His point, however, was that *not* having a high-end card to show off and impress people with will decrease their visiblity, among other factors, and make it harder for them to sell midrange cards, even if they are comparable to or better than similarly-midrange cards from NVidia or ATI.
I certainly believe that's a valid point. Just the same, it's going to force them to compete from price points rather than candy-points. This is good for everyone if they pull it off. If they are competitive with other mid range offerings and they are cheaper, two things are probably going to happen. One, other makers will be forced to compete on price. This means a bigger choice of cards, with possibly a bigger range of features, at a budget price. Two, if S3 does well at keeping their mid-range cards competitive, feature wise, it means more higher-end cards from other manufacturers will be forced to move down into the mid-range market faster, to stay ahead.
Yet again, we see why competition is good for all!;)
While rated as "interesting", I would of rated it as troll. Most crashes related to nvidia cards that I've read about have been kernel or chipset related bugs rather than nvidia driver issues. This is not to say that nvidia is 100% without blame but I can say that nvidia cards work much, much better than ATI cards for Linux/BSD users.
Heck, my system used to never lock or crash until I replaced my old Matrox 2d card with my old Radeon. Now, I'm sure to get a hard lock every couple of weeks. I've noticed the more opengl screensavers run, the more often I'm going to see my system hard freeze.
By "hard freeze", I don't mean just X locking, I mean it takes the whole system with it. I never had this problem until I updated to an ATI Radeon card.
How can a rant by someone who didn't even see the movie be rated "insightful"?
I did see the movie. The story was horrible! The CG were awesome! The movie is a literal translation of a comic book to the big screen. This is exactly as intended. Guess what, Lee pulled it off. I just wish he had pulled it off with a better story because the story that was made, sucked bad.
Story bad! CG awesome!
[...]one of the things you have to do is make the physics believable
LOL! News flash! For a comic book, the physics were believable!
So, the movie isn't your cup of tea. Big deal. Get over it. Having said that, you shouldn't allow your obvious inept biases to blur your vision so. As such, one would hope you would realize your position on it and simply stay silent.
At a time like this, one would normally say, "RTFA", however, "WTFM" seems to fit better. Until such time, please, please, mod the parent post down folks!
I've seen a documentary on this vehicle on History or Discovery channel. The car was crap. The only reason it was even semi-stable close to the ground was because of the cushion of air (ground effect) that it cruised on to keep it stable. Once it left the "ground effect", it was a death trap. One of the "cars" were finally taken to a wind tunnel to find out how stable it was and how much lift they could hope to produce from one in the wild.
The wind tunnel tests showed it to be a death trap, begging to kill anyone that wanted to fly it. In order to help stabilize it, they added a huge horizontal stabilizer to the tail end of it. It was basically a huge wing grafted to the tail of it. It was still considered to be a flying death trap, in spite of the fact that it was considerably more stable with the horizontal stabilizer attached.
Worse yet, the engines were not able to generate enough thrust for the vehicle to ever properly fly because the vehicle was so incredibly over weight. Early vehicles could not generate enough thrust to get more than 10 or 20 feet into the air. Basically, just high enough to leave the "ground effect" generated from it's thrust and shape, to properly kill the pilot. Long story short, the vehicle was a horrible design, which was horribly under powered, and unfit for flight, even with a large "wing" added to it. Aerodynamic engineers certainly had a good bit of laughs when they go a hold of that beast.
Just use PostgreSQL and be done with it. PostgreSQL already supports, Java, Python, Perl, tcl, PL/SQL, and probably many, many more that I'm forgetting.
What a great response! If I had the points, I'd mod ya up!
I can't stress enough that most companies generally don't care about how skilled you are or how well you can do your job, except at your interview. Even then, if you have a pre-existing relationship, even your skill sets can be largely ignored. Time and time again, it's made very clear that business is about how you make someone feel. It's about trust in a relationship and building that relationship to begin with. If people don't know you, they automatically don't trust you. If you mess up, and there is no relationship to fall back on to smooth things over, you're in trouble. Without that relationship, your motives are immediately suspect.
Building relationships is what business is about. Do your job is completely secondary.
