Honestly, I get nervous about any off-the-shelf OS being used as part of a system that's in charge of my life for any period of time. It's good that the Airshow systems aren't.:-)
I can remember watching an airshow in Daytona (near the university I went to) and listening to the airshow tower frequencies on my Yaesu FT-470 (that's how close to the tower I was - listening to AM on an FM set requires a fair amount of signal).
The assertion made by the FAA and other governments' travel agencies is that the RF signals from PEDs (including cell phones) can fuck up navigation. What's the worst thing that can happen as a result? The plane crashes. The assertion made by the FAA is that after 10,000 feet, it's somehow magically safer to use these devices (due to a lack of things for the plane to run into).
Now, if someone *wanted* to bring a plane down - as the 9/11 hijackers clearly wanted to do - then this would seem to be the easiest way to do so. The assertion made by the FAA and that's recited over and over and over in the "safety lecture" (or safety video these days) is that it may interfere with navigation equipment. If aircraft fly-by-wire systems were affected by RF transmissions, the plane would be in jeopardy.
Conversely, sunspots can screw with RF transmissions, so maybe the FAA should outlaw sunspots, too.
The chances of RF transmission causing problems with the electronics in a smoke detector are so near to nothing as makes no odds. I've got a 50 W RF transmitter that I'm licensed to use; put it near my smoke detector or the smoke/fire detector that's tied into my alarm system, and it doesn't affect it at all. I don't have the fire brigade at my door every time I key my transmitter. Where do you get that I'm saying a cell phone gives off smoke? Try reading the words that are written, rather than injecting your own fantasies into things other people write.
If airplane fire detection systems are more sensitive than what can be installed in a home, then the aircraft manufacturers aren't doing their jobs. Shielding electronics from RF isn't exactly rocket science - ever hear of a Faraday cage?
I agree with this assessment, hence the reason I'd love to see this myth busted. The assertion made by the FAA is absolutely ridiculous - along the same lines as cell phones causing gasoline pumps to explode (something they did bust).
My question isn't about why the FAA doesn't allow cell phones - I've travelled enough to know what they tell passengers, and also have operated enough radio equipment to know what the properties of VHF radio are.
Don't be stupid; there's a slight difference between a fire alarm detecting smoke (I happen to have one of that type near my kitchen as well), and a fire alarm picking up RF signals and confusing that with a fire OR smoke. If you can't tell the difference between a smoke/fire detector and RF triggering one, there's no point in engaging in further discussion.
My assertion is that if it were that easy to confuse aircraft navigation systems, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE. There would have been no need for Mohammed Atta and the other 9/11 hijackers to have taken box cutters on the planes, when they could've accomplished their goal by checking a rogue transmitter and a timer in the storage hold of the plane. That's something that TSA does not look for.
Cell phone frequencies are unlikely to have harmonic splatter in the air bands (at least in the US; ATC frequencies are AM and in the 122 MHz frequency range; cell phones are 800 Mhz and up depending on the technology used).
The FAA has contingencies in place to deal with interference - it does happen, incidentally - two planes transmit to the tower at the same time to ask for clearance to leave, and the signals intermix, resulting in a garbled transmission. That's why airplanes and ATC personnel repeat what they've been told - to ensure there's no missed communications. If the transmission is garbled, the receiving end says "Delta 1234, say again" if they know who it was who transmitted. If they don't, they deal with that contingency.
Fire alarms? Set off by RF? Uh, no, don't think so. Fire alarms are set off by fires, not RF. That's why they're called fire alarms and not RF alarms.
Yes, however that's not the reason stated by the airlines or the FAA. The reason stated is a bogus reason that it could cause the plane to crash by interfering with the navigational equipment.
Yes, I know that, actually; but the myth is that it "may cause interference with navigational equipment".
Same thing with RF receivers of any kind (that's been put forth for years), not to mention other portable electronic devices. My iPod or sound-cancelling headphones (which sometimes they allow, and sometimes they don't) are not going to crash the airplane.
