I think it has more to do with the fact that it looks very cheap and chintzy in comparison to traditional animation.
Yeah, because "Ed, Edd, and Eddy" is animated so much better than "Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex", and the stories are so much more interesting and insightful.
Well, actually...during the Korean War, at least one MiG-15 was shot down by a P-51.
The P-51s in Korea were used as ground attack planes. You're probably thinking of the F-82 Twin Mustang, which was the first U.S. plane to shoot down a MiG-15.
The F-8F Bearcat might also have gotten a MiG.
The F8F (and also F7F) certainly saw combat in Korea, but I can't find any evidence that it was credited with a MiG kill. The plane that replaced it, the F9F Panther is credited with 5 MiG kills, though.
The only other prop-drive plane that I know of that is credited with a MiG-15 kill is the B-29.
We *were* routinely sending up pilots in P-51's while we also had jets (F-84, P-80)
The U.S. fighter jets that saw action in Korea were:
Richard M. Nixon initialized the shuttle program on January 5, 1972.
The Enterprise prototype was delivered on September 17, 1976.
The Columbia was delivered on March 25, 1979.
note the soviet's tried to come up with a copy, they never really could get it to work
The Soviet Buran shuttle's first orbital flight was on November 15, 1988. It made a fully automatic landing with no issues.
Yeah, I suppose technically that's correct. A bunch of armed men captured the platform from two unarmed adults and a child (taking the child hostage).
Then the Prince came back with his own crack team in a helicopter and captured the bad guys.
The point is, you can't just throw a bunch of rednecks with guns together and capture the platform, especially not now that there's working gun emplacements on it.
Note that the article reports the source as "Pittsburgh's Safar Centre for Resuscitation Research". Isn't Pittsburg where George Romero shoots all his films?
For those of you who won't try this, the URL you get is the one that I pasted. I have no affiliation with Amazon.
Yes, this is true. Both are just ordinary Amazon.com links.
The problem is that many people see the, qid or ref and erroneously jump to the conclusion that it's an affiliate link. Amazon has many different types of URLs, so I can see how this is possible (i.e. look at the URL in the article).
Useful link, thank you. Everything is now much clearer. Apart from the use of the word "approved" in the OP, anyway.
Sure, no problem. The word "approved" in this case means that the, "IESG has approved the document for publication". The documents will now be sent to the RFC Editor Queue for publication.
I wonder why they didn't release this as "Historic". It would have made their position clearer. Wouldn't it?
These documents were submitted as "experimental". If the IESG doesn't find them compelling enough to bring under the IETF, they will most likely remain "experimental".
Furthermore, documents that are marked "Historic" fall under:
A specification that has been superseded by a more recent
specification or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete is
assigned to the "Historic" level.
So, these documents basically fall under neither category.
Which still doesn't really explain why they're conducting the experiment.
They aren't, "conducting an experiment". The draft was submitted as "experimental".
The "Experimental" designation typically denotes a specification that
is part of some research or development effort. Such a specification
is published for the general information of the Internet technical
community and as an archival record of the work, subject only to
editorial considerations and to verification that there has been
adequate coordination with the standards process (see below). An
Experimental specification may be the output of an organized Internet
research effort (e.g., a Research Group of the IRTF), an IETF Working
Group, or it may be an individual contribution.
To ensure that the non-standards track Experimental and Informational
designations are not misused to circumvent the Internet Standards
Process, the IESG and the RFC Editor have agreed that the RFC Editor
will refer to the IESG any document submitted for Experimental or
Informational publication which, in the opinion of the RFC Editor,
may be related to work being done, or expected to be done, within the
IETF community. The IESG shall review such a referred document
within a reasonable period of time, and recommend either that it be
published as originally submitted or referred to the IETF as a
contribution to the Internet Standards Process.
If (a) the IESG recommends that the document be brought within the
IETF and progressed within the IETF context, but the author declines
to do so, or (b) the IESG considers that the document proposes
something that conflicts with, or is actually inimical to, an
established IETF effort, the document may still be published as an
Experimental or Informational RFC. In these cases, however, the IESG
may insert appropriate "disclaimer" text into the RFC either in or
immediately following the "Status of this Memo" section in order to
make the circumstances of its publication clear to readers.
Unless MS have pressured them into it, so they can get a crack at declaring Sender-ID as the de facto standard and thereby sidestepping the standards process, of course. That might explain it.