This is completely off topic. This really boils down to, ensuring you have strong requirements defined before you build anything. Apply your broken analysis to the front end and then you have to redesign the GUI & redesign the backend. It's a matter of ensure you have proper requirements. In your case, seems no one could care less about your desire. I know I sure don't. Seems the developer's couldn't either. Seems, even in hind sight, your desire was still rejected as being a requirement. Damning others because you've come up with a requirement that no one else needs or even wants, hardly hammers your point home.
Properly done, *REQUIREMENTS* are always the first thing done. After words, you are free to start working on the backend. The front-end doesn't matter. If you finish the front-end and there are problems, that means you messed up on your requirements. That doesn't mean the back-end is wrong. It doesn't mean the front-end is right. It means someone screwed up early into the project where it mattered the most.
If you have any Battle Tech fans, you can always check out MegaMek. It's a Java application which implements a ton of the level 1 and 2 rules. I believe they have started on some of the level 3 rules. Nonetheless, if you enjoy good strategy games, MegaMek is something you really, really need to check into. Flashy graphics it is not. Awesome strategy and tactics it is! For units, they have mechs, tanks, infantry. Mechs and tanks, properly equiped, can carry infantry. Even if you don't know about BattleTech, and you enjoy strategy/tactics games, I think you'll enjoy MegaMek!
I remember about 7 years ago, I was working ona project that had a VAX cluster for our Sybase DB. It crashed. He had to wait almost 4 hours for it to finish fscking the disks.
Basically that does: Known good mail sources get a free ride (spammer or otherwise) Unknown mail sources still require a check
On the other hand, a spammer could send one good message then spam you like crazy. Then, move on to another account when that one gets shut down. That also means that all the "free" messages get to avoid computing valid message hash information; as it's not going to be validated anyways. That means, they basically get to spam with less cost than what non-spammers have to pay to send email. Because for their hash, they could simple use the same set of strings over and over again, use a randomly generated string, or even use the same hash of the first valid message they sent.
Sorry, no. I do recall hearing that the turbines in the Abrams, in both the past and current Gulf Wars exceeded expections, however, I *think* I do recall hearing problems about excessive wear on the rubber treads. Again, I *think* I heard that the tread compounds were changed to address it, however, I fairly sure I never heard anything on the results. Sorry.
Ahh. Had forgotten about that. I think that raises a valid point. Just the same, I know it's hard to get foot soldiers to properly use air support sometimes too...especially if it's cross force. My brother, which is an Apache pilot, tells me that they periodically spend time with other units and branches to teach proper use of close air support. During training, many guys get gung-ho and try to do everything by themselves (even Army guys). The pilots then have to come in and educate these guys on how it could of been done better, safer and with less ammunition, where it's needed most. My point being, it seemingly really needs to be hammered home that these guys can trust, ask for, and get close air support when they needed it. As such, since ego and bravado seems to be key to preventing it (atleast during training, from what I've heard), I guess I can see even worse problems with Marines having to ask for the Army Apache guys for close air support. Still, I think that needs to be bred out of the military ego. I know Army guys couldn't care less who they are supporting as long as they get to blow enemy stuff up.;)
Hey, don't forget the powder-grade sand in desert environments. The Apache Helecoptors and Abrams tanks got more than was expected in Operation Desert Storm and our current invasion of Iraq
My brother is an Apache Longbow pilot in Iraq right now. He's part of the 101st. From what I gather, their uptime for the Apaches, in spite of the sand, is actually higher than when they are stateside; oddly enough, the same thing happened with almost all air vehicles during the first Gulf War too. Furthermore, the planes are staying in such good shape, they are litterally flying the birds like crazy. He tells me some days they have eight and ten hour sit down sessions in those things. Basically, the sand is not stopping them from meeting, and in many cases exceeding, their operational requirements.
Care to follow up with a lot more detail? You have a low RPM, yet long and heavy rotor (depleated uranium on the tips) versus a much smaller yet much higher rpm ducted fan. Keep in mind, the schnook has something like five transmissions/gear boxes which convert and synchronize the power from the turbines to both rotors. Not to mention, two head units. That's a fairly complex and high stress arrangement. Yet, it's fairly safe and reliable (I know a sh!thook mechanic and have riden on one). Furthermore, it's basically 50s and 60s technology.
Care to explain why a fan, which is higher rpm and lower vibration, is going to cause more stresses and complexity than a complex setup like the hook? Any proof other than your opinion? Care to account for modern technology and construction materials in your assessment?