While the idea has been "posted to death" on Discovery's message boards, I would like to know why you haven't done a show on cell phone interference. I used to travel a lot, and it always made me laugh when the pilots would put their phones on the center console in the airplane, and then would ask passengers to turn their phones off. I've talked to pilots about the idea of cell phones interfering with aircraft navigation systems, and all they do is laugh; yet the FAA wants the public to believe that a cell phone being left on or operated on a plane will cause the navigation systems to go nuts - or at worst, that a rogue cell phone could bring the plane down.
The OpenSUSE project is a community project sponsored by Novell - but if the community continues to include KDE apps in OpenSUSE, they'll be included there. There is a differentiation between NLD and SUSE Linux; maybe you should go see what the OpenSUSE project is before making assumptions.
Of course anyone who wants to can fork, that's the beauty of OSS; but starting cries of "the sky is falling" before actually checking to see what the impact of a decision really is is just silly.
I use my brain every day; coming to a conclusion because of a single article (from eWeek no less, not exactly the most reliable of sources) within 24 hours of that article rather than doing some research to find out what's really going on is ridiculous.
Try the YaST Package Repository on ftp.suse.com. On the OpenSUSE site there are links to mirrors of the development build, which is where I imagine you'd find all the latest stuff being tested in the current alpha/beta builds.
This is obviously to increase revenue from customers running VMware 5.5 when it releases - 5.5 will support mulitple virtual processors on a uniprocessor system....
We can already do this (though not with bluetooth AFAIK) - we were looking at a car a few years ago that had a remote keyless ignition system as an option.
Actually, "poster" was being silly more than anything; "poster" does in fact realize there is more than one component to the movie biz. "Poster" does in fact attend movies when there's something worth watching, but "poster" is tired of paying upwards of $50 to go and see crap in the cinema.
1. Make crap movies 2. Charge excessively high prices for tickets 3. Charge excessively high prices for concessions 4. Fail to remove customers who ruin the experience for others 5. Call your prospective patrons criminals by blaming online piracy for the decline in sales 6. ???? 7. Profit?
Hollywood needs to remember one thing about customers - if you piss them off, they will stop being your customers.
SCO stands for the Santa Cruz Operation Group, and was originally a company named Caldera. The original SCO is now known as Tarantella. The original SCO was a company founded in the 1970s which made a flavour of Unix for x86 processors.
This sounds right to me. The original Santa Cruz Operation group was not "originally" called Caldera, but was founded by Doug and Larry Michaels in 1979 as a Unix porting and consulting company. Caldera was founded by Ransom Love and Ray Noorda, and they ultimately purchased the rights to use the name "SCO" from the original Santa Cruz Operation (now known as Tarentella).
All you are saying is that the state has a lower homicide/accident rate than it does a suicide rate, which is not very surprising.
Why do you think it's not surprising?
Homicide rate being lower, I can see that - I do live in Utah, after all. But the accident rate? Have you seen how Utahns drive? Especially after the first snow?
I think if a study were done, you'd find that Utah drivers drive farther over the speed limit on average than in most other states - and they don't stick to one lane, always gotta be weaving in and out, 6" off the bumper of the person you just cut off.
I wish I was exagerating - but I've lived here 10 years, and I see daily bouts of stupidity on the road that far exceed what I've seen in other parts of the country (I used to spend a lot of time on the road for a living).
If people drove in New York or Orange County the way they drive on the freeways around Salt Lake City, they'd be dead.
Slashdot Mirror
This was the Bonzer Website from TRUE on October 30. Good to see /. keeping up with the Jonses (or Cassinghams, as the case would be).
Honestly, I get nervous about any off-the-shelf OS being used as part of a system that's in charge of my life for any period of time. It's good that the Airshow systems aren't. :-)
I can remember watching an airshow in Daytona (near the university I went to) and listening to the airshow tower frequencies on my Yaesu FT-470 (that's how close to the tower I was - listening to AM on an FM set requires a fair amount of signal).