They aren't "sidestepping" the standards process. An "experimental" designation is part of The Internet Standards Process, but is not on the standards track.
If I read the information at the IETF, it *has* approved SPF, however Sender-ID is "Experimental".
The intended status of both documents is "Experimental".
Both documents are in the "Approved-announcement to be sent" state. This means that:
The IESG has approved the document for publication, but the
Secretariat has not yet sent out on official approval message.
After the approved announcements are sent, both documents will go to the RFC Editor Queue for publication.
What this means basically means that both documents will be published as a Request for Comments (RFC) as a non-standards track document with the status "Experimental".
According to the records in the IETF's database (here and here), both the SPF and Sender-ID anti-spam proposals were tentatively approved by the IESG (the approval board of the IETF) as experimental standards.
There is no such thing as an "experimental standard". The term "experimental" is a "non-standards track maturity level".
Not every specification is on the standards track. A specification
may not be intended to be an Internet Standard, or it may be intended
for eventual standardization but not yet ready to enter the standards
track. A specification may have been superseded by a more recent
Internet Standard, or have otherwise fallen into disuse or disfavor.
Specifications that are not on the standards track are labeled with
one of three "off-track" maturity levels: "Experimental",
"Informational", or "Historic". The documents bearing these labels
are not Internet Standards in any sense.
The IETF has NOT approved either SPF or Sender-ID as an Internet Standard.
The fourth time I lost it and decided that it would be faster to write my own email server. So I took a week off and did: http://freshmeat.net/projects/cmg/
Cool! I'm taking a week off right now to write a sploit for it.
Please show me how an application run from a user account can modify an executable owned by bin or root, for example.
You can use a local root exploit, such as the mremap(2) exploit. This exploit will allow any unprivileged account to gain root privileges and can be used to execute arbitrary code with kernel level access.
This is just an example. There are much better unpatched exploits if you look hard enough. A far simpler method is to just scan for improper file permissions.
Some applications or libraries (zlib) have overflow and stack exploits that can be triggered by improperly formatted user data. If you provide a user with a data file to exploit this (i.e. a zip archive), you can then have the application run code to take advantage of the local root exploit.
Then show me how that process would continue to other executables.
Once you gain root access, you can easily replace executables, shutdown services, install kernel modules, etc. The way many distros are set up, you don't even need root access to do some rather malicious things.
Then show me how that would spread from machine to machine, over the Internet.
There's a lot more remote exploits out there than you think. One of my favorites involves the Buffalo LinkStation. The Buffalo LinkStation is a network appliance that runs Linux and uses Samba to serve files. There's a really fun exploit on it that will allow you run any command as root simply by sending it a properly formatted UDP packet. At this point, you can drop an auto-run installer into the SMB shares and infect every Windows machine that connects to the LinkStation, but I digress...
Then please show me a case where that's actually happened.
Well, it basically all started with the Morris Worm.
In real life conversations, outside of software, we ask yes/no questions ALL THE TIME.
We also ask questions that provide explicit choices all the time too.
"Do you want pancakes or waffles for breakfast?"
Furthermore, real world metaphors rarely, if at all, ever apply to user interfaces.
It doesn't make it easier for them if we hand them a cue card with possible answers on it.
That's a bad metaphor. On the dialog, you're already handing the user a cure card with "Yes" and "No". Why not save the user some frustration and just be explicit?
I fail to understand how I can make a dialog asking the same question any easier for the user.
Again, that's a bad example. Look at some dialog boxes from actual products.
As near as I can tell, it's about slavish adherence to someone's made up rule.
No it isn't; it's entirely based on HCI guidelines and research.
Where are the studies demonstrating that yes/no is more difficult than verb/verb?
There are hundreds of studies. You should do some reading on Human-Computer Interaction and Cognitive Psychology.
Merely pointing to the Apple interface guidelines is not good enough. I'm not going to rewrite all of my dialogs just because you say so. Show me the evidence!
The Apple interface guidelines are based on many years of research by many people who are very respected in HCI. They are not to be dismissed lightly.
It therefore is somewhat insulting for you to come along, who has probably never even seen my software, and claim that it's all wrong because I don't have Apple's Seal of Approval on my interface.