I heard, during the Falklands conflict, that because the hot exhaust was split between three major jet streams (the main and two tiltable ones) that it was actually harder for a heat-seeking missile to get a lock.
I think you've been mislead. The multiple streams of hot air cause multiple places to heat and become easy targets for heat-seekers to lock onto. Furthermore, because the areas that heat up is basically the plane it self, it becomes a very visible heat-target. Worse, it becomes a criticle hit for the pilot. Basically, the plane begs to be shot down and it usually takes the pilot with it. This is fact as offered by pilots, the US government, and statistical record. I would assume that the UK government is in parity with such facts.
Then think about that gear shaft assembly they've crafted to make this thing work. What was it again, something like 50,000RPM? Translating torgue generated from the engines along the Z-axis into lift along the Y-axis?
Shshhhhh...don't tell anyone about this problem. Otherwise, millions of turbine helicopters will start falling out of the air. Sheshhhhh.
Something tells me they have enough experience at understanding the strains and stresses of transmissions in helicopters that they fundimentally have this probelm licked. Care to provide any information as to why, for even a second, we should think you've pointed out a valid flaw?
Do I think this is the best possible design? I have no idea. Do I think it's a good design? Yes. Sometimes, good enough really is, good enough.
Why do the Marines need a fighter aircraft?
That's a great question, however, I think it's somewhat outside the boundries of the topic at hand. Just the same, I personally don't think they need attack copters (bye-bye inferior cobra) nor jet fighters. Most Marines are stationed on aircraft carriers (Guess Jar-heads haven't figured out what the Navy exists for) or are close enough for Army support when on the ground. Again, I guess the Marines are too stupid to figure out they can call on the Navy, Airforce or Army for close air support. But, I guess most would never accuse the Marines of being the brightest bunch.
Not to mention the Harrier must carry water to cool it self during hover. Most people don't realize that you can only hover something like 2-minutes MAX (don't hold me to that number...it may be smaller) before you must refill the water container. Once the water is used up, the Harrier will destroy it self should it attempt to hover again. Furthermore, it uses a large amount of water which could otherwise be used for weapons or even more fuel. Something like 50 or 100 gallons of water means you could be carrying something else, fairly heavy. Speaking of fuel, the Harrier has a rather short range compared to most modern fighters. Clearly, that space for water could be better used.
The Harrier is a crappy airplane. Because of it's design, it's a heat-seekers dream. Worse yet, because of where the engine is located, it's almost certain death to it's pilot should a heat-seeker find its mark. With most other planes, the engine is blown off and away from the pilot who may still stand a chance of ejecting. In a Harrier, the pilot is pretty much married to the fate of its engine. Still worse, for missiles that use proximity to detonate, on a Harrier, it missile will detonate right next to the pilot. On traditional aft-engine planes, the missile is apt to detonate near the rear of the aircraft, greatly increasing survivability of the pilot.
The JSF rocks. It has a strong design. It has the ability to save the US tax payers lots of money, assuming it's managed properly. Best of all many engineers have publically expressed their awe of the design. You are the first I've heard which seems to say it's a bad design. The fact that you seem to be in love with a proven-crappy design and seem hate a good design indicates that you may want to go learn more before you comment again.
You really need to learn how to read and comprehend. I never said any such thing. The quality of the bridge stayed the same; it was low quality. The thing that differed was the opinion of quality by people that are unfit to determine it's quality in the first place. Which was my whole point. According to you, the known and proven bridge of poor quality is actually of high quality, even while it's killing people even though those that are fit to determine it's quality have given a thumbs down. Wow! You're truly out there.
According to you, only idiots can rate other idiots.
A guy who once said " Quality is defined by best practices and standards as accepted by the peers of it's creaters." And it wasn't me:-)
Ask an engineer about the quality of your bridge design and it's construction.
Well, according to you, your parents are idiots too. Learn to read. Shesh. Common sesnse, it seems, really isn't so common. I had no idea idiots set the standards for being an idiot. I always thought people of the medical field and other educated scholars did. But, thankfully, I don't live in your sad little world.
"Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)" Quality Qual"i*ty, n.; pl. Qualities. F. qualit'e, L. qualitas, fr. qualis how constituted, as; akin to E. which.
See Which.
1. The condition of being of such and such a sort as distinguished from others; nature or character relatively considered, as of goods; character; sort; rank.
We lived most joyful, obtaining acquaintance with many of the city not of the meanest quality. --Bacon
2. Special or temporary character; profession; occupation; assumed or asserted rank, part, or position.
I made that inquiry in quality of an antiquary. --Gray.
3. That which makes, or helps to make, anything such as it is; anything belonging to a subject, or predicable of it; distinguishing property, characteristic, or attribute; peculiar power, capacity, or virtue; distinctive trait; as, the tones of a flute differ from those of a violin in quality; the great quality of a statesman.
Note: Qualities, in metaphysics, are primary or secondary. Primary are those essential to the existence, and even the conception, of the thing, as of matter or spirit Secondary are those not essential to such a conception.
4. An acquired trait; accomplishment; acquisition. He had those qualities of horsemanship, dancing, and fencing which accompany a good breeding. --Clarendon.
5. Superior birth or station; high rank; elevated character.
``Persons of quality.'' --Bacon.
Quality binding, a kind of worsted tape used in Scotland for binding carpets, and the like.
The quality, those of high rank or station, as distinguished from the masses, or common people; the nobility; the gentry.
I shall appear at the masquerade dressed up in my feathers, that the quality may see how pretty they will look in their traveling habits. --Addison.
Arguing with Webster and being wrong doesn't exactly bolster your position.
You are confusing "quality" with "good enough" or "minimal standards".
But it is still the consumer that defines the quality.
Consumers determine appropriateness for use or application. In most cases, consumers emotionally, yet ignorantly, accept appropriateness to mean quality, however, that doesn't make it so. As I already pointed out, a low quality widget may be accepted by a consumer as a high quality solution, but that's only out of ignorance. It's not until a high quality solution is made available or presented to the consumer that he can begin to understand the difference of a high quality and low quality widget and truly judge the appropriateness, let alone estimate the quality.
Personally, I have a hard time imagining anything so dumb to argue about. You wish to argue, go elsewhere. In the mean, I have no problem smiling and laughing at these responses. Needless to say, this will be the last bit of time I waste educating you guys on this.
Wow. I haven't read anything this stupid in some time.
According to you, only idiots can rate other idiots. Well, without being an idiot myself, I can assure you, you fit the bill.
If you bother to pull your head from your tail pipe, you will quickly find that my statement is correct. Build a bridge. Ask an engineer about the quality of your bridge design and it's construction. Now then, your bridge might allow people to pass over it. Given that most people don't know anything about the construction of bridges or even basic engineering, they are more than likely to say, "Wow! What a great bridge. It lets me get to the other side. I sure couldn't do that before." On the other hand, someone that is fit and qualified to judge your bridge (a peer of the field) may say, "Wow! What a crappy bridge. The idiots that are using it are begging to fall to their death. This thing is a disaster waiting to happen." So, who do you listen to? Who's opinion of quality is correct? According to the fools (pst..hint, that's you too) that responded, the idiots that are challenging death are correct and have a "quality" bridge waiting to kill many. Meanwhile, in the real world, it's the engineer's opinion that really matters. He sets the standards that determines quality. And, based on his standards and industry best practises, it's crap. Like it or not, that's reality. Delude your self all you want, you're still on crappy bridge. If calling it "quality" makes you blind to the crap, that's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a crappy bridge.
So, go enjoy you ignorance and crappy bridges, meanwhile, I'll enjoy quality, and live.
That's an interesting idea. Just the same, does that fall under the realtime XFS extensions? Does SGI currently offer guaranteed I/O rates natively? How do you assign I/O? On a per process basis? Part of an API that each process must use to request a minimal I/O level? How does the layer know how much I/O it can guarantee? Seems like the HA and associated driver, VM, and VFS caches would all make for a huge difference in what it could guarantee. How would an implementation cope with all of these variables and still deterministically guarantee bandwidth?
Slashdot Mirror
His point, however, was that *not* having a high-end card to show off and impress people with will decrease their visiblity, among other factors, and make it harder for them to sell midrange cards, even if they are comparable to or better than similarly-midrange cards from NVidia or ATI.
;)
I certainly believe that's a valid point. Just the same, it's going to force them to compete from price points rather than candy-points. This is good for everyone if they pull it off. If they are competitive with other mid range offerings and they are cheaper, two things are probably going to happen. One, other makers will be forced to compete on price. This means a bigger choice of cards, with possibly a bigger range of features, at a budget price. Two, if S3 does well at keeping their mid-range cards competitive, feature wise, it means more higher-end cards from other manufacturers will be forced to move down into the mid-range market faster, to stay ahead.
Yet again, we see why competition is good for all!
While rated as "interesting", I would of rated it as troll. Most crashes related to nvidia cards that I've read about have been kernel or chipset related bugs rather than nvidia driver issues. This is not to say that nvidia is 100% without blame but I can say that nvidia cards work much, much better than ATI cards for Linux/BSD users.
Heck, my system used to never lock or crash until I replaced my old Matrox 2d card with my old Radeon. Now, I'm sure to get a hard lock every couple of weeks. I've noticed the more opengl screensavers run, the more often I'm going to see my system hard freeze.
By "hard freeze", I don't mean just X locking, I mean it takes the whole system with it. I never had this problem until I updated to an ATI Radeon card.
How can a rant by someone who didn't even see the movie be rated "insightful"?
I did see the movie. The story was horrible! The CG were awesome! The movie is a literal translation of a comic book to the big screen. This is exactly as intended. Guess what, Lee pulled it off. I just wish he had pulled it off with a better story because the story that was made, sucked bad.
Story bad! CG awesome!
[...]one of the things you have to do is make the physics believable
LOL! News flash! For a comic book, the physics were believable!
So, the movie isn't your cup of tea. Big deal. Get over it. Having said that, you shouldn't allow your obvious inept biases to blur your vision so. As such, one would hope you would realize your position on it and simply stay silent.
At a time like this, one would normally say, "RTFA", however, "WTFM" seems to fit better. Until such time, please, please, mod the parent post down folks!
I've seen a documentary on this vehicle on History or Discovery channel. The car was crap. The only reason it was even semi-stable close to the ground was because of the cushion of air (ground effect) that it cruised on to keep it stable. Once it left the "ground effect", it was a death trap. One of the "cars" were finally taken to a wind tunnel to find out how stable it was and how much lift they could hope to produce from one in the wild.
The wind tunnel tests showed it to be a death trap, begging to kill anyone that wanted to fly it. In order to help stabilize it, they added a huge horizontal stabilizer to the tail end of it. It was basically a huge wing grafted to the tail of it. It was still considered to be a flying death trap, in spite of the fact that it was considerably more stable with the horizontal stabilizer attached.
Worse yet, the engines were not able to generate enough thrust for the vehicle to ever properly fly because the vehicle was so incredibly over weight. Early vehicles could not generate enough thrust to get more than 10 or 20 feet into the air. Basically, just high enough to leave the "ground effect" generated from it's thrust and shape, to properly kill the pilot. Long story short, the vehicle was a horrible design, which was horribly under powered, and unfit for flight, even with a large "wing" added to it. Aerodynamic engineers certainly had a good bit of laughs when they go a hold of that beast.
Just use PostgreSQL and be done with it. PostgreSQL already supports, Java, Python, Perl, tcl, PL/SQL, and probably many, many more that I'm forgetting.
What a great response! If I had the points, I'd mod ya up!
I can't stress enough that most companies generally don't care about how skilled you are or how well you can do your job, except at your interview. Even then, if you have a pre-existing relationship, even your skill sets can be largely ignored. Time and time again, it's made very clear that business is about how you make someone feel. It's about trust in a relationship and building that relationship to begin with. If people don't know you, they automatically don't trust you. If you mess up, and there is no relationship to fall back on to smooth things over, you're in trouble. Without that relationship, your motives are immediately suspect.
Building relationships is what business is about. Do your job is completely secondary.
This is completely off topic. This really boils down to, ensuring you have strong requirements defined before you build anything. Apply your broken analysis to the front end and then you have to redesign the GUI & redesign the backend. It's a matter of ensure you have proper requirements. In your case, seems no one could care less about your desire. I know I sure don't. Seems the developer's couldn't either. Seems, even in hind sight, your desire was still rejected as being a requirement. Damning others because you've come up with a requirement that no one else needs or even wants, hardly hammers your point home.
Properly done, *REQUIREMENTS* are always the first thing done. After words, you are free to start working on the backend. The front-end doesn't matter. If you finish the front-end and there are problems, that means you messed up on your requirements. That doesn't mean the back-end is wrong. It doesn't mean the front-end is right. It means someone screwed up early into the project where it mattered the most.
If you have any Battle Tech fans, you can always check out MegaMek. It's a Java application which implements a ton of the level 1 and 2 rules. I believe they have started on some of the level 3 rules. Nonetheless, if you enjoy good strategy games, MegaMek is something you really, really need to check into. Flashy graphics it is not. Awesome strategy and tactics it is! For units, they have mechs, tanks, infantry. Mechs and tanks, properly equiped, can carry infantry. Even if you don't know about BattleTech, and you enjoy strategy/tactics games, I think you'll enjoy MegaMek!
I remember about 7 years ago, I was working ona project that had a VAX cluster for our Sybase DB. It crashed. He had to wait almost 4 hours for it to finish fscking the disks.
-XFS
;)
+JFS
Looks like they are pretty close. I think the only difference is the X and J.
Basically that does:
Known good mail sources get a free ride (spammer or otherwise)
Unknown mail sources still require a check
On the other hand, a spammer could send one good message then spam you like crazy. Then, move on to another account when that one gets shut down. That also means that all the "free" messages get to avoid computing valid message hash information; as it's not going to be validated anyways. That means, they basically get to spam with less cost than what non-spammers have to pay to send email. Because for their hash, they could simple use the same set of strings over and over again, use a randomly generated string, or even use the same hash of the first valid message they sent.
It basically means a free-ride for spammers.
Sorry, no. I do recall hearing that the turbines in the Abrams, in both the past and current Gulf Wars exceeded expections, however, I *think* I do recall hearing problems about excessive wear on the rubber treads. Again, I *think* I heard that the tread compounds were changed to address it, however, I fairly sure I never heard anything on the results. Sorry.
Ahh. Had forgotten about that. I think that raises a valid point. Just the same, I know it's hard to get foot soldiers to properly use air support sometimes too...especially if it's cross force. My brother, which is an Apache pilot, tells me that they periodically spend time with other units and branches to teach proper use of close air support. During training, many guys get gung-ho and try to do everything by themselves (even Army guys). The pilots then have to come in and educate these guys on how it could of been done better, safer and with less ammunition, where it's needed most. My point being, it seemingly really needs to be hammered home that these guys can trust, ask for, and get close air support when they needed it. As such, since ego and bravado seems to be key to preventing it (atleast during training, from what I've heard), I guess I can see even worse problems with Marines having to ask for the Army Apache guys for close air support. Still, I think that needs to be bred out of the military ego. I know Army guys couldn't care less who they are supporting as long as they get to blow enemy stuff up. ;)
Hey, don't forget the powder-grade sand in desert environments. The Apache Helecoptors and Abrams tanks got more than was expected in Operation Desert Storm and our current invasion of Iraq
My brother is an Apache Longbow pilot in Iraq right now. He's part of the 101st. From what I gather, their uptime for the Apaches, in spite of the sand, is actually higher than when they are stateside; oddly enough, the same thing happened with almost all air vehicles during the first Gulf War too. Furthermore, the planes are staying in such good shape, they are litterally flying the birds like crazy. He tells me some days they have eight and ten hour sit down sessions in those things. Basically, the sand is not stopping them from meeting, and in many cases exceeding, their operational requirements.
Care to follow up with a lot more detail? You have a low RPM, yet long and heavy rotor (depleated uranium on the tips) versus a much smaller yet much higher rpm ducted fan. Keep in mind, the schnook has something like five transmissions/gear boxes which convert and synchronize the power from the turbines to both rotors. Not to mention, two head units. That's a fairly complex and high stress arrangement. Yet, it's fairly safe and reliable (I know a sh!thook mechanic and have riden on one). Furthermore, it's basically 50s and 60s technology.
Care to explain why a fan, which is higher rpm and lower vibration, is going to cause more stresses and complexity than a complex setup like the hook? Any proof other than your opinion? Care to account for modern technology and construction materials in your assessment?
I heard, during the Falklands conflict, that because the hot exhaust was split between three major jet streams (the main and two tiltable ones) that it was actually harder for a heat-seeking missile to get a lock.
I think you've been mislead. The multiple streams of hot air cause multiple places to heat and become easy targets for heat-seekers to lock onto. Furthermore, because the areas that heat up is basically the plane it self, it becomes a very visible heat-target. Worse, it becomes a criticle hit for the pilot. Basically, the plane begs to be shot down and it usually takes the pilot with it. This is fact as offered by pilots, the US government, and statistical record. I would assume that the UK government is in parity with such facts.
Then think about that gear shaft assembly they've crafted to make this thing work. What was it again, something like 50,000RPM? Translating torgue generated from the engines along the Z-axis into lift along the Y-axis?
Shshhhhh...don't tell anyone about this problem. Otherwise, millions of turbine helicopters will start falling out of the air. Sheshhhhh.
Something tells me they have enough experience at understanding the strains and stresses of transmissions in helicopters that they fundimentally have this probelm licked. Care to provide any information as to why, for even a second, we should think you've pointed out a valid flaw?
Do I think this is the best possible design? I have no idea. Do I think it's a good design? Yes. Sometimes, good enough really is, good enough.
Why do the Marines need a fighter aircraft?
That's a great question, however, I think it's somewhat outside the boundries of the topic at hand. Just the same, I personally don't think they need attack copters (bye-bye inferior cobra) nor jet fighters. Most Marines are stationed on aircraft carriers (Guess Jar-heads haven't figured out what the Navy exists for) or are close enough for Army support when on the ground. Again, I guess the Marines are too stupid to figure out they can call on the Navy, Airforce or Army for close air support. But, I guess most would never accuse the Marines of being the brightest bunch.
Not to mention the Harrier must carry water to cool it self during hover. Most people don't realize that you can only hover something like 2-minutes MAX (don't hold me to that number...it may be smaller) before you must refill the water container. Once the water is used up, the Harrier will destroy it self should it attempt to hover again. Furthermore, it uses a large amount of water which could otherwise be used for weapons or even more fuel. Something like 50 or 100 gallons of water means you could be carrying something else, fairly heavy. Speaking of fuel, the Harrier has a rather short range compared to most modern fighters. Clearly, that space for water could be better used.
The Harrier is a crappy airplane. Because of it's design, it's a heat-seekers dream. Worse yet, because of where the engine is located, it's almost certain death to it's pilot should a heat-seeker find its mark. With most other planes, the engine is blown off and away from the pilot who may still stand a chance of ejecting. In a Harrier, the pilot is pretty much married to the fate of its engine. Still worse, for missiles that use proximity to detonate, on a Harrier, it missile will detonate right next to the pilot. On traditional aft-engine planes, the missile is apt to detonate near the rear of the aircraft, greatly increasing survivability of the pilot.
The JSF rocks. It has a strong design. It has the ability to save the US tax payers lots of money, assuming it's managed properly. Best of all many engineers have publically expressed their awe of the design. You are the first I've heard which seems to say it's a bad design. The fact that you seem to be in love with a proven-crappy design and seem hate a good design indicates that you may want to go learn more before you comment again.
I don't ever recall hearing that Win-anything ever ran on any NUMA hardware and/or was the least-bit NUMA aware.
You really need to learn how to read and comprehend. I never said any such thing. The quality of the bridge stayed the same; it was low quality. The thing that differed was the opinion of quality by people that are unfit to determine it's quality in the first place. Which was my whole point. According to you, the known and proven bridge of poor quality is actually of high quality, even while it's killing people even though those that are fit to determine it's quality have given a thumbs down. Wow! You're truly out there.
Wow, the stupidity!
According to you, only idiots can rate other idiots.
:-)
A guy who once said " Quality is defined by best practices and standards as accepted by the peers of it's creaters." And it wasn't me
Ask an engineer about the quality of your bridge design and it's construction.
Well, according to you, your parents are idiots too. Learn to read. Shesh. Common sesnse, it seems, really isn't so common. I had no idea idiots set the standards for being an idiot. I always thought people of the medical field and other educated scholars did. But, thankfully, I don't live in your sad little world.
Rest ignored. Shesh.
"Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)"
Quality Qual"i*ty, n.; pl. Qualities. F. qualit'e, L. qualitas, fr. qualis how constituted, as; akin to E. which.
See Which.
1. The condition of being of such and such a sort as distinguished from others; nature or character relatively considered, as of goods; character; sort; rank.
We lived most joyful, obtaining acquaintance with many of the city not of the meanest quality. --Bacon
2. Special or temporary character; profession; occupation; assumed or asserted rank, part, or position.
I made that inquiry in quality of an antiquary. --Gray.
3. That which makes, or helps to make, anything such as it is; anything belonging to a subject, or predicable of it; distinguishing property, characteristic, or attribute; peculiar power, capacity, or virtue; distinctive trait; as, the tones of a flute differ from those of a violin in quality; the great quality of a statesman.
Note: Qualities, in metaphysics, are primary or secondary. Primary are those essential to the existence, and even the conception, of the thing, as of matter or spirit Secondary are those not essential to such a conception.
4. An acquired trait; accomplishment; acquisition. He had those qualities of horsemanship, dancing, and fencing which accompany a good breeding. --Clarendon.
5. Superior birth or station; high rank; elevated character.
``Persons of quality.'' --Bacon.
Quality binding, a kind of worsted tape used in Scotland for binding carpets, and the like.
The quality, those of high rank or station, as distinguished from the masses, or common people; the nobility; the gentry.
I shall appear at the masquerade dressed up in my feathers, that the quality may see how pretty they will look in their traveling habits. --Addison.
Syn: Property; attribute; nature; peculiarity; character; sort; rank; disposition; temper.
Arguing with Webster and being wrong doesn't exactly bolster your position.
You are confusing "quality" with "good enough" or "minimal standards".
But it is still the consumer that defines the quality.
Consumers determine appropriateness for use or application. In most cases, consumers emotionally, yet ignorantly, accept appropriateness to mean quality, however, that doesn't make it so. As I already pointed out, a low quality widget may be accepted by a consumer as a high quality solution, but that's only out of ignorance. It's not until a high quality solution is made available or presented to the consumer that he can begin to understand the difference of a high quality and low quality widget and truly judge the appropriateness, let alone estimate the quality.
Personally, I have a hard time imagining anything so dumb to argue about. You wish to argue, go elsewhere. In the mean, I have no problem smiling and laughing at these responses. Needless to say, this will be the last bit of time I waste educating you guys on this.
Wow. I haven't read anything this stupid in some time.
According to you, only idiots can rate other idiots. Well, without being an idiot myself, I can assure you, you fit the bill.
If you bother to pull your head from your tail pipe, you will quickly find that my statement is correct. Build a bridge. Ask an engineer about the quality of your bridge design and it's construction. Now then, your bridge might allow people to pass over it. Given that most people don't know anything about the construction of bridges or even basic engineering, they are more than likely to say, "Wow! What a great bridge. It lets me get to the other side. I sure couldn't do that before." On the other hand, someone that is fit and qualified to judge your bridge (a peer of the field) may say, "Wow! What a crappy bridge. The idiots that are using it are begging to fall to their death. This thing is a disaster waiting to happen." So, who do you listen to? Who's opinion of quality is correct? According to the fools (pst..hint, that's you too) that responded, the idiots that are challenging death are correct and have a "quality" bridge waiting to kill many. Meanwhile, in the real world, it's the engineer's opinion that really matters. He sets the standards that determines quality. And, based on his standards and industry best practises, it's crap. Like it or not, that's reality. Delude your self all you want, you're still on crappy bridge. If calling it "quality" makes you blind to the crap, that's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a crappy bridge.
So, go enjoy you ignorance and crappy bridges, meanwhile, I'll enjoy quality, and live.
Wow! That link loaded AND RENDERED wicked fast! And this is on an old dual PII 333 using galeon.
/. will one day render that fast. Sweet!
Very nice. One can only hope that
That's an interesting idea. Just the same, does that fall under the realtime XFS extensions? Does SGI currently offer guaranteed I/O rates natively? How do you assign I/O? On a per process basis? Part of an API that each process must use to request a minimal I/O level? How does the layer know how much I/O it can guarantee? Seems like the HA and associated driver, VM, and VFS caches would all make for a huge difference in what it could guarantee. How would an implementation cope with all of these variables and still deterministically guarantee bandwidth?