The assertion made by the FAA and other governments' travel agencies is that the RF signals from PEDs (including cell phones) can fuck up navigation. What's the worst thing that can happen as a result? The plane crashes. The assertion made by the FAA is that after 10,000 feet, it's somehow magically safer to use these devices (due to a lack of things for the plane to run into).
Now, if someone *wanted* to bring a plane down - as the 9/11 hijackers clearly wanted to do - then this would seem to be the easiest way to do so. The assertion made by the FAA and that's recited over and over and over in the "safety lecture" (or safety video these days) is that it may interfere with navigation equipment. If aircraft fly-by-wire systems were affected by RF transmissions, the plane would be in jeopardy.
Conversely, sunspots can screw with RF transmissions, so maybe the FAA should outlaw sunspots, too.
The chances of RF transmission causing problems with the electronics in a smoke detector are so near to nothing as makes no odds. I've got a 50 W RF transmitter that I'm licensed to use; put it near my smoke detector or the smoke/fire detector that's tied into my alarm system, and it doesn't affect it at all. I don't have the fire brigade at my door every time I key my transmitter. Where do you get that I'm saying a cell phone gives off smoke? Try reading the words that are written, rather than injecting your own fantasies into things other people write.
If airplane fire detection systems are more sensitive than what can be installed in a home, then the aircraft manufacturers aren't doing their jobs. Shielding electronics from RF isn't exactly rocket science - ever hear of a Faraday cage?
I agree with this assessment, hence the reason I'd love to see this myth busted. The assertion made by the FAA is absolutely ridiculous - along the same lines as cell phones causing gasoline pumps to explode (something they did bust).
My question isn't about why the FAA doesn't allow cell phones - I've travelled enough to know what they tell passengers, and also have operated enough radio equipment to know what the properties of VHF radio are.
Don't be stupid; there's a slight difference between a fire alarm detecting smoke (I happen to have one of that type near my kitchen as well), and a fire alarm picking up RF signals and confusing that with a fire OR smoke. If you can't tell the difference between a smoke/fire detector and RF triggering one, there's no point in engaging in further discussion.
My assertion is that if it were that easy to confuse aircraft navigation systems, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE. There would have been no need for Mohammed Atta and the other 9/11 hijackers to have taken box cutters on the planes, when they could've accomplished their goal by checking a rogue transmitter and a timer in the storage hold of the plane. That's something that TSA does not look for.
Cell phone frequencies are unlikely to have harmonic splatter in the air bands (at least in the US; ATC frequencies are AM and in the 122 MHz frequency range; cell phones are 800 Mhz and up depending on the technology used).
The FAA has contingencies in place to deal with interference - it does happen, incidentally - two planes transmit to the tower at the same time to ask for clearance to leave, and the signals intermix, resulting in a garbled transmission. That's why airplanes and ATC personnel repeat what they've been told - to ensure there's no missed communications. If the transmission is garbled, the receiving end says "Delta 1234, say again" if they know who it was who transmitted. If they don't, they deal with that contingency.
Fire alarms? Set off by RF? Uh, no, don't think so. Fire alarms are set off by fires, not RF. That's why they're called fire alarms and not RF alarms.
Yes, however that's not the reason stated by the airlines or the FAA. The reason stated is a bogus reason that it could cause the plane to crash by interfering with the navigational equipment.
Yes, I know that, actually; but the myth is that it "may cause interference with navigational equipment".
Same thing with RF receivers of any kind (that's been put forth for years), not to mention other portable electronic devices. My iPod or sound-cancelling headphones (which sometimes they allow, and sometimes they don't) are not going to crash the airplane.
While the idea has been "posted to death" on Discovery's message boards, I would like to know why you haven't done a show on cell phone interference. I used to travel a lot, and it always made me laugh when the pilots would put their phones on the center console in the airplane, and then would ask passengers to turn their phones off. I've talked to pilots about the idea of cell phones interfering with aircraft navigation systems, and all they do is laugh; yet the FAA wants the public to believe that a cell phone being left on or operated on a plane will cause the navigation systems to go nuts - or at worst, that a rogue cell phone could bring the plane down.
The OpenSUSE project is a community project sponsored by Novell - but if the community continues to include KDE apps in OpenSUSE, they'll be included there. There is a differentiation between NLD and SUSE Linux; maybe you should go see what the OpenSUSE project is before making assumptions.
Of course anyone who wants to can fork, that's the beauty of OSS; but starting cries of "the sky is falling" before actually checking to see what the impact of a decision really is is just silly.
I use my brain every day; coming to a conclusion because of a single article (from eWeek no less, not exactly the most reliable of sources) within 24 hours of that article rather than doing some research to find out what's really going on is ridiculous.
Let's all say this together: RTFA
The GNOME interface is going to become the default interface on both the SLES (SuSE Linux Enterprise Server) and Novell Linux Desktop line.
In the eWeek article, the following statement is made:
"The entire KDE graphical interface and product family will continue to be supported and delivered on OpenSuSE," said Mancusi-Ungaro.
No need for a fork, just a bit more careful reading of all available information before jumping to the conclusion that the sky is falling.
No, it tells you where the repository is. Not everything has to have a "cool" code name to be useful.
Try the YaST Package Repository on ftp.suse.com. On the OpenSUSE site there are links to mirrors of the development build, which is where I imagine you'd find all the latest stuff being tested in the current alpha/beta builds.
Novell/Suse ... (what do they name their ongoing dev repo?)
Do you mean OpenSUSE?
Cool, I've learned something today. :-)
Never mind the fact that "Taiko" is a Japanese word, not a Chinese word AFAIK.
So whoever came up with the title couldn't even pick the correct language to invent a term in.
Oh, no, I read it that way as well.
This is obviously to increase revenue from customers running VMware 5.5 when it releases - 5.5 will support mulitple virtual processors on a uniprocessor system....
Amen to that. If they want to know how to combat piracy, they should try turning out content that's worth watching more than once in a blue moon....
We can already do this (though not with bluetooth AFAIK) - we were looking at a car a few years ago that had a remote keyless ignition system as an option.
Actually, "poster" was being silly more than anything; "poster" does in fact realize there is more than one component to the movie biz. "Poster" does in fact attend movies when there's something worth watching, but "poster" is tired of paying upwards of $50 to go and see crap in the cinema.
Signed,
"Poster"
Hollywood's current business plan:
1. Make crap movies
2. Charge excessively high prices for tickets
3. Charge excessively high prices for concessions
4. Fail to remove customers who ruin the experience for others
5. Call your prospective patrons criminals by blaming online piracy for the decline in sales
6. ????
7. Profit?
Hollywood needs to remember one thing about customers - if you piss them off, they will stop being your customers.
This sounds right to me. The original Santa Cruz Operation group was not "originally" called Caldera, but was founded by Doug and Larry Michaels in 1979 as a Unix porting and consulting company. Caldera was founded by Ransom Love and Ray Noorda, and they ultimately purchased the rights to use the name "SCO" from the original Santa Cruz Operation (now known as Tarentella).
Hey, I think Uri Geller might have a shot at a comeback with this revelation...
Huh?
Solaris SPARC, Solaris x86, AIX, Dynix, UnixWare, SCO OpenServer, *BSD, etc....
These aren't forks? I guess that means they're spoons, then....especially the *BSD branches.
All you are saying is that the state has a lower homicide/accident rate than it does a suicide rate, which is not very surprising.
Why do you think it's not surprising?
Homicide rate being lower, I can see that - I do live in Utah, after all. But the accident rate? Have you seen how Utahns drive? Especially after the first snow?
I think if a study were done, you'd find that Utah drivers drive farther over the speed limit on average than in most other states - and they don't stick to one lane, always gotta be weaving in and out, 6" off the bumper of the person you just cut off.
I wish I was exagerating - but I've lived here 10 years, and I see daily bouts of stupidity on the road that far exceed what I've seen in other parts of the country (I used to spend a lot of time on the road for a living).
If people drove in New York or Orange County the way they drive on the freeways around Salt Lake City, they'd be dead.