First of all, I never once claimed that your interfaces were wrong, because you, "don't have Apple's Seal of Approval". I merely pointed out a better way of doing things based on research in HCI done by people with far more experience in HCI than either of us. You are far too sensitive if you find that insulting.
Secondly, may I remind you that you insulted me for no apparent reason.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, because "Ed, Edd, and Eddy" is animated so much better than "Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex", and the stories are so much more interesting and insightful.
</SARCASM>
The P-51s in Korea were used as ground attack planes. You're probably thinking of the F-82 Twin Mustang, which was the first U.S. plane to shoot down a MiG-15.
The F-8F Bearcat might also have gotten a MiG.
The F8F (and also F7F) certainly saw combat in Korea, but I can't find any evidence that it was credited with a MiG kill. The plane that replaced it, the F9F Panther is credited with 5 MiG kills, though.
The only other prop-drive plane that I know of that is credited with a MiG-15 kill is the B-29.
We *were* routinely sending up pilots in P-51's while we also had jets (F-84, P-80)
The U.S. fighter jets that saw action in Korea were:
It is a side effect that the A-12/SR-71 is probably one of the most bitchin' airplanes ever made. The MiG-25 is also up there.
Oddly enough, the Soviets made the MiG-25 in response to the XB-70 Valkyrie program, which used the A-12 as a chase plane during testing.
The shuttle predates Regan.
Richard M. Nixon initialized the shuttle program on January 5, 1972.
The Enterprise prototype was delivered on September 17, 1976.
The Columbia was delivered on March 25, 1979.
note the soviet's tried to come up with a copy, they never really could get it to work
The Soviet Buran shuttle's first orbital flight was on November 15, 1988. It made a fully automatic landing with no issues.
Yeah, I suppose technically that's correct. A bunch of armed men captured the platform from two unarmed adults and a child (taking the child hostage). Then the Prince came back with his own crack team in a helicopter and captured the bad guys.
The point is, you can't just throw a bunch of rednecks with guns together and capture the platform, especially not now that there's working gun emplacements on it.
That was tried already in 1978. It wasn't successful.
My Personal Weather Radar Project
Pittsburg is also the home of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, which is what the Safar Centre for Resuscitation Research is part of.
The man the center is named after developed CPR.
Yes, this is true. Both are just ordinary Amazon.com links.
The problem is that many people see the, qid or ref and erroneously jump to the conclusion that it's an affiliate link. Amazon has many different types of URLs, so I can see how this is possible (i.e. look at the URL in the article).
One thing people can do to nip this in the bud is to crop links after the product code, like this: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0147 502683
That way, the trolls will get modded down instantly with no confusion from anyone else, because there's no way, that that link has an affiliate in it.
Why are they expecting consumers to pay more for less?
Yeah, for that price it better be big enough to derez someone, but convenient enough to carry on my back.
END OF LINE.
Also don't forget:
Could this open some eyes and increase interest in alternative (Linux, Mac) offerings?
You're welcome. I'm sure somebody else had the same questions, too.
Sure, no problem. The word "approved" in this case means that the, "IESG has approved the document for publication". The documents will now be sent to the RFC Editor Queue for publication.
I wonder why they didn't release this as "Historic". It would have made their position clearer. Wouldn't it?
These documents were submitted as "experimental". If the IESG doesn't find them compelling enough to bring under the IETF, they will most likely remain "experimental".
Furthermore, documents that are marked "Historic" fall under:
So, these documents basically fall under neither category.They aren't, "conducting an experiment". The draft was submitted as "experimental".
Unless MS have pressured them into it, so they can get a crack at declaring Sender-ID as the de facto standard and thereby sidestepping the standards process, of course. That might explain it.
They aren't "sidestepping" the standards process. An "experimental" designation is part of The Internet Standards Process, but is not on the standards track.
The intended status of both documents is "Experimental".
Both documents are in the "Approved-announcement to be sent" state. This means that:
After the approved announcements are sent, both documents will go to the RFC Editor Queue for publication.
What this means basically means that both documents will be published as a Request for Comments (RFC) as a non-standards track document with the status "Experimental".
Yes, they did, and they did not change their mind. They labelled these documents as "experimental". See here for details.
There is no such thing as an "experimental standard". The term "experimental" is a "non-standards track maturity level".
See "The Internet Standards Process":
The IETF has NOT approved either SPF or Sender-ID as an Internet Standard.
Cool! I'm taking a week off right now to write a sploit for it.
That way it'll be more like other MTAs. ;)
By p09g.
It's funny, because the times on the posts are exactly the same.
Oh, this comment is also redudant.
No, it's flamebait.
The really funny part is that my post got modded redundant.
Hmmm, this seems almost familiar...
Let's analyze this situation:
- The time on our posts is exactly the same.
- There's a difference of only 3 in the post id values.
- I was unable to foresee the R. Kelly connection.
This can only mean one thing... You are the Kwisatz Haderach!GET OUT OF MY MIND!!!
Wait, is a petabyte sized file called a petafile?
If so, then this storage must be for all the recent Michael Jackson coverage.
You can use a local root exploit, such as the mremap(2) exploit. This exploit will allow any unprivileged account to gain root privileges and can be used to execute arbitrary code with kernel level access.
This is just an example. There are much better unpatched exploits if you look hard enough. A far simpler method is to just scan for improper file permissions.
Some applications or libraries (zlib) have overflow and stack exploits that can be triggered by improperly formatted user data. If you provide a user with a data file to exploit this (i.e. a zip archive), you can then have the application run code to take advantage of the local root exploit.
Then show me how that process would continue to other executables.
Once you gain root access, you can easily replace executables, shutdown services, install kernel modules, etc. The way many distros are set up, you don't even need root access to do some rather malicious things.
Then show me how that would spread from machine to machine, over the Internet.
There's a lot more remote exploits out there than you think. One of my favorites involves the Buffalo LinkStation. The Buffalo LinkStation is a network appliance that runs Linux and uses Samba to serve files. There's a really fun exploit on it that will allow you run any command as root simply by sending it a properly formatted UDP packet. At this point, you can drop an auto-run installer into the SMB shares and infect every Windows machine that connects to the LinkStation, but I digress...
Then please show me a case where that's actually happened.
Well, it basically all started with the Morris Worm.
Here are some Linux specific cases:
Viruses: Staog, Bliss, Osf, RST, Binom, Alfa, Lindose, Adrastea, Amalthea, Btrq, Brunfly, BTM, Califax, Cassini, Debilove, Etap.d, Gildo, Glaurung, Guile, Gzid, Mcmd, Metis, Millen, Nel, Neox, Ovets, Satyr, Sickabs, Snoopy, Thebe, Winter, Xone
Worms: Adm, Cheese, Mighty, Ramen, Slapper, Lion, Scalper, Adore, Kork, Mighty,
I'm not sure if it's been said already, but this works pretty well.
We also ask questions that provide explicit choices all the time too.
"Do you want pancakes or waffles for breakfast?"
Furthermore, real world metaphors rarely, if at all, ever apply to user interfaces.
It doesn't make it easier for them if we hand them a cue card with possible answers on it.
That's a bad metaphor. On the dialog, you're already handing the user a cure card with "Yes" and "No". Why not save the user some frustration and just be explicit?
I fail to understand how I can make a dialog asking the same question any easier for the user.
Again, that's a bad example. Look at some dialog boxes from actual products.
As near as I can tell, it's about slavish adherence to someone's made up rule.
No it isn't; it's entirely based on HCI guidelines and research.
Where are the studies demonstrating that yes/no is more difficult than verb/verb?
There are hundreds of studies. You should do some reading on Human-Computer Interaction and Cognitive Psychology.
See the bibliography for The Design of Everyday Things by Donald Norman.
Merely pointing to the Apple interface guidelines is not good enough. I'm not going to rewrite all of my dialogs just because you say so. Show me the evidence!
The Apple interface guidelines are based on many years of research by many people who are very respected in HCI. They are not to be dismissed lightly.
However, if you don't believe either me or Apple, then maybe you'll believe the de facto reference for UI design, Desiging the User Interface by Ben Shneiderman.
It therefore is somewhat insulting for you to come along, who has probably never even seen my software, and claim that it's all wrong because I don't have Apple's Seal of Approval on my interface.
First of all, I never once claimed that your interfaces were wrong, because you, "don't have Apple's Seal of Approval". I merely pointed out a better way of doing things based on research in HCI done by people with far more experience in HCI than either of us. You are far too sensitive if you find that insulting.
Secondly, may I remind you that you insulted me for no apparent reason.