually, you're an idiot.
Your 'hand brake' is not a 'hand brake' or 'emergancy brake' its a 'parking brake'. Its only meant to be applied when your car is parked and not moving, there is no other acceptable time to use the parking braking. If you think its acceptable to use the parking brake while driving you do not need to drive a car, you are dangerous.
Applying it while you are traveling is almost certainly the wrong thing to do. It only applies to the rear wheels which do VERY VERY little braking in a car, so you apply it and they lock up almost instantly. Now you have skidding wheels, which provide very little traction and effectively no braking (you'd be better off dragging a shoe). Guess what, you're now also out of control as your rear wheels have no incentive to actually follow your front wheels.
Do everyone a favor, don't give anyone driving tips, you're going to get someone killed.
Look, pilots USED to be very smart people.
Flying a commercial airlines now days really isn't that complicated if you can follow a checklist. You don't actually have to be that skilled. Its is only barely more difficult than driving a car under normal circumstances. What you saw land in the hudson is a 1 in a million shot, they just HAPPEN to have a real pilot on board, hell if you can show me someone who can do it again, including the pilot himself, i'll be his/her slave.
Every car sold in America has redundant braking systems. Generally the front left wheel and the rear right are on one system and the front right and rear left are on another hydrolic system. They are both generally powered by the same boost pump, but a failure at the boost pump only results in loss of boost, you still can apply manual pressure without boost. You can drain one of the braking systems of fluid completely and still have about 50% of your braking power. The only time you have true issues with lack of redundancy is when you're buying a new car with electric brakes or electric brake boost and no direct mechanical connection to the braking system from your foot.
It is a concern but not in the way you think. Anything the FAA approves is going to require multiple redundant systems. Anything in a commercial aircraft is going to require that the systems are not only at least redundant, its likely this particular part would require triple redundancy. They will also require that the devices talk to each other and are capable of detecting errors between themselves and alerting the pilot of the issue. At which point the pilot can deal with the situation by figuring out which unit is likely to be right or wrong and either switching to a known good unit or ignoring it all together and falling back to traditional methods.
The bigger problem is when the GPS constellation is wrong, intentionally or otherwise. The US says the don't dither signals anymore ... which is mostly true. I assure you however, there are plenty of times when your little TomTom would be off by hundreds of miles when driving around Iraq these days or anywhere else that a openly active military operation is going on. When all of your onboard units are getting fed inaccurate data they have a hard time realizing they aren't right and now you're in trouble.
Thats an extremely rare case and its likely you're going to know well in advance that its an issue, with some minor exceptions liek the very start of an unexpected military conflict.
This is in fact what goes on right now in commercial aircraft and this change will have no effect from their perspective.
The GPS info is just going to be relayed to the ground so ATC can get more accurate position info. Sadly, this can all be fixed by just upgrading current radar installations to current software that doesn't suck and hardware that isn't 30-50 years old. Current commercial radar technology is more than capable of providing information accurate enough for aircraft. There are now small personal aircraft (turboprops) that use radar for assisted flight and are capable of flying from the take off roll to putting the aircraft 5 feet off the runway for landing. The plan would land itself if the FAA didn't prevent them from doing so.
The problem is that the GPS info has to be relayed to the ground. Aircraft use VHF for comms. VHF is line of sight ... just ... like ... radar ... so in effect, if you can't paint the plane with radar, you aren't going to get any info from the GPS either, so this is effectively worthless for situations where radar is unable to paint the aircraft and provides VERY LITTLE benefits for situations where radar is